Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 December	31 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Progressive Alliance[edit]

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

Clear fail of WP:GNG as properly interpreted per WP:ORGDEPTH. Although not directly on point, I do feel the spirit behind WP:NPOL speaks to this issue. It's a local political party people. I doubt a local party in major city would be notable per WP:NORG; and the likelihood goes down since Richmond is a suburb. Although Richmond is fairly large, it's a suburb, and like it or not, the impact of a suburb as an individual community is diluted by its association with the major city. John from Idegon (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete I'm having some trouble with this article due to significant grammatical and usage faults, and it isn't at all clear in any given section as to whether the text is germane to the article's subject. It is tempting to interpret it as heavily padded with irrelevancies and puffery. That said, the only coverage that comes close to a claim to real, non-local notability is the Jacobin article, and given that it's an interview with an associate of the group, its testimony is borderline at best. Mangoe (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep local sources are reliable sources and there is significant coverage about this organization including two books written about it. Bad grammar isn't a reason for delete.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Plenty of sources, not all local. Electing representatives makes it much more significant. Rathfelder (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not local sources may be considered reliable, they are not as a rule sufficient to establish notability, and furthermore, once again we are faced with the reality newspapers with national reputation are nonetheless local sources when it comes to the region in which they are established. The SF Chronicle is local to the market and is insufficient to to establish notability on its own. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mango that's not true per WP:NPOSSIBLE local sources are sufficient to establish notability.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not true. We have had many cases where, because the archives of some purely local paper were available, tons of trivial articles were created: the worst case I remember was a run of every little bump in the Gettysburg battlefield, made possible because some library digitized the local paper from the era. It's normal for local media to record in detail the actions of every local governmental body, but as a rule those acts are unimportant in any larger picture and should not be memorialized simply because we can copy that coverage. WP:NOTPAPER isn't really true anyway, but in any case it's not a justification for indiscriminate copying of routine material. Mangoe (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is weak and doesn't add up, WP:NPOSSIBLE makes it clear that suitable sources are what matters not their localness. Also many of the sources are not from Richmond but from farther away in San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland anyways. This article is not about tiny tidbits of a battlefield it is about a notable city council at large with reliable sources about it.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . A member has become mayor (only Green Party mayor in the United States). They have had impacts on the development in the region, and they have also had notable influence outside Richmond including forming the California Political Alliance. Here are just a few of the national sources mentioning them in detail:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/us/richmond-calif-savors-role-as-soda-tax-battleground.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=C3D5B8AD56FCB4084AC28802D91D661C&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/richmond-chevron-california-city-polluter-fossil-fuel

https://grist.org/climate-energy/a-year-after-a-refinery-explosion-richmond-cali-is-fighting-back/

https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/08/26/richmond-residents-stunned-by-cals-cancellation-of-global-campus-project/

https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2017/0428/Refinery-Town-tells-the-story-of-a-city-fighting-for-its-own-soul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Ducasse[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the Green Party leaders they AFD'd. ミラ P 00:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely enough reliable sources to be notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While the mass AfD of provincial Green Party leaders is probably fine, I think that Ducasse (as Layton's Quebec lieutenant and a former federal leadership contestant) might have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bkissin (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the reliable sources. Passes our notability guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I check all of reference so, Based on reliable sources, Passes WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 20:59, 6 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. Sandstein 12:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Setyo[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the Green Party leaders they AFD'd. ミラ P 00:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while there was the usual, routine press coverage of his candidacy - stood for a minor party; lost - there is no notability here.NotButtigieg (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NotButtigieg: WP:ROUTINE already was shown not to apply to people. ミラ P 20:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following the link you provided leads to WP:POLITICIAN, which make clear that political figures who have not held one of a number of specified offices need to have gotten "significant coverage" in the media. Setyo has not gotten such coverage.NotButtigieg (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete provincial party leaders are not default notable, and no other claim to notability exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: If they clear WP:GNG they are. ミラ P 20:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too many people misinterpret GNG for me to trust most attempts to say someone is passing it. Almost every local politician would pass some readings of GNG, but we do not keep articles on every local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement with John Pack Lambert, there is no other claim to notability. Plus, given the Sask Green Party's current record, I think you could argue he is the leader of a minor party. Sources might be interpreted as meeting GNG but they're pretty standard for any political candidate. TheAnayalator (talk) 02:08, 7 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. Sandstein 12:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Milligan (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stood twice as a minor party candidate for a seat in the provincial legislature; lost twice.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a community, we've moved away from keeping state and provincial party leaders WP:POLOUTCOMES (see the AfD for Tom Morressey, who was chair of the Arizona Republican Party and related discussion on the Common Outcomes talk page). --Enos733 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interim leaders are not even as notable as regular ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 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. A potential redirect can be seperately created and contested. Sandstein 12:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Years[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional era. Most of the content is summarized at the Second Age article, and I can find little coverage in reliable secondary sources indicating that this specific era in Middle-earth is notable on this earth. Fails GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Arda#Second Age The Dark Years are merely a part of the Second Age. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Arda#Second Age.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to have an article on this seperate from the article on Sauron.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. The title is sufficiently vague that I don't think this redirect should be made. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:01, 5 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. Sandstein 12:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Finley[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the Green Party leaders they AFD'd. ミラ P 00:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Finley served as leader of a minor, provincial level political party and this got a little routine news coverage. She was also convicted of failing to dill out her census form. I have no idea why since the link to the source - an article in the Globe and Mail - was a dead link (which often means that it was not a Globe and Mail article, but, rather, a wire service story posted briefly on the Globe and Mail site.) I see no evidence of notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NotButtigieg: WP:ROUTINE already was shown not to apply to people. ミラ P 20:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following the link you provided leads to WP:POLITICIAN, which make clear that political figures who have not held one of a number of specified offices need to have gotten "significant coverage" in the media. This political figure had NOT gotten such coverage.NotButtigieg (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable low level party leader in a party with no political power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

High-Kings of Arnor and Gondor[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional title. This title was only briefly used in-universe, and lacks notability in the real world. Fails WP:GNG miserably. Hog Farm (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why do we have an article on a non-notable fictional title? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: completely non-notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arnor's on the verge of deletion itself, so why would we keep an even less worthy subsidiary topic? Who needs the Witch-king of Angmar to eliminate the kingdom and all its works when you have Afd? Also, I'm nominating that article too. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many articles on the same subject do we need?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other arguments. Non notable. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Middle earth is endless and it seems Wikipedia has been hosting every tidbit of information related to this fiction. WP:PILEON Wm335td (talk) 19:30, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Kern (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kern served as leader of a minor, province-level political party for less than 5 months. This does not make him notable.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a provincial party leader, especially for a minor party, is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor party leader for a very short term; lacks significant notability. TheAnayalator (talk) 08:18, 7 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 and redirect to Green Party of Alberta. Deleting as a non-notable BLP per the discussion, but redirecting to the party article for searching. RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romy Tittel[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician. Page is not properly tagged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Party of Alberta. It's definitely true that she doesn't clear GNG on the basis of the sources shown here — however, party leaders must always still have either a biographical article or a redirect to the party's list of leaders. So they are redirected to the party's article if they don't clear the bar for a standalone BLP, and may never just be deleted outright. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete leader of a province-level political party; not a notable personage.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:08, 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 and redirect to Green Party of Alberta. Deleting as a non-notable BLP per the discussion, but redirecting to the party article for searching. RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Ashmore[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician. The article page does not appear to be properly tagged with the deletion discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evergreen Party of Alberta. It's definitely true that he doesn't clear GNG on the basis of the sources shown here — however, party leaders must always still have either a biographical article or a redirect to the party's list of leaders. So they are redirected to the party's article if they don't clear the bar for a standalone BLP, and may never just be deleted outright. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete this leader of a provincial political party.NotButtigieg (talk) 07:48, 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 redirect to List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters. Compromise between delete and merge. If supported by editorial consensus, merges can occur from the history. Sandstein 12:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles character appearances[edit]

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

WP:EXCESSDETAIL, i.e. I've never seen such a monster of an appearance table before. Previous AfD of 2008 ended in keep because of WP:CRUFTCRUFT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT counter arguments and because this table is a "suitable" navigation tool. No thanks, I'll rather use any other navigation/info method like the appropriately weighed List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters#Overview, the TMNT navboxes, or categories. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just excessive detail not needed for anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters. Dream Focus 02:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is most of this information completely unsourced, it also is completely worthless as a navigational tool, as all but an extremely small number of these entries just link to List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters. There is nothing here worth merging or preserving, as its just a massive amount of unsourced cruft. Rorshacma (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters. Wm335td (talk) 21:30, 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 redirect to Earwolf#Lifestyle programming. Sandstein 12:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In bed with nick and megan[edit]

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

Blog fails WP:WEB. Might be relevant for personal articles. Dewritech (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Earwolf. This may be notable in the future, as it only recently launched about a month ago. I was going to say that it should be deleted, however I think that this could be merged and redirected to the main article for Earwolf, specifically the section about lifestyle programming. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added it here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Earwolf#Lifestyle programming: Per ReaderofthePack. With the main article containing little details, it's better to merge them to Earwolf. _SUPER ^ASTIG 05:17, 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) 22:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Steffen[edit]

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

Once I'd trimmed away the POV material and the puffery, doesn't seem to be enough left to meet notability. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search does not find SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage I can find. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of this article does not meet notability criteria. I performed a search and could not find anything of significance, just a lot of social media-type hits. Netherzone (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage to establish notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks promotional fails notability standards. Definitely COI, probable PAID. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 2/3 sources are good, but the third source shows he was 1/1,500 winners. A seemingly run of the mill musician, there's no evidence of any special collaboration -- musicians are supposed to play with others. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 6 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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Wolf[edit]

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

Easily fails WP:NBASE. Played international baseball, but not for a NBASE-qualifying tournament, and all of the references are about his low-level college career or minor league career. SportingFlyer T·C 18:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First we have the GNG articles devoted to him (Tyler Dunn (October 3, 2019). "Jeremy Wolf's path to Aliyah and Team Israel". Cronkite News; "Former Tiger All-American Jeremy Wolf Gives Back to Baseball". Trinity (TX). May 29, 2019; Orsborn, Tom (May 22, 2015). "Wolf making his mark at Trinity with his bat, personality". Express News; Sypa, Steve (July 25, 2016). "2016 Mets draft profile: OF Jeremy Wolf". Amazin' Avenue; "Tiger All-American Jeremy Wolf Drafted by New York Mets". Trinity (TX). June 11, 2016; Robus, Clint (July 8, 2013). "MCBL baseball: Wolf challenging single-season league batting record". Casper Star-Tribune; and "Trinity Alum Wolf '16 Part of Olympics-Bound Israeli Baseball Team". Trinity (TX). September 26, 2019.). And then, further, he is notable, under WP:BASEBALL/N. Which says "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they ... have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team." He has participated, as a starter in fact, in two major international competitions of that nature (Note: the above list is an e.g. list, not an i.e. list): both the 2019 European Baseball Championship and the two-continent Africa/Europe 2020 Olympic Qualification tournament (which his team won). As a member of a national team -- the Israel national baseball team. And yes - the ballplayer is a starter on a team that has qualified to play in the Olympics in July. Which in half a year will be yet another reason he will deserve an article. But no need to wait till then. We can let readers interested in looking at this player on a team that has qualified for the Olympics see his page now, before the first pitch is thrown in the Olympics - because he already is notable under WP policy. (Plus, it would be peculiar to wait until then - how would that be helpful to readers who want to learn about the players on the six qualifying teams, before the first pitch?) 2604:2000:E010:1100:580F:1D87:8D13:5C7C (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the coverage listed is routine coverage you would expect to see of any college ballplayer/drafted minor leaguer, and participants in the European Baseball Championships and Olympics qualifiers are NOT deemed automatically notable. This is a clear cut delete, though I'm happy with a draftify result if he ends up playing for the team in the Olympics. SportingFlyer T·C 19:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps less than completely accurate for SF to assert the above - rather, the half dozen GNG articles devoted to the ballplayer focus in part on his being a member of Team Israel and challenging a single-season league batting record and being Olympics-bound, all of which is not what one would "expect to see". And anyway, if a player meets GNG, we of course don't care what the GNG articles focus on. And as to this meeting WP:BASEBALL/N as well, this is already addressed above. 2604:2000:E010:1100:580F:1D87:8D13:5C7C (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I do not believe all of it is routine. [1] [2] [3] are not routine and alone are enough to meet GNG. Typically 3 is all these discussions seem to need. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Trinity Tigers article is clearly primary and fails WP:GNG. The trib.com article's still routine as local coverage of a summer collegiate league - if we included this type of coverage, almost every collegiate league ballplayer would be considered notable, but we tend to keep only players who have made the majors or players who have received national coverage, i.e. actually notable ballplayers. Furthermore, the Israeli Olympics team has not yet been announced. If he is not on the Olympics team, he has not established notability as a baseball player, so we can't keep this article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough to meet WP:GNG. In addition with him already being announced to be on the Olympics team this article would absolutely meet the criteria in a few months, so why delete now and recreate soon thereafter. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a lot of the refs are similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reg595 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Note: the above account, Reg595, is blocked with an expiration time of indefinite for abusing multiple accounts.2604:2000:E010:1100:B58C:8A75:F43C:4BA5 (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that in addition to the above, the editors User:Gilabrand and User:Zvikorn had also indicated yesterday that they found this notable at Talk:Jeremy Wolf, I wonder if we are perhaps approaching Snow Keep territory? 2604:2000:E010:1100:118C:54FB:230E:E5C5 (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails the notability guideline for baseball players. I will happily undelete it on request if he plays at the Olympics and becomes notable by virtue of that. Number 5 7 15:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person meets WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by sources. No reason for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, per all above. WP:GNG trumps WP:NBASE. In addition, he will very likely meet WP:NOLYMPICS in a few months, too. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability standards. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:05, 5 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 redirect to Prison Break. Sandstein 12:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fox River State Penitentiary[edit]

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

Cleanup-tag-spammed nearly two years ago, but it's still one big plot summary of its parent show (WP:NOTPLOT). Its "Filming" section largely overlaps with Prison Break#Filming, and the refs are either already in the parent article, are not independent or are more about the real-life Joliet Correctional Center. A further merger is not strictly necessary, but I wouldn't oppose it either. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Prison Break as the link is useful, but one can hardly see that the fictional prison has a life away from the show in which it appeared. Mangoe (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - The topic doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:05, 7 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. Sandstein 12:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penitenciaría Federal de Sona[edit]

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

Fictional prison. Fails WP:NOTPLOT, no indication of notability. The only ref doesn't support the claim it is making. Nothing worth for merging to Prison Break (a Good Article), where anything noteworthy about the prison can and should be mentioned. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prison Break. ミラ P 22:20, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Sholeh[edit]

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

A twice declined at AFC in October 2019 by CASSIOPEIA and Pythoncoder on GNG concerns; however, the WP:SPA author decided to by-pass AfC and publish in Mainspace (and update their subject's minor role in The Breadwinner (film) as a fruit seller). A WP:BEFORE gives little RS outside of online film blogs. Nothing approaching a full RS with SIGCOV. May change in the future, but, per the two AfC declines, is WP:TOOSOON for a BLP now. I ask the community to decide. Britishfinance (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Instagram external link is a clear red flag. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So is the article creator's high quality glossy commons profile photo of which they are the copyright owner. Britishfinance (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Contributions seem to be inline with protocol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reg595 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC) SOCK STRIKE. Britishfinance (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Britishfinance. Likely a promo piece. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON promo piece. Definitely COI, possible PAID. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:06, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Akins[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Best source found, "Politics in Gotham: The Batman Universe and Political Thought" gives only a passing mention, talking more about the police relationship with Batman rather than the character. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Akins is a minor character who has only been given passing mentions in scholarly works. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Beer Lover's Cookbook[edit]

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

Does not meet requirements for WP:NB because the book has not been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Cheeburger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 30 December 2019‎

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oreste Carpi[edit]

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

This page has been without citations since 2007. I was going to add a couple of references and remove any unsourced content, but ... I can't find any. He's not in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, but he's only been dead for eleven years so perhaps it's early days for that. There's no mention of him on JSTOR, nothing in the archives of La Repubblica or the Corriere della Sera. The only verifiable hit I get on Gbooks is this, which confirms that he was owner of Palazzo Carpi in Parma in 1963. The work "Oreste Carpi, Magalini editore, Brescia 1974" is not in WorldCat, and nor apparently is any other book on him. I can't see how he could meet WP:ARTIST or any other criterion of notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing enough convincing sourcing to meet GNG in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After searching, it seems doubtful. The only thing of note I found was on the website of the Museo de Arte Contemporanea, Italy - he is in the collection of Neviano degli Arduini, Municipipo. Not sure if that venue is notable - it seems to be part of the Colleczione Civica d'Art Contemporanea - a civic art collection. He has an article on Italian Wikipedia which is more developed, but it too has poor sourcing. I'll keep looking if I find the time. Netherzone (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added his obituary to the article, and also a rather weak source from a travel magazine/blog. It is not a surprise, given the years he was active, that there are few online sources. Looking at the reference section, the first source appears to be a medium-length monograph on the artist (judging by others by the same publisher), and the next two, encyclopedia entries. There are almost certainly additional sources to be found with some digging, preferably by someone who reads Italian. Additionally, while this falls outside the scope of this Afd, a Catalogue raisonné is being prepared and will help solidify his notability in the future. Curiocurio (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we go up one section to the inline "notes", the first source is a paragraph long obit, and the second one is an article on a geographic area that contains only "Italian painter Oreste Carpi spent many years in San Terenzo making hundreds of paintings and drawings reproducing the local landscapes." Also, given the nature of a catalogue raisonné (a complete catalogue of an artist's output to the date the CR was created), I would not say that it definitively helps notability. This is because it involves the close collaboration of the catalogue raisonné's author and the artist or estate. Some are going to contribute to notability and others aren't. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curiocurio, I do speak Italian and I have done some digging – please see above. I believe the lack of sources has more to do with lack of notability than with the era he worked in. For example, Pericle Fazzini – a fairly uninteresting artist who relatively few people have ever heard of – was born eight years earlier; he has articles in the Dizionario Biografico and in GroveArt, and an obituary in the New York Times. For this person we have an obit notice in the local newspaper, with details of where the funeral will be. How do you know about the catalogue raisonné, by the way? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could very well be right about the lack of notability. My general point is that the artist shouldn't be denigrated for only having offline sources - the three listed in the article. I read about the catalogue here [4]. Curiocurio (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insignificant or tangential coverage for a run of the mill artist who's never exhibited in a major gallery or art museum. A search of Google books shows hits for a different person, a violinist, with a similar name. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 6 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overdrive PC[edit]

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

No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Former prod declined, so AfD it is. Could soft delete and redirect to Velocity Micro if we feel generous, but is this really useful instead of being WP:CORPSPAM/WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES problem? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 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 merge. (non-admin closure) Citing (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1890–91 Kilmarnock F.C. season[edit]

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

Per WP:NSEASONS. I believe this article along with 1889–90 Kilmarnock F.C. season, 1888–89 Kilmarnock F.C. season and so on until the 1884–85 Kilmarnock F.C. season, should be either deleted or merged with their respective Scottish Cup article eg. 1885–86 Scottish Cup. Sorry if this is a bit hard to understand. The talk page (User talk:Anythingtoget) of the creator gives evidence of other problematic season articles created by this user. Perhaps a case at ANI should be opened up? See also User talk:Anythingtoget#Season Pages. Cheers Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: please clearly list all articles you have nominated for deletion here. Giant Snowman 21:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: 1884–85 Kilmarnock F.C. season, 1885–86 Kilmarnock F.C. season, 1886–87 Kilmarnock F.C. season, 1887–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season, 1888–89 Kilmarnock F.C. season, 1889–90 Kilmarnock F.C. season, 1890–91 Kilmarnock F.C. season (this last one is the article that the AfD is title off of). Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: no, I meant in-line with III of WP:BUNDLE (include it in bullet form in your original nomination so it's crystal clear to all from the beginning). Currently I suggest procedural keep given the way you have gone about this nomination. Giant Snowman 09:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination I bundled this AfD out of courtesy to my fellow editors. I had no requiement to bundle, nor did I have a requirement to bundle it in a certain way. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: have you even read WP:BUNDLE? The instructions are clear - To bundle articles for deletion, follow these steps. It is not a suggestion, it is a request. You have failed to follow that, with negative connotations, and as such you will not get a supporting !vote from me (if you had done so then I likely would have !voted to delete or merge all). Giant Snowman 09:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: so now people can !vote keep if they don't agree with how someone has presented an AfD? Forget it, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies)

@Willbb234: Yes, it's a procedural keep if the bundling was conducted improperly (as here) or inappropriately (such as too many articles). See eg this AFD and this AFD. Giant Snowman 11:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: those examples are invalid as they show an AfD where the bundled articles differ greatly from the primary article being AfDed. In this case, all articles bundled are very similar. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merge in a similar way to 1870s Rangers F.C. seasons? They are equally as notable and, if I'm right, they'd need to be playing in a domestic league for each individual article to pass WP:NSeasons on their own (not that there were any until 1890). Deleting them would set a precedent for similar articles at at Category:Scottish football clubs 1885–86 season for example (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing). I'd hazard cup winners/finalists would still be considered notable seasons but not many others given the lack of sourcing. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see the point of this AfD, WP:BEBOLD, just go a head and merge the articles together to form a new article to show that period for the history of the club. Govvy (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Games with Gold games[edit]

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

WP:NOT#CATALOG, and based on rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free Epic Games Store games. Because these games were only free for a limited time, the list helps no one else in the future. That there are free games via Games with Gold is fair to include on the Xbox Live Gold page, but listing out all examples is inappropriate. Masem (t) 16:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add, while there are similar lists for PSN games and other services, I do not want to do a mass AFD until there's clearly rationale from this and the Epic Games to justify going forward. --Masem (t) 16:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better to have the big discussion now. If you do it in steps, people will just fall back on "uh ok I agree with what we did last time". Gianttrombone (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add more, I reviewed the first AFD , from 2014, and I suggest !voters compare that to the arguments in the Epic Games Store one. I think the first basically was kept on a a mass-voted "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument, but that was rejected in the Epic Games Store list. --Masem (t) 16:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing what you mean by "mass voting". I don't see a pile on on a "we have other lists like this argument", the only such "other list" call out is to the PS+ free games list. Gianttrombone (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Masem (t) 16:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty useful and visited list as for me with interwikies that are not updated regularly unlike the English one though( There are no WP:NOT#CATALOG issues, since there are no prices, availability can be verified all over the web with prescribed “independent sources” (a-ka “mainstream media”) with “commentaries.” There are no comparisons of games with these games themselves on other platforms/storefronts too (eg. where one is cheaper or so).

I disagree with Masem's take “the list helps no one else in the future,” since the list is helpful within every 15–31 days span: you may see that there are different games being offered for different regions, so you may timely migrate your account and redeem additional/other games (per WP:NOT#CATALOG: “Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers” – I've hinted above that products not compete, they (games offered) complement each other, plus there are different products for different countries (we may see separate games for Japan, South Africa, Singapore and the likes every other month). -- pr12402, 30 December, 2019

This is absolutely a NOTCATALOG issue: it lists games that were $0.00 for a limited time. --Masem (t) 23:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would you interpret wiki policy as ruling out a list of all Xbox games? What about a list of Xbox games that meet some non-monetary criterion? Some monetary criterion other than "they were free on the Store once"?Gianttrombone (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, lists of games published for a platform is fine (as long as we have sourcing to support them - with the rise of indie games we cannot be fully inclusive for any indie game). There, there's no monetary factor or sales factor involve but to give an idea of the size of the game library and comparitive dates and releases. --Masem (t) 01:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So your objection is to the money part, because you interpret WP:NOTDIR as ruling out shopping lists. Got it. Gianttrombone (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Games with Gold is effectively a storefront, and we do not list out all the products a storefront offers. A straight-up list of games for a system is not a storefront, it's documenting the notable titles that can be played on a game system which DOES have encyclopedic (not just useful) value. --Masem (t) 06:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for substantially the reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free Epic Games Store games. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: This question is borderline for me. I think the topic easily clears WP:LISTN but on balance, it also ends up being a shopping list and thus fails WP:NOTDIR. I would support delete but I don't like wiki page deletion on principle except when there is no other legal or ethical option due to deletion being nearly unrecoverable. And also, in this particular case, I suspect this particular page is borderline for many other people as well. So, I recommend we replace the page text with a redirect to the Gold page rather than permadeleting the page. As well as making it possible to bring back the page without administrative DB fishing, it will also make it so the information can be gradually parted out and migrated to the individual game pages. Gianttrombone (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"deletion being nearly unrecoverable." This is not true. Any mod or admin can restore a deleted article. There is no such thing as "permadeleting"; if you're referring to WP:SALT, articles can be de-salted by contacting the protecting admin or through the deletion review process. "We shouldn't burn our bridges" is simply not a valid argument at AfD.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the list of Epic Game Store free games was deleted, this should be by the same token, as it's no different at all._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is absolutely trivia and not even useful trivia at that. This is a list of games that used to be free but no longer so Too Bad You Didn't Get Them Neener Neener Neener. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of games that at one time were available on a digital service? Seems like WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTCATALOG to me. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm also in the delete column here. No matter how you frame it, it really comes off as extremely trivial. That's not what a list article should contain. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty useful and visited often. No reason to delete simply on principle. cherkash (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITSPOPULAR, which are two reasons not to keep on principle. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xbox Live Gold per WP:NOT#CATALOG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There is is no list there and never will be so someone looking this up won’t find what they are looking for.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's rationale and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's rationale and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. It seems trivial and the games were only free for a short time. The list doesn't actually help people, so why have it? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the List of Games with Gold games should be kept as it is a useful source to confirm whether a title has ever been made available in this program. The reason I'm stating this is because one's Xbox Live Gold account doesn't record which titles one has obtained in this program (ie there is no purchase history) so it's essential to have this resource that one can check to confirm that the title was available as a Games with Gold title when one suspects that a title may have been removed from one's Ready to install list and therefore one becomes prompted to re-purchase it. This is even more important now that titles are being added to GamePass (all variations) when such titles are only in the GamePass system for a limited time (ie when removed from GamePass then the possibility exists that users may once again get prompted to re-purchase). User:FrathosCAN

Hi @FrathosCAN:, welcome to Wikiepdia! Please add new comments on the bottom of a talk page. To address your vote, Wikipedia is not a directory for Xbox owners to look up whether or not a game has been added to Xbox Live or GamePass. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically all the Keep comments fall under wikipedia:NOTCATALOGUE. There may be good reasons to have such a list elsewhere but Wikipedia is not the place.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear-cut case of WP:NOTCATALOG. The information is only relevant until the game is removed from Games with Gold, and only for shopping purposes.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:25, 7 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) 22:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith (voice actor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP article about non-notable voice actor has been unsourced since its creation in 2005. As it appears that no WP:RS secondary coverage exists on the subject, article clearly fails WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor roles in anime shows, no local coverage in newspapers, which cover more notable Matt Smiths. ANN pulls no news articles, not even a cast or convention announcement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He had bigger roles in Brain Powerd and Ronin Warriors, the other mostly seem to be supporting smaller roles. Considering it's a very weak case of WP:NACTOR and as an unsourced WP:BLP that I am unable to find sources for beyond the cast listings, it's a delete for me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks anything even approaching a reliable 3rd party source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nomination. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:57, 6 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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SECURE Act of 2019[edit]

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

Non notable legislation; the only sources are financial planner blogs and unreliable sources, with no significant coverage evidenced. A thorough WP:BEFORE search yielded no results other than blogspam and promotional material for various financial advisers (only brief mentions in reliable sources — just enough to prove existence but not close to enough to prove notability under the WP:GNG. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has extensive coverage in sources like CNBC, Newsweek, and Forbes. I'm currently building it out right now but I think the article subject is notable and will continue to receive news coverage long term due to the scale of its impact on retirees and savers in the United States. Omanlured (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely covered in a variety of media. Here's the Washington Post. Reywas92^Talk 21:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unclear what your "thorough WP:BEFORE search" consisted of. Here's WBUR, Yahoo Money, WREX, The Philidelphia Inquirer, CBS News, and Fox Buisness, for starters. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Mdaniels5757. Bookscale (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I shouldnt have to remind you all of this, but it's not enough to name check it -- we need significant coverage (SIGCOV). Michepman (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - we're well aware of that, and there is, that's why the consensus is to keep the article at the moment. Bookscale (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure where there is "no in depth coverage", as all the others have said. Consensus clearly appears to be keep, probably ready to be closed. The nominator also seems to have recently nominated lots of other pages for deletion that clearly pass the guidelines. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a false and absolutely baseless accusation. Of the four articles i have proposed for deletion over the past month, only one was kept. Of the other three, one was an identified hoax by a vandalism-only user who was reported to ANI by someone else, and the other two had broad or burgeoning consensus to delete. Michepman (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)|[reply]

I am not accusing you of anything, just stating my observations, which very well could be wrong. I was referring to two of your three most recent nominations: Janette Sherman and Irving Kanarek, which have also been unanimously voted to keep so far.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concede I was way off base about Janette Sherman but Irving Kanarek is mixed; if you read the consensus more carefully you see that there were a few votes to keep and one vote for WP:BLAR (redirect the page to the Manson page) which is one of the suggestions that I made in my Nom. Hardly “unanimous keep”. You’re also ignoring the hoax article i prodded (Rasa Salim Tehrani) which is more recent than Kanarek as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen M. Jimino another recent AFD which in fact was *unanimously* supportive of my position and reasoning. Michepman (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that hoax page and never ignored it, like I said, just expressing my first observations for the discussion, which I see aren't all correct.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Pace User:Michepman, there is a lot of coverage. I searched "SECURE Act" in the Wall Street Journal [5] and New York Times [6].NotButtigieg (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely meets WP:GNG -- extensive media coverage exists for this act, including the following links, for example: 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 15:22, 6 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. Reading through the discussion, deletion just about pips draftification. However, if someone would like to work on the article outside of mainspace, I'm more than happy to restore it as a userspace draft; drop me a message on my talkpage if you 'd like to take it on. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Sweet[edit]

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

I see evidence of notability through her long-term activism and multiple runs for office, so I nominated for deletion rather than let it be prodded into deletion.--TM 15:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TM 15:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. TM 15:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete candidates for office are almost never notable for such, Sweet is clearly not an exception to this rule. Wikipedia is not a platform to post campaign literature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable current candidate and past failed candidate, all of the coverage is about her candidacies and not about her activism. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; strongly oppose redirect; permit draftification Election candidates should not generally have articles per WP:NPOL, unless notable for independent reasons. Article stand-up in an campaign period is problematic especially as per here if the instantiator stands up an article with issues. While issues from that stand-up have been identified and eliminated any items which might used for notability are either supported by un-awesome sources that are not WP:RS for those items. From once no article then no redirect either as despite what essays some administrators might point at either a redirect for all candidates or for none .... unsensensible to do it for every candiate from the non-quacking heavy muscovy drake party so not sensible to do it for any. No qualms about persons elected to high enough position or notable for some reason ... which would be better passed via the WP:AFD process and bar and ideally outside of a campaign.109.157.77.207 (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per NPOL. Or if not, serious cleanup, reads like campaign brochure. I did a news search to see if I could find reports of her activism. Instead, I discovered she owes Maine $8,100 for mis-spending Clean Elections money, a recent news story that somehow was not in the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC) (see below, changing !vote to Draftify)[reply]

@HouseOfChange Please present a precise source for the $8,100 allegation or there needs to be a call for that to be rescinded including a Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Thankyou.86.158.216.81 (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@86.158.216.81: The "recent news story" I mentioned above is one of the few Google News search results for this person. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary-sourced promotional article for a non-notable politician. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You didn't take my suggestion on the talk page and went forward with the AfD. WP:NPOL excludes mere candidates with the exception being if they achieve WP:GNG. I have added a considerable number of reliable sources, mostly Maine local media discussing her achievements, separate from the run for Senate, over the last couple of decades. I could add more but I don't want to source bomb this. The point is clear, WP:GNG is achieved. The delete votes above could have found this stuff by doing a WP:BEFORE, but deletionists don't ever do that. When most of them voted there were 5 sources, now there are 19. Two days ago I had never heard of Betsy Sweet, but then I don't live in Maine where she is a political player. This stuff is available on google, please just look before you delete. I see my old foe JPL was the first to chime in with a Delete vote. I'm not surprised. He hasn't seen an article he doesn't want to delete. I'd rather not go into the rest of the ad hominem on the lengths he would go to delete articles. I just wish you'd stop listening to him. Trackinfo (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo I'd hold off on the notability chest-thumping for a minute, because 19 citations doesn't mean much when you're quoting mostly the same sources (nearly half of the cites are from Bangor Daily News alone) and Press Herald being an inaccessible paywall site (aside from Sweet's self-published article), all while verification issues with several other sources remain. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers are not blocked and have nothing to do with Sweet's self published content. The major newspapers in the home state of a politician are exactly the place to expect to find coverage. Trackinfo (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: Unfortunately WP:CITEBOMB is precisely what you did. When a cite just does a minimal URL+title+sometimesWebsite it really doesn't begin to show it's notability. Dates and Authors tell a lot as to whether journalists are working off of press-releases and blindly following primary sources. An there's a lot of that in the sources presented. An interview is nearly a no-no for a WS:RS during a campaign. So with respect it is all a bit vague and its unclear if you really understand WP:RS. If you wish to continue this source defence please present your three best sources here for scrutiny per suggestions at the essay WP:THREE. Thankyou.86.158.216.81 (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an SPA? 3 edits and you found your way here? OK, I ran ReFill, something I abhor if you read my personal page; We have multiple articles on a variety of subjects spanning a decade from the Bangor Daily News. That is the large daily newspaper you would expect to cover a major political leader in their state. I am arguing WP:GNG, thus I show we have lots of coverage. Though refill didn't pick it up, each of them have a separate byline. We have The Portsmouth Herald, from New Hampshire, in the guise of "seacoast online.com" with a byline, The Portland Press Herald article predates me and is behind a paywall. Another major daily in the state. When it was filled it had a byline. She also wrote an oped in the Press Herald which sources her position. We have the statehouse scandal reported by The Seattle Times. WMTW is the ABC affiliate in the state. A political report from The Hill. These are not press releases, blogs or other lightweight non-reliable sources. Do you understand WP:RS? Don't go casting aspersions on my asparagus. Trackinfo (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She's a locally notable failed candidate, and we typically don't keep those articles. Her activism isn't independently notable. The Seattle Times article just quotes her, it's not at all significant coverage. I think it's still a crystal clear delete. I was the original PRODder, by the way. SportingFlyer T·C 00:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff added [7] She give a speech as director of the Maine Women's Lobby in 1984, [8] is a 1997 derogatory editorial identifying her as writing the curriculum of a statewide anti-gay bigotry and violence program. In the editorial, she is criticized by name for being a "homosexual activist" and promoting "diversity mongering rubbish" so I have not included it in the sourcing. [9] is a 2010 mention of her history "as an advocate for women at the State House." [10] was published in 2009 (I originally picked up the wrong year) where she is being given the Lifetime Achievement Award from EquailityMaine, obviously for work she did well beforehand, ten years ago, even well before her run for Governor. [11] is a protest she organized from 2016 perhaps motivating the later run for governor. And behind a paywall she's named in the title of this one. That covers four different decades. Trackinfo (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you looking for sources, but I don't think any of those pass WP:GNG on their own (first one isn't sigcov - just a person in a list, second is derogatory as stated, third isn't independent, the Equality Maine isn't sigcov (she's just one in a list), she's only discussed three times in the protest she organised, and the article where she's named in the title was written by her. There's still nothing here on which to hang a notability hat. Also, I disagree with those wanting to draftify, as American elections are not for another 11 months if I'm not mistaken, and drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity? SportingFlyer T·C 05:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable yet.NotButtigieg (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trackinfo has now added many references but nearly all date from 2018-2019: people describing Sweet's past in the context of her being a candidate. For WP:NBIO we need in-depth, significant coverage of Sweet for something she did other than be a failed candidate. The closest thing seems to be her work with EqualityMaine, which got some press coverage but I didn't see anything in-depth about Sweet herself. Maybe just WP:TOOSOON. I think the request above for three good RS is a good one. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates for federal office do not pass WP:NPOL. It does not appear that the subject passes WP:GNG (even accounting for the subject's past run for Governor of Maine). Since there is no obvious redirect target and that some of her background can be added to 2020 United States Senate election in Maine, the page should be deleted and not remain as a campaign brochure. --Enos733 (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As a failed candidate and a future candidate, neither position meets WP:NPOL. WP:UNDUE concerns. The coverage that would count as significant coverage of the subject is routine campaign profiles, typical of election season. Bkissin (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (changing my !vote from Delete, above) Although I think it is TOOSOON for GNG, Trackinfo has put some work into improving the article. If Sweet becomes notable, it would be good to have that information and structure preserved. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I agree that Sweet is probably not notable at this moment, but I think with work and deeper research, she has the potential to be.--TM 17:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This is legit work on someone who could very likely pass notability requirements soon, so it is counter-productive to delete. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and there is not enough significant coverage outside of her campaigns to pass WP:GNG at the moment. The article can be recreated if she wins the election. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:38, 3 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New Course of Ukraine[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) 15:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Interstellarity (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day----Pontificalibus 11:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above, and because we do not publish original research, especially about advocacy. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astelit Mobile Communications[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a run of the mill brand name operated by a joint venture. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article content is similar to that of lifecell, aside from the mention of the firm being joint recipient of a "Best New Company" Stevie award in 2006. I don't think that is sufficient for notability; the lifecell / life:) article is sufficient. AllyD (talk) 18:15, 6 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jnes (emulator)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N as a non-notable video game emulator. The current sources are all trivial mentions on (mostly) questionable sites. I looked for sources using the WP:VG/RS custom Google searches as well as a standard Google search but only found more trivial and unreliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few brief mentions in reliable sources does not provide significant coverage hence fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jnes developed in 1999 is among the oldest emulators still actively used. It has been covered by multiple secondary reliable sources giving the subject non-trivial coverage.

Joe Grand; Albert Yarusso (12 November 2004). Game Console Hacking: Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Game Boy, Atari and Sega. Elsevier. pp. 331–. ISBN 978-0-08-053231-8.
The article notes:
Jnes is one of the most accurate Win32 based emulators.
Gordon, Whitson (2015-11-09). "The Best NES Emulator for Windows". Lifehacker. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
The article notes:
Jnes doesn’t have a ton of features, but it’s probably the easiest to get up and running out of the box. It doesn’t have horrible input lag with vsync on, and it has a one-click option for accurate colors (though it isn’t turned on by default), so you can get a decent experience pretty quickly, as long as you don’t need or want any other advanced features. There are a ton of other NES emulators out there (seriously, way more than you’d expect), but these are the most popular.
Cheong, Ian (2015-05-25). "10 Gaming Hacks Every Gamer Should Know". Gameranx. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
The article notes:
JFor playing classic NES games, JNES is the most popular emulator, and for N64, Project 64. For PlayStation, may people use EPSXE, and for PS2, many people use PCSX2. There you go, emulators allow you to play Pokemon on your phone, Super Mario Bros. on your computer.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jnes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". GNG does not say brief, but trivial which is defined as "of little value or importance". Developed in 1999, it is among the oldest emulator still used today. It has been defined as "most accurate", among the "most popular", "top 5 emulators" and "the easiest to get up and running out of the box". This is not trivial coverage and is significant. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Firstly, Gameranx is unreliable per WP:VG/RS. Secondly, the short mention in Game Console Hacking is two sentences and the three sentence mention in LifeHacker (assuming that is even reliable since it is not listed as reliable under WP:VG/RS) does not demonstrate its coverage as signfiicant enough to deem it notable enough to have an article. A few brief mentions in listicles is not significant coverage. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 13:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gameranx is a popular game reviewer with over 5.4 million subscribers. He is reliable as is Linus Sebastian which has a similar range of viewers, therefore there are three reliable sources. These mentions are brief, but not trivial. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The user that posted the sources above doesn't understand that significant coverage means "addresses the topic directly and in detail" They do not establish notability because none of them are WP:SIGCOV, and none address the emulator indepth. I have searched books and even scholar articles and I found nothing that would count as significant coverage of the subject.

1) The book has 1 sentence about it ("one of the most accurate Win32 emulators") with a url.

2) 2 sentences in a list of NES emulators, not indepth

3) Seems unreliable like Spy mentioned above. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here since 2006 and quite understand what passes GNG. We have a concept called WP:PRESERVE. You are correct, the mentions in the sources do not cover the subject in detail, however the coverage is clearly not trivial. Trivial coverage would say something like "Jnes is an emulator which was used from 1999 to 2005" or "Jnes is a Win32 based emulator", I've defined trivial above from the dictionary. Statement such as "the most accurate" and "top emulator" currently used is not trivial, it is saying the emulator is among the top performers in the industry. I've stated on the nominator's page that this would be better as a merge, but because a merge target does not exist WP:PRESERVE is invoked. There are also foreign sources which have not been added to the article such as [12]. NES emulator is more popular in South America and such sources have yet to be added. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRESERVE is not a greenlight for standalone articles on subjects with no indepth coverage, just because there is no appropriate merge target as List of video game console emulators only contains notable/wiki article entries. It doesn't even mention keeping articles at all. The article you posted just name drops JNES once, so not even that. Maybe this emulator will become notable in the future, but not now. It fails our main guideline in WP:GNG (like you said, the coverage while non-trivial is also not in detail) and that is all we need to know here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that cover the topic in details in the article itself:

Jain, Abhinav (2019-08-23). "5 Best NES Emulators for Windows 10". WindowsAble. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
The article notes:
Now, if you are someone who is quite lazy and you want something in which all you gonna wanna do is open the ROM and start playing. Then, you should consider downloading and installing the jNES Emulator on your Windows 10 PC. Now, though the emulator does not offer a lot of features, but it surely does the job for what it is developed pretty well. The User Interface of the jNES is pretty straightforward and simple. It does offer a few features which includes using a gamepad, controlling sound and adjusting screen size. You can download and use this NES Emulator on your Windows 10 PC for completely free.
Cheong, Ian (2015-05-25). "10 Gaming Hacks Every Gamer Should Know". Gameranx. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
The article notes:
If you own any range of PC, Mac or maybe even a decent Android phone, emulators are a way you can play some older games. Just note that downloading emulators and ROM are technically kind of illegal so we're not condoning or endorsing any of this but we are just talking about it because it's out there and people use them.
For playing classic NES games, JNES is the most popular emulator, and for N64, Project 64. For PlayStation, may people use EPSXE, and for PS2, many people use PCSX2. There you go, emulators allow you to play Pokemon on your phone, Super Mario Bros. on your computer.
Use them if you will, it's a good way to get easy access to classic games, but just know that people made this game. Even if they made them in 1987 they still need to feed their families, I guess. Unless their families are dead. It's been a long time.

Valoem

^talk

^contrib

[reply]

Gameranx is unreliable per consensus mentioned already anx Windowsable is a blog without a staff page even. Also please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this AfD. You are the article's creator and I get your passion, but the subject simply is not notable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gameranx has been discussed several times at WT:VGRS and it has always been found to be unreliable because it lacks all of the traits we look for in a reliable source (mastheads, editor credentials, author credentials, etc.). They have nowhere near 5M subscribers, and even if they did, it wouldn't matter because popularity doesn't mean a site is automatically reliable. Windowsable also fails to meet any signs of reliability, plus the source is two paragraphs in a listicle written by an amateur. Woodroar (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have 5.42 million subscribers and is one of the main tech channels and they have made a list of what the main emulators used are per console. JNES is the most popular NES emulator. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed has 19.7M subscribers and says that a $1 bagel is better than a $1,000 bagel. Is that true? Maybe. But I certainly wouldn't put that in an article. Woodroar (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion piece on a show and it doesn't say a $1 bagel is better than $1000, it says based on their opinion that the $1 bagel is a better deal than a $1000 bagel and you can put that in an article. Being hosted on the show certainly can give subjects notability. It would look something like this:

According to Buzzfeed's series Worth It New York City's Utopian Bagels is the best deal when compare to three different price points for bagels including a $1000 bagel from Einat Admony.

In the case of Gameranx, this is not a show but an article published which states the emulator is the most popular for NES emulation. Also gameranx does have both editorial and author credentials. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:30, 7 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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lang Jeffries[edit]

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

No indication this actor meets WP:NACTOR, having a starring role in only one TV show. The four sources include three IMDB pages and the SSDI. Page was created by a serial copyright violater, so simply redirecting to that TV show won't just do it if we're stuck with the original article's edit history. ミラ P 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but that's not his claim to fame. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never said it was, but it showed up here and those are the only relevant individual criteria for Military Deletion Discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's my point. It's not a military deletion discussion. He's notable (if he is notable) only as an actor, not as a soldier. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I see a baby in this bathwater. Will look for sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I worked on the article today, and I did indeed find a baby in the bathwater. The subject was the lead in a number of films as well as the television show for which he was first known. He appears in a number of books I found on Google Books and in many newspaper articles. Many, of course, are more passing mentions, but others have more content related to him. He passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT now (and I can elaborate on how if this comes into question), but I would like to find more sources to strengthen the article. However, the timing of this nomination makes it difficult for me to go to a local university library and access entertainment archives collections as that library's hours are different between the semester and over the holidays. If my existing efforts are not enough to make this a KEEP, please consider postponing deletion at least until a week into January when I can check out the sources I need. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @DiamondRemley39: The article creator is currently having his content presumptively deleted indiscriminately, so everything in the article he added must still be cleaned out, which is why I'll just let this AFD run its course. ミラ P 18:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My contributions are mostly complete here. I added info from and cited his Variety obituary. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of additions made by DiamondRemley39.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weird rationale: "No indication this actor meets WP:NACTOR, having a starring role in only one TV show." Maybe only one TV show, but plenty of notable movies, and as the lead actor. --151.54.254.128 (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reply I found rationale odd too, but then I learned that users are deleting articles by this article's creator because that user was a serial copyright violator. Article/citations were not in great shape before, and nominator apparently not interested in completing WP:BEFORE and instead wants to throw the subject out of the encyclopedia. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but besides copyright issues, the "starring role in only one TV show" and the "redirecting to that TV show" remarks indicate the nominator did not just avoided any WP:BEFORE, but didn't even bother to read the whole text of the article, from which it was clear enough Jeffries had starred in several (bluelinked) movies. BTW this is the difference between the original article by the serial copyright violator and the current one, I think any possible copyright concern has been overcome. Thank you DiamondRemley39 for improving the article. --151.54.254.128 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets WP:NACTOR, with significant roles in multiple notable productions - which appeared to be evident before the nomination for AfD, although it's much clearer now, thanks to DiamondRemley39. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: easily passes the notability standards. Definite keep. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:41, 6 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Brock[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PROD declined: not eligible for soft deletion czar 22:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 02:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

\

Delete. The article is on the verge of being a stub, isn't entirely neutral, and as a quick Google search will note, Brock isn't particularly noteworthy. Dictator Black (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was in a strange state, as additions by WP:SPA Jasonpetersuk had turned it into a how-to article promoting a "Brock Initiative" wrapped inside a pre-existing biography. The main body of these additions was a WP:COPYVIO which I have removed. A substantial part of what remains can probably also be considered a WP:COPYVIO: see the Mission section of [13]. AllyD (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As executive producer and producer on Life on Earth, The Living Planet, Wildlife on One, Natural World, and others, he certainly meets WP:CREATIVE#3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There are reviews of these series, and episodes within them, describing them as "Richard Brock's film", "Richard Brock's documentary", etc. The article certainly needs work, as it represent the body of work for which he is notable in just one sentence - the second and third paras could be deleted, and his work expanded, with sources from The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Stage, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:13, 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. Possibly a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Charm International[edit]

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

First time beauty pageant. No proof of notability. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promo. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and did not meet WP:GNG. --Richie Campbell (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)17:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please also consider Miss Charm International 2020 along with this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, Graeme Bartlett. Delete Miss Charm International 2020.--Richie Campbell (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough news coverage (in the national medias) and notability for its very first edition to be held. Singapore, Vietnam --Mims Mentor (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Mims Mentor is the creator of the article.--Richie Campbell (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a promising new beauty pageant. Candidates also have good quality in first edition with Sotheary By (Miss Universe Cambodia 2017), Anahi Hormazabal (Miss World Chile 2018 - Top 30 Miss World 2017), Karina Ramos (Miss Universe Costa Rica 2014), Romina Lozano (Miss Universe Peru 2018), Sofía del Prado (Miss Universe Spain 2017 - Top 10 Miss Universe 2017), Anyta Baksheeva (Miss Earth Russia 2019 - Top 10 Miss Earth 2019)... And i don't want this pageant like Miss Supranational and Miss Grand International because of your jealousy. Bonutra (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of your statements supported the article in accord to wikipedia's notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per made up one day last year. Saying it's "promising new" is not a good argument to keep. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The quality of the contestants in the first edition is noticeable. Costa Rica news, Peru news, Namibia news, Panama news. Bongchuyen111 (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete piece is purely WP:PROMO. Notability is not achieved by association, while there might be notable models participating in the event, that does not per se make the event notable. Sources for the article at present look to be WP:CHURN.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:50, 7 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Johndavies837 (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 United States bombing of Kata'ib Hizbollah[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. This event can be merged into the American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present), American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War etc SharabSalam (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Support deletion This event is not detailed or significant enough to warrant its own standalone article (as of yet). It can simply be mentioned in the aforementioned relevant articles, like other similar targeted strikes. RopeTricks (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Keep, following new details and subsequent events surrounding the event. RopeTricks (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into any of the above mentioned articles, as the nom suggested. Not sure why an AFD was used to propose merger rather than WP:MERGEPROP. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt propose a merge. I proposed a deletion. The whole article actual content is one sentence. Which one you think is more sensical here, a merge proposal or a deletion proposal?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I !voted merge, and even as of now, the article had a {{WIP}} tag, so I expected more sentences to be added, and I was correct. Now that the article is a proper stub, I believe we should merge it, per WP:OVERLAP. The U.S is currently fighting a war on terror. If we had an article for every action taken in that war, we'd be flooded with those articles by now. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 22:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in line with previous vote on 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq, which was decided as legit article to remain in Wikipedia. The events are practically the same - both bombings against Iranian militias in Iraq with casualties and widely covered by media.GreyShark (dibra) 19:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is very much a significant event that has received wide press coverage and influenced regional government policies. There are much less significant events that have articles.--Franz Brod (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - noticeably more coverage than your routine airstrike. Though I'm curious why thisnis included in the Persian Gulf crisis. Juxlos (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event is extremely notable and the article should thus be kept.XavierGreen (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not every bombing of every group/militia merits an article of its own. This will happen again most likely.--Sakiv (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very notable event and must be kept,I do agree that the article needs improvement.Alhanuty (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AlAboud83, after 10 years, would this article still be notable?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to not crystal ball,as that is against Wikipedia policies,but speaking in the present,this is an important event,that could theoretically lead to other developments. Alhanuty (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AlAboud83, two days ago, there was an attack on a U.S. base that caused 1 dead American, and many other injured. It was widely covered in the media. They talked about it for two days until this attack came, they stopped talking about the attack on the U.S. base and started talking about the U.S. attack on some random militia. Per WP:RECENT, recentism is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. And per WP:DELAY, It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Writing about breaking news may be recentism.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the very specific attack you were talking about is cited as the direct reason for this bombing, and the two events are pretty related to one another. Juxlos (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This event is obviously significant, even more so considering that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad is now under attack in response to this event. The page should be improved, not deleted. Johndavies837 (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed,the Event has developed into a major event,Strong Keep.Alhanuty (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per above.--Catlemur (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:32, 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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Călacea[edit]

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

I previously nominated this disambiguation page for speedy deletion for WP:G14 because it disambiguates no extant Wikipedia pages. However, it has been declined so I am taking it to AfD. WP:G14 states "This applies to disambiguation pages which regardless of title, disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages". This disambiguation page does not disambiguate any pages with the name "Călacea" so it should be deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since Wikipedia is meant to be a gazeteer, is there any reason for us not to have articles on these villages. Unless someone can show why these villages should be excluded, we should keep this disambiguation page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It disambiguates only three red links which is not what a disambiguation page is supposed to do. One of the dos and don'ts about disambiguation pages is "Don't include red links unless used in articles". The red links only link back to the disambiguation page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to mention is that the disambiguation page is orphaned as it is not linked by any mainspace articles. See this. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages are not meant to have incoming links (WP:INTDAB). – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page disambiguates three topics, all of which are linked to articles that pass WP:DABMENTION. – Uanfala (talk) 16:30, 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 keep. Here we have a consensus somewhere between keep and redirect/merge to the archdeacon article. Since the result is not a delete, I am closing it as keep, a redirect can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 11:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Goold[edit]

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

This is a second AFD discussion for this article, previously discussed in August 2018.[14]. The reason for listing is (and was then) that the subject is not notable. He was an archdeacon, but archdeacons are not notable by virtue of that role. They may be notable for some other reason but I cannot find any evidence that this one was.

Previous deletion discussion had a clear majority for delete but the admin decided that the introduction of new sources meant that "per nom" did not carry weight anymore so it was "no consensus". I have reviewed all the added sources, but none of them provide any reason for notability. They are things like listings of the archdeacons in the church, or letters acknowledging the archdeacons normal duties. These are entries you would expect for any member of the clergy, and do not demonstrate notability. There is nothing in the lead to explain what makes this person notable. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:ANYBIO. The previous discussion turned obfuscated when a commendably diligent editor offered offline citations. The supposedly conclusive inclusion of our subject in Frederic Boase's Modern English Biography, published from 1892 to 1901 in four volumes, comes up empty in the main body of the work, since the good archdeacon is mentioned nowhere in it. (The full text of the book's "Volume 1 (A-H)" is here). The name "Goold" is only retrieved by Boase from anonymity here, in the supplementary tomes of 1912. And, of course, the claim, made during that AfD, that any inclusion in Boase's work implies notability is erroneous, as one can deduce from perusing the entries in the aforecited links, which contain soldiery and priesthood galore.

The offline citations, which are mostly lists and local obits, already in the article or out there, suggest that our man of the cloth did indeed exist. However, per WP:RELPEOPLE, only bishops of major denominations are notable by virtue of their status and our Christian was an archdeacon, ranked below bishophood, who led an otherwise uneventful life, historically, distinguished solely by the church office. So, let us let his soul rest in peace. Were we to go by the standards implied in the decision, entirely benevolent & well meaning though it was, to retain the article, we'd be allowing the Wikipedia project to turn into a library catalogue or some random collection of information, god forbid. -The Gnome (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was not otherwise undistinguished, he was one of the principal landowners in County Limerick. The citations offered were not offline, they were generally in Google Books. The obituaries are not local (the Illustrated London News had a massive circulation equivalent to a national paper), nor are the biographical dictionaries "lists". The supplementary volumes of Boase were published to include people who died after 1892 plus oversights. If Boase, and similar works such as the DNB, seem to include more clergy than you might expect, the reason is probably because they were, or at least, were perceived to be, more important (legally, socially and historically etc) in nineteenth century Britain than they are in twenty-first century America today. RELPEOPLE is only an essay, not a guideline. James500 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you did not make the main edition of Boase in a time and place where you could have, we need other sourcing which we lack here, not inclusion in the supplementals, to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archdeacon of Raphoe, and expand that article by adding a list of all the archdeacons in chronological order--I would hope wihout hte unhelpful overhead of making succession boxes. I originally nominated this for deletion, but I have since realized there's an alternative. Wedo include elements of a biographical dictionary, and it's reasonable for someone looking for a name to find some information. (this comment goes equallly for the other articles eing discussed now, and the similar ones which had erratic results earlier) DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a good idea for preserving the useful information without having hundreds of non notable stub articles. Perhaps a wikitable such as this?[15] I put that together from the first few pages but could expand it to all the ones listed and then paste it into that page. The wikitable is just based on one used for Bishops. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would be a way forward Bashereyre (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have now copied all biographical information from each archdeacon stub page to the Archdeacon of Raphoe page. Please feel free to change the table colouring to whatever you believe is most appropriate. If you approve, I will do the same for archdeacons of Southwark as per my other AfD nominations. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG and criteria 3 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly satisfies WP:NBIO. I would say that the fact that the Illustrated London News for 1877 describes him under "Obituary of Eminent Persons" for 1877 with a c.20 line account is indicative of some notability. Not to mention an entry about him in Boase' Modern English Biography supplement of 1912! (point 3 of WP:ANYBIO). We should not expect the plethora of modern-day sources to be anything like comparable with those of the mid-19th century, but we should expect AFD Nominators to read and act on WP:BEFORE, as rushing to delete noteworthy content from Wikipedia only serves to weaken it. He wasn't just a religious postholder - he was a person living in the 1800s who was written about, and that enables us to say he meets our notability criteria. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

It is not my intention to comment on individual contributions to this debate as I doubt that would be very constructive. However, to the implied criticism that I had not acted and read on WP:BEFORE, I would reject that. The mention of the subject in the 1912 supplement of Boase is in the material I linked to in the nomination. The argument against that showing notability is more eloquently expressed by The Gnome, but still is included in my general comments. Mention - even in Boase (even if it were in the main work and not just the 1912 supplement) - does not establish notability on its own. You can disagree on that point, of course, but WP:BEFORE was followed. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Archdeacon of Raphoe. While sourced claims like "fourth largest landowner" were brought forth, this is a permastub at best. ミラ P 04:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the offline citations have not shown to be non-trivial, until someone goes and looks them up, it is certainly possible they help to fulfill GNG like some here assert. His time period is not a good one for having free-on-the-net sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:17, 3 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. Tone 11:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Douwe Dijkstra[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker. No coverage worth speaking about. scope_creep^Talk 11:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an enterprising recent university graduate, but a GNG Fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three successful films, a number of installations, exhibitions, visuals for operas and a piece in the Amsterdam airport makes him notable.Alexeidmitriev (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This in not how notability works here. See WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that Alexeidimiteiev has disclosed that they know the subject of this AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to establish GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete early career and not enough notability yet.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:01, 3 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. Tone 11:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons couch gags[edit]

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

The last AfD was in 2010, when inclusion standards were much lower than today. This is essentially a list of jokes, not much different from The Simpsons billboard gags (deleted in 2010), and The Simpsons chalkboard gags (deleted in 2008). We can deduct that it's WP:TRIVIA from that the gags are not listed in the season articles, and that they only appear in the infobox in ep articles (without further discussion). Sure, there are sources that discuss the couch gags in general, but all of that can be and is covered in The Simpsons opening sequence#Couch gag. Meanwhile, this list of trivia is getting bigger each season; a split was proposed in August 2019, but no discussion is happening (nor did the split proposal get removed). Time to call it for this piece of en.wiki history? – sgeureka ^t•c 10:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pure trivia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP notable enough it gets ample coverage in the news media. Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD and spend some time glancing over all the results. I'll see what I can add to the article. Dream Focus 17:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 17:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:Dream Focus says to search google news, but all I see are a bunch of clickbait listicles, not reliable sources. Besides, notability isn't the main issue brought by the nomination (although it is an issue here), the article being an "indiscriminate collection of information" is. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added some references to reliable sources that gave significant coverage to the article already. Anyway, it is not indiscriminate, it is a list of notable information which is mentioned by reliable sources at times. The articles for all of these many notable episode articles list the couch gag in the infobox of those articles. When CNN reviewed an episode of the show they mentioned the "jaw-dropping couch gag" [16] as part of their review. Search the news for "the simpsons" "couch gag" "hobbit" and you'll find a lot of reliable sources talking about that, dedicating entirely articles to it like Today [17] and Wired magazine did. [18] The Guardian gave had an article dedicated to another episode's couch gag[19] And so many much coverage out there. So many of these things get coverage, that proves its a notable enough thing to have a list article for. Dream Focus 02:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article dedicated to The Simpsons opening sequence, which is more than sufficient to put these references and sources. A list of couch gags is unnecessary and crufty, and is of little interest to non-fans._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Dream Focus did raise good points and the deletes are WP:IDL and fail WP:ATA. But again, why centralize everything in a list when we have individual episode articles to cover each thing? ミラ P 15:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancrufty, non-notable list. The idea of couch gags is of course notable and can be mentioned in the main Simpsons article, but this is giving undue weight to it and belongs in Wikia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is an absolute crying shame that 31 seasons of tidy history would even be considered for deletion. JPL is a one trick pony saying "delete." With his history, you should never listen to his consistent agenda to destroy wikipedia content. And obviously there are too many others like him who thoughtlessly echo delete votes. Get over the fact that we are not talking about the Journal of American Medical Association, we are talking about a television series-one of the longest running series in television history. The couch gag is an integral element to this iconic television series. Try reading some of the 22 unique sources already listed. Groening revealed that the couch gag was inspired by the classic “Mickey Mouse Club” opening that concluded with Donald Duck banging a gong. The animation changed episode-to-episode, and Groening thought, “If I ever get my own show, I’ll do a Donald Duck-style gong gag.” * Every episode of The Simpsons begins with the family congregating on the couch in front of the TV, and every episode includes a different gag during the iconic couch sequence. * The Simpsons couch gags at the start of every episode have become iconic. * As the odometer hit 300, USA TODAY published a two-page report – “300 reasons to love ‘The Simpsons’” – that listed, among other things, 35 couch gags * The Simpsons' take their couch gag to Middle Earth in 'Hobbit' spoof . . . On Sunday night, the Simpson family will take trip to the same old place they end up every week — their couch. * each week the "couch gag" involves doing something silly * The list of memorable “Simpsons” couch gags includes Disney movies, the Game of Life, Letterman and “Breaking Bad.” At one point, the whole town showed up to join the Simpson family on the couch for some evening TV watching. And on another occasion, two Simpson families appeared. * The famous credits gag is given a whimsical French tinge * In advance of The Simpsons‘ 28th season premiere (Sunday, 8/7c), Fox has released the episode’s highly anticipated couch gag *Sunday's season finale of The Simpsons will feature a couch gag crossover with Adult Swim's Rick and Morty Thats not one source picking up on one fluke gag, those are all different sources. Clearly notable. This is wikipedia at its finest. Compiling information from a multitude of sources and keeping a coherent log that we will save. We don't have that kind of detailed information about the aforementioned Mickey Mouse Club because nobody at the time thought it was important enough to save. Maybe the Smithsonian should throw out all those old things taking up space in those rooms. And you idiots want to destroy that cataloging work and all that history. How do you sleep at night? Trackinfo (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many times it has to be said that the *idea* of the couch gag is not what is up for debate as notable. It's whether we need an article that is a list of trivial minutia about every single one that ever existed. FANDOM exists for things like that if you want to "catalog information" and original research about the show, but it's not suitable for Wikipedia proper._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have already stipulated this is a notable subject. As I said before, this list is exactly what wikipedia does best. To my knowledge, there is no other list like this available elsewhere on the internet. Certainly not on the #1 information site in the world. It is only fully compiled here. You are talking about destroying over 13 years of accumulated work, about 2,000 edits by at least several dozen editors compiling this data in a well organized fashion. Even if you were to merge backward to the individual shows, the juggling act of these couch gags is not remotely as apparent as it is presented here in a coherent form. Whatever WP:wikilawyering you choose to come up with, you are making an excuse, a dastardly excuse, to destroy well done content. Trackinfo (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You claim "there is no other list like this available elsewhere on the internet"

However, that's not true. Lots of fansites list the couch gags.

If you search Google, the first result is the Simpsons wiki [20].

Honestly, that's probably a better place for it. ApLundell (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:LISTN as it has not been 'discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources'. Hug^syrup 10:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They're covered elsewhere, so this is just unnecessary duplication. No information is lost and it solves the issue of needing to split out from a page of trivia. TTN (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable examples to the main Simpsons page, but otherwise Delete. I know some couch gags have recieved focus (eg the Rick and Morty one, the Robot Chicken one), and some mention of these "outsourced" gags should be on the main Simpsons page. As most eps of the Simpsons are stand-alone notable, further details of the more unique couch gag can be included on those pages. But a list of these outright is inappropiate for WP. --Masem (t) 19:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, depending on how much one can find about this, a more thorough article describing the nature of the couch gag, listing only a few notable examples, could be had, if there is a SIZE problem at The Simpsons. "Couch gag" does seem to generate a good deal of hits, and arguably may have its own reception separate from the show. But, end of the day, the point is that a full list of the couch gags is not needed on WP. --Masem (t) 19:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete excessively trivial, notable examples can be covered in prose in other articles, as noted by Masem above. Otherwise, this seems to fail WP:LISTN; any sources that deal with this set are mostly unreliable fan blogs and the like. --Jayron 32 16:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. While there may be sources for the concept of the couch gag in general, and some sources on a few of the individual examples, there are not any sources that would allow this entire list of every single one pass WP:LISTN. And as noted, there are already appropriate places for those bits of sourced information to be included. Rorshacma (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I love the Simpsons, this article belongs in fandom or Wikia. It's WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article might attract new editors. And we all know they'd be the wrong sort. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:02, 6 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 redirect to Beren and Lúthien. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG/WP:PLOT. Non-notable fictional character (animal). Does not have an entry in Tolkien Encyclopedia. Prod declined by User:Carcharoth with rationale left at Talk:Carcharoth#Contesting_proposed_deletion, in essence pointing to mentions of the beast in The Road to Middle-Earth and Tolkien the Medievalist. I can't access the latter (no view on Google Books), but the former seems to mention the beast only in passing, and the beast itself is not subject to analysis. If it is compared to Mabinogion or such in passing, that this may merit a note in those articles, but as I am not seeing as much as a single paragraph about Carcharoth itself, I am nonetheless taking this here. I am prepared to withdraw this IF evidence is shown (preferably in form of quotations) that this beast itself received more than a mention in passing. PS. I accessed Tolkien the Medievalist. (thanks to Library Genesis) and it is also a mention in passing, an off-hand comparison. I am sorry, but I don't think two passing mentions in scholarly work (maybe 1-2 sentences long in each work) amount to GNG requirement of 'significant' coverage and analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not featured in Tolkien's major works.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Silmarillion is a major work. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. The Silmarillion was never even brought to publication by Tolkien, and was throughly panned by the critics. It is an unreadable work in which stick figures get up and run around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, your feelings on the matter are clear, but there is no need to be rude and insulting. Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ah, the "Red Maw" – a fitting name for an ever-hungry beast. This subject has an entry in Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia and so its encyclopedic nature is clear. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how much effort has gone into the study of Tolkien's legendarium, I'd be fairly surprised if this character wasn't notable; but if, indeed, it's correct that there aren't independent sources, then the correct outcome would be to redirect to Silmarils where the character is briefly discussed. I can't see any policy basis for a "delete" outcome.—S Marshall T/C 11:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia is not the measure of notability. The fact that the photo here has nothing to do with Carcharoth is a clear sign of a lack of notability. Passing mentions in broad ranging works are not enough to justify an article on a fictional character. Carcharoth lacks the indepth secondary analysis we need to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Silmarils#Fictional history There is not enough in-depth material to justify a separate article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If delete, then do at least keep the content with appropriate redirection, disambiguation or the like as suggested in the guidelines. The point of keeping or not, is not treating the guidelines according to arbitrary interpretation or personal critical standards, but serving the reader. Nor is the question of comparison with other bodies of legend relevant, such as the Fenris story. A reader wanting to know who or what Carcharoth was or why interesting or not (which was why I looked it up in the first place) is not best served by being left in doubt as to its source and significance. Nor is the article is large enough to justify its deletion on the grounds of economy. And if the idea is to scale the rank of the entry according to its perceived notability, then that becomes a false economy, because a redirection to a section of article in a larger article is no less obtrusive than a linked article, and less helpful to the reader. The fact that it is a minor character, rarely referred to, is not relevant. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such minor characters in other bodies of legend and fiction, that appear in references and reference works, with little more detail than "son of X" or "slayer of Y" or the like; they in particular can otherwise cost the user great effort to find and comprehend in context. Compare the current entry for Ancalagon the Black. Tucking it away under named dragons is no service; it would be better in its own small article, with a link from that article. Deletion of such entries is not and cannot in good sense or good faith be the default option. The only basis for their exclusion could be false or inaccurate content, not paucity of reference. JonRichfield (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Fails WP:GNG. There is no duty to cover every single minor character in every series. There are fan wikis out there for people to find such information. TTN (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - copying over here the bits of my talk page comment that Piotrus did not mention:
I would hope that any useful content would be merged elsewhere. There is still the potential to use academic sources in many of the Tolkien in-universe articles, with lots of books on the topic and 15 years and counting of articles in the journal Tolkien Studies (among others). It is not easy to do, and getting the balance right between summary style and detail is not easy, but I would hope that deletions would not preclude future work on these topics.
It may be easier to organise the content in a different way, certainly a less 'in-universe' style, but there are academic sources out there (e.g. The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion & Guide and The Mirror Crack'd: Fear and Horror in JRR Tolkien's Major Works, with a wider mention of Tolkien's wolves in The History of the Hobbit). The best way to treat the material that concerns Carcharoth would probably be to expand the relevant elements of the article Beren and Lúthien, so I will formally suggest a redirect there. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beren and Lúthien. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Nerd-lore, this is minor, trivial stuff one would find on a Wikia page. ValarianB (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's argument is thoroughly misinformed; for example, the mistitled "Tolkien Encyclopedia" is not an encycopedia at all, but a collection of critical essays arranged alphabetically, with no pretense beyond the title of encyclopedic intent. More important, the volume does provide critical commentary on the Carcharoth character, with one essayist tracing roots of the character to Dante, a second noting parallels to Eddic legends and the Fenris Wolf. Another source notes the similarities between Tolkien's presentation of Carcharoth as a companion to Morgoth to imagery of Odin's wolves Geri and Freki. There is an extensive body of substantive Tolkien criticism out there, both descriptive and analytic; Carcharoth alone shows more than one hundred GScholar hits, and a significantly larger number of GBooks hits, both incomplete measures. The development of the character is addressed at some length in both Tolkien fils's History of Middle Esrth and related works as well as Ratliff's history of The Hobbit. We may have a claque of editors here who are hostile to coverage of fiction and routinely dismiss the many available sources out of hand, but such opinions, not only ungrounded in but defiant of our actual deletion policy, should carry little or no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 15:37, 7 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 merge to The Mountain Wreath. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Extermination of the Turks (1702)[edit]

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

This article purports to cover an alleged 300-year-old massacre that is the subject of the Montenegrin prince-bishop and poet Peter II's epic poem The Mountain Wreath.

It is widely believed that tales of such a massacre are apocryphal, as several of the sources used in the article point out. The various folkloric sources can't even agree on whether the alleged event took place in the 1690s, 1702, 1704 or 1707 (see Srdja Pavlovic, Balkan Anschluss (2008), p. 8

I would normally have requested that this be turned into a redirect to The Mountain Wreath, but The Extermination of the Turks (1702) is not a WP:COMMONNAME, so there isn't much sense in that. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also taken these points into consideration, which is why I chose to include many varying sources. There is a possibility the event never happened, but as you mention, it is maybe only poetical in its sense. However, the event has been referred to and used for various nationalistic rationals. I don't know, but I am open to suggestions. Thank you for this commentary. --Albert Falk (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for taking the time to write the article, regardless. Given the ambiguity, I think it would be best to summarize this in the Background section of The Mountain Wreath. Since the current title is descriptive and not a WP:COMMONNAME, a redirect wouldn't make much sense. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Mountain Wreath. This translates the term as "inquisition of the Turkicised", certainly converts to Islam, but not necessarily Albanians. It is not clear when this happened, but it may have been localised to one clan, rather than general, if it happened. The present title with its precise date cannot be kept, so that perhaps the usual; redirect should not be left, or it should be used for a dabpage. Having looked at both articles, I consider that there is some material to merge, probably making a new section out of a paragraph of the target's theme section. The event recorded purports to be only one generation before the epic poem was written, so that I would have thought this was probably recording an actual event. I will add that the Turks were brutal in their repression of rebellious minorities, so that the converse should not be surprising. It is easy to be critical of such events in our modern liberal peaceful world. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points, Peterkingiron. Would you agree with a proposal to merge and delete? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep There are 20 sources currently cited in the article. Unless the article fails WP:GNG editors should be asked to use the talk page to resolve their content disputes like everyone else. Dartslilly (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Srnec this name is not used by the cited sources. I don't see it used anywhere else either. The sourced content can be merged into the existing article per Peterkingiron which should be discussed on the article talk page if there is controversy. Dartslilly (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dartslilly, this isn't a content dispute. The reason this article was nominated for deletion is because it is a WP:CFORK of The Mountain Wreath. Furthermore, just because an article has references from reliable sources doesn't exempt it from deletion or deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Peterkingiron. In any case, the title is certainly bad. The Turks were not exterminated in 1702 or any other year. Srnec (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title does not state that all Turks were exterminated. It is an English translation of the alleged event. --Fa alk (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page on The Mountain Wreath is the best place for material spun off by the epic poem.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content based RS sources into the Mountain Wreath article and keep the this pagename as a redirect for that article.Resnjari (talk) 04:24, 7 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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umdhlebi[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant, lasting RS coverage. Topic is based entirely on two accounts from the 1880s, and a WP:BEFORE search did not return any more recent coverage aside from fringe/cryptozoological sources. There is no evidence of significance as a myth or as a potential species. –dlthewave ☎ 19:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC) It looks like the reliable sources have been found, but the article may need to be renamed all together to meet the rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as above – no reliable sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Dartslilly (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment anyone bothering to search alternate spellings? umdhlebe umdlebe. Places that would tend to exclude more unreliable sources? umdlebe umdhlebe umdhlebi. How about looking for Dead-man's Tree? "Synadenium cupulare" umdlebe "Euphorbia cupularis" umdlebe?—eric 14:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Tropp, Jacob (2003). "The Python and the Crying Tree". The International Journal of African Historical Studies. 36 (3): 511–532. is probably the best bet for working out the scope and name of the article.—eric 14:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:TNT~~ multiple topics associated with umdlebe
1. Dead Man's Tree, synadenium cupulare, shaka dingane "umdlebe" "ezinye ziyofa umdlebe"
2. Henry Callaway's account
3. Crying Tree, Nome, possibly Chionanthus foveolatus or Chionanthus peglerae, Nocu forest near Mthatha, umdlebe nome near as i can tell only from Tropp
- Tropp connects all three, all are connected by zulu word umdlebe, common names "Dead Man's Tree" AND "Crying Tree" connected. Topic should be Dead Man's Tree with redirects from Umdhlebi, Umdlebe, synadenium cupulare et al. Probably can mention Callaway and other uses of umdlebe in the article, but that shouldn't be the primary topic.—eric 17:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per suggestions by eric. BD2412 T 19:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Euphorbia cupularis (most of the Euphorbia are under the binomial name unless well known like Poinsettia). Made some edits.—eric 03:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, as above; discussions on that can continue on talk page. Inherently notable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Seems moderately notable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Seems to be well sourced.--Auric talk 16:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is really a traditional name for an actual species, it should probably be a merge/redirect to the species's page (or renamed to reflect it, with redirects created for other common names)... —Paleo Neonate – 06:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve/expand. = paul2520 (talk) 04:39, 5 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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Anderson[edit]

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

The last Dredd character besides Dredd himself that didn't get AfD. Can she survive? Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Anderson isn't just a supporting character in Judge Dredd but a lead character in her own right for over 30 years (see bibliography in the article). Most of the nomination is criticism of the article content rather than about notability, so it's not relevant; see Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability. (Also, "Can she survive?" doesn't exactly imply good faith.) Richard75 (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the 'Keep: And I support bringing back Judge Death's article. What's next, merging Red Skull's page? 65.242.71.244 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Richard75. Iconic character, starring in her own strips, and the main character in several novels. Certainly meets notability guidelines. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and refocus into an article about the Anderson subfranchise. Yes, the Bibliography section is horrible, and en.wiki doesn't need to list her every appearance in the JD universe. But there is also the "Collected editions" section with Judge Anderson, Anderson: Psi Division and Anderson: Psi. If cut down to 5-10 paragraphs, this article might be half-decent. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major character in pretty much every story involving the Dark Judges but remove the ridiculously long appearances section. Also, I agree that "Can she survive?" doesn't exactly imply good faith. It sounds like the article was nominated for deletion for the sake of deletion. JIP | Talk 10:38, 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 merge to List of Greyhawk deities. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 22:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Telchur[edit]

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

Yet another fictional character (deity) from DnD that fails GNG/NFICTION. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are nothing but primary sources being used in the article, and searching for any additional reliable, secondary sources turns up nothing. Completely fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 3 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acolytes (comics)[edit]

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

Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG/NFICTION. PRIMARY sources only. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Magneto (Marvel Comics). BOZ (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks the secondary sources neccesary to show cultural impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 12:01, 7 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeepMap[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The parts of the article which are specific to the company fail the WP:RS, WP:IS & WP:SIGCOV requirements, detailing at best the various funding rounds. The section about HD mapping needed for self-drive cars is an interesting idea for an article, but this profile of a start-up isn't it. Cabayi (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - promotional article about an unremarkable startup. I wouldn't be surprised if this was undisclosed paid-for spam, so I've blocked the creator for WP:UPE. MER-C 16:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just a quick quick keep vote until I get a chance to get back to my computer and add some more info from other sources. For the closer - this article has been completely rewritten since it was created by the blocked editor. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the AFD nomination came after the rewrite. Cabayi (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants to PROD a notable company. We’re weak on autonomous driving info, which is why this got my attention. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I said in the nomination, "The section about HD mapping needed for self-drive cars is an interesting idea for an article, but this profile of a start-up isn't it." Cabayi (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more info and sources to show depth and breadth of coverage, and not just funding news. Of particular interest is the reporting that the company's software is already on the road, distinguishing it from other startups. On a side note, the Financial Times coverage will also be helpful for beefing up the self-driving car article, which was flagged almost two years ago for needing organization cleanup. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs cleanup, but if you cut out the junk news about funding, there are a few features, and a Harvard Business School case study as well.

70.240.207.189 (talk) 18:44, 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! 21:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there is lots of "coverage", none of the articles (which have been published in reliable sources and those publishers are functionally Independent from the company) contain Independent Content. As per WP:ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The articles I have found (including ones in the article and above) rely entirely on information provided by the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this one scrapes through on GNG, and the article has been improved since the original nomination. Bookscale (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Bookscale, can you point to any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability? From WP:ORGIND, articles in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Looking at the sources listed above:
  - This from BizJournals is based entirely on an interview with the COO (a source very much affiliated to the company) and fails WP:ORGIND
  - The VentureBeat article is likewise based on an interview with Wu, the CEO and information provided by the company. Also fails WP:ORGIND.
  - This from Business Insider is a short description of the company in a list of 16 other companies, but contains no in-depth information, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
  - This video clip is provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND.
  - This from Seattle Times relies on an interview with the COO and contains no "Independent Content" (as per WP:ORGIND), fails WP:ORGIND.
  - This case study is difficult to assess but appears to have been done in conjunction with the company itself.
  - This from Venture Beat is a trivial mention of the name of the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  - This from CNBC is a small description in a list of startups, contains no "Independent Content" (fails WP:ORGIND) and has no in-depth information (fails WP:CORPDEPTH).
- All that these articles show is that the company has a functioning marketing department and their executives are doing their jobs by promoting the company by getting noticed, being available for interviews, providing quotes and information packs, etc (the curse of churnalism). There are no analyst reports on the company, no reviews of their software from independent testers and no experts even reviewing their approach to the problem and therefore providing some independent analysis. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - you obviously don't have any experience of how most media works these days, a large amount of media articles are largely based on sources within companies such as press releases and the like. In any case, I don't see how things like an interview with a CEO or a COO disqualify the information from being a reliable source - it's not written or produced by the company, is it, it's done by someone independent to the company? I think you're taking too strict a view about what is a source in order to justify your view that the WP article should be deleted. Only the Business Insider and Venture Beat articles of themselves would not meet the criteria, but there are plenty more there to justify the information presented on the Wikipedia page. Bookscale (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response If you don't understand our guidelines for organizations (WP:NCORP) you should have said. Your description of how the media works, above, is *specifically* the type of article that we have decided does not count towards establishing notability. If you believe my "view" is "too strict", it would be most helpful if you could point out precisely where I have erred. Please see WP:ORGIND in particular which directly addresses the points you've made, specifically the section "Examples of dependent coverage" which do not count towards notability which states: any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism) and other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself - whether published by itself or reprinted. Also, the definition of "Independent Content" is easy to grasp: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If you could point to any of the sources that contains original/independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation about the company, that would be helpful. I don't believe any exists... HighKing⁺⁺ 11:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I found more DeepMap coverage in the Wall Street Journal, about Chinese Giant AliBaba Group Holdings being one of the owners of the company. DeepMap's co-founder Wu is quoted in the article. [[21]]. It's paywalled but I can email the text to any voters or closers who'd like to review it. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage (same as GNG) with in-depth information on the company (not just a brief description or mention) and (this next bit is really important!) containing "Independent Content". This is where NCORP clarifies what is required for coverage to be deemed "independent of the subject". As defined by WP:ORGIND, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You say that you've found "coverage" in the WSJ but the test isn't mere "coverage" in RS. A non-paywalled copy can be seen here but it is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, the opinion provided in the article about the company (as you've pointed out) is from the company's co-founder and as such is not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, you’re making an incorrect assumption. The Wall Street Journal reporting was about the company’s funding, and they reached out to the CEO for a statement after they had done their research. Every single thing in the article is sourced from independent third-party coverage. This one’s at worst a no consensus, but if you remove the delete vote due to perceived inside editing that was a red herring, yet was surprisingly not struck, it’s more clearly a keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Assuming that the link I attached is the same article, then I wholeheartedly agree that there may be some Incorrect assumptions (but not by me). It would be very misleading to describe the article as being *about* the company's funding - it isn't and not even close. The article has just over 2,000 words and has a headline of Chinese Cash That Powered Silicon Valley Is Suddenly Toxic. The article is about the fact recently and due to a number of factors, many companies in Silicon Valley do not disclose investments from Chinese investors. It starts with one example "Silicon Valley startup Pilot AI Labs Inc" and their investor Digital Horizon Capital. It details lots of research on direct foreign investment from China. It recounts the sentiment from the US Government and the reaction from American VCs. It then provides lots of details on Digital Horizon and their Chinese connections. It mentions another Beijing-based investor, Sinovation Ventures who shut their Palo Alto offices. It includes the position of US policy-makers. We're now over 50% into the long and detailed article and no mention of this company. The article goes on to talk about the FBI's efforts to brief companies on cybersecurity and espionage threats. It includes some information on the effect this is having on various companies such as Baidu Ventures, Fosun International and the venture arm of Alibaba - which is a link to Deepmap. So three quarters of the way into this detailed article, we find our first mention of Deepmap and all it says is that it is reported that the company did not disclose Alibaba as an investor *after* raising funds in 2018. A total of 118 words from a 2,000+ word article which is about 6% of the total number of words. This is simply a mention-in-passing, nothing more. I stand by my earlier analysis that this article does not meet the criteria for establishing notability, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        TimTempleton is exactly right. HighKing, you're taking an incorrect approach about this article - it is notable and the sources are (overall) reliable and independent. Bookscale (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        None of what you've said makes any sense especially if you don't take the time to provide detail. Sources cannot be looked at "overall", they can only be looked at individually. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for finding a non-paywalled source. I never meant to imply that the Journal article was ONLY about DeepMap, because it is part of the overall reporting about foreign funding. I offered to send the text to anyone interested. It is notable to be included in the reporting - after all, there are a lot of companies not mentioned in the Journal's article. Since the Journal is independent journalism, and everyone can read the text of the business article now, it's not hard to conclude that it's misleading to say that the Journal's coverage is just an opinion. But there's enough coverage without it to satisfy all but the harshest deletionists, and I see excessive funding news increasingly being used to attack notability, which is why I didn't bother adding it. The closer can decide where things stand. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:19, 6 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. Tone 11:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliusz Brzezinski[edit]

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

Serious concerns regarding WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. GScholar citation index and related (h, i) are rather low. No awards, no media coverage. Prod declined by creator, User:Biografer, with "Meets WP:PROF per highest rank, which is Professor Emeritus." but I am afraid professor emeritus does not meet WP:PROF#8 (The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.) since the title is in general not really the highest-level, it's just a nice honorific for retired faculty. This can very a bit based on country, but there is no evidence in that article (nor in our rather poor and unreferenced description of the term) to suggest that in Sweden it is indeed "the highest level". Anyway, for highest level this bio needs info on awards, achievements and such, and I am not seeing it, plus another red flag is no sv wiki interwiki link. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly sourced GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not all professors holding PhDs are notable, and any higher level of inclusion criteria would exclude Brzezinski.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mathematics is a low-citation field, but even so we need evidence of impact to give notability through WP:PROF#C1. His Google Scholar profile [22] appears to mix his citations with a similarly-named chemist but with or without the chemistry it's not really highly enough cited to convince. He certainly does not meet #C6, which is reserved for the heads of entire universities. He has a new textbook "Galois Theory Through Exercises" with one review on MAA [23] and one non-review (just a copy-and-past of the publisher blurb) on Mathematical Reviews; that's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. As Piotrus already stated, "emeritus" is usually just a fancy way of writing "retired". So he seems to be the epitome of an average full professor, one who does not stand out in the way that our academic notability criteria seek. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein: When writing this article, I too was baffled by that there are no reliable sources. I didn't wrote the article because he have a PhD, that I know, doesn't establish notability. The "emeritus professor" was the reason for the write up. I don't agree with the statement that ""emeritus" is usually just a fancy way of writing "retired"". Some professors remain at the faculty and aren't leaving until that retirement comes, yet, their title is still "emeritus".--Biografer (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Typically emeritus (retired) professors can be recalled for light teaching duty and can continue to pursue their research. An example from the same institution as Brzezinski [24]: "retired from his chair in 2013 and is now Professor Emeritus at Chalmers pursuing his research interests and teaching". In some places it means merely "retired in good standing" while in others it means "retired but on recall"; the distinction is unimportant for this case. I see nothing at the linked page for Brzezinski at Chalmers or elsewhere on Chalmers' web sites to indicate that their use of this term is in any way unusual. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per solid cases above. He's in a lower-citation subfield of a low-citation field, but citations are still too light. Comment that "emeritus" usually means slightly more than just retired, more like "respected retired". (But it certainly doesn't contribute to meeting WP:NPROF.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources.-Splinemath (talk) 23:45, 5 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 redirect to Dune (franchise)#The Corrino-led Imperium. Or elsewhere as may be appropriate. Sandstein 18:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

House Corrino[edit]

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

Fictional organization. No evidence of notability. BEFORE fails to find any in-depth coverage outside primary sources. Prod declined by anon with no justification. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of Dune Houses for being WP:ALLPLOT, although I assume the merge target wouldn't pass AfD either. The Dune franchise desperately needs a World of Dune article if it wants to make its in-universe topics AfD-safe. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dune (franchise)#The Corrino-led Imperium, which mentions the family in context, and could allow for some added material. @Sgeureka: Every "World of" article I have seen is pretty much an in-universe mess with limited citations beyond primary sources, do you know of any that are decent? Dune (franchise) is by no means complete, but over time I've tried to shape it so that the plot stuff we love is kept trim and protected by sourced real-world material.— TAnthony^Talk 16:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @TAnthony: Mythology of Carnivàle is the best and all I got, and it was deleveloped from the ground up instead of merging cruft-cruft-cruft. However, I see "World of" articles as the gateway to reducing crufty in-universe articles from en.wiki's early days, and not covering important plot elements at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Sorry, I saw your PROD notice was removed and put House Corrino on my to-do list to analyze and boldly redirect, but I never got around to it.— TAnthony^Talk 16:40, 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 Middle-earth#The Second, Third and Fourth Ages. Tone 11:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lonely Mountain[edit]

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

There is really not much that can be said about that mountain except that it features in the story's finale. Which is cool and all that, but in the end, it's a mountain, with a tiny bit of lore/story, but next to no literary analysis/significance/influence/impact/etc. While the Tolkien Encyclopedia does contain an entry on this, it is one of the 'low quality' ones, i.e. it is pure PLOT summary. I read that entry and it contains zero content that is not a plot summary. If the dedicated reference work has nothing to say about this that's not a plot summary, there is little we can do to justify keeping what is, in the end, another example of Tolkien fancruft. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even Jackson's uncontrolled expansion of The Hobbit into a trilogy does not generate enough new material on the Lonely Mountain to have more than a sentance saying it is shown there. Not every fictional place needs an article, and there is no compelling reason to have an article on it here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle-earth#The Second, Third and Fourth Ages Lonely Mountain is only notable from an in-universe perspective. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only other possibility is to redirect to The Hobbit, the only place it has any significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Misty Mountains, Mount Doom and other Mountains from Tolkien's legendarium. There's plenty of space on the server! --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to The Hobbit#Setting. I was expecting to find significant coverage for this locale, but said coverage apparently does exist. The description of the mountain is content lacking in the setting section of the Hobbit article, which mostly just describes the area in terms of Arda. Hog Farm (talk) 04:37, 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. Even if the topic were theoretically notable - and participants here think that the vast majority of the sourcing does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV criteria - this article is unduly promotional and possibly deceptive to stand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BC Biermann[edit]

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

Don't let the extensive blathering and bloated resume fool you, this person is absolutely non-notable. On the "academic" side of things, he teaches an augmented reality class (associate professor) at California Baptist University. He has possibly 2 total articles to his name that I could determine, with a grand total of 6 citations. Now specifically concerning WP:ARTIST: I fail to see how he satisfies any of the criteria, unless of course there are sources available which I did not find. Finally and most importantly, general notability is not satisfied through the list of references in the article, as they are mostly single mentions, or are trivial or otherwise non-independent coverage concerning art shows which he attended usually as part of a group, or promoting other artists. I performed an extensive search for sources outside those provided and could not find any of weight. Again, the two most substantive ones were this one which talks about an app he helped develop (he's mentioned once in passing), and this book that briefly discusses his involvement in an ad campaign within a chapter on marketing. So, in summary, I don't think this CV, however obtuse, would alone justify an article when there is no extensive coverage about the person. PK650 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Note that the article shows signs of autobiography (e.g. "was considered a bright, but unmotivated student"). It's also worthwhile to comment that the originating account has also made edits with appearance of COI at MOMO and Jordan Seiler. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a number of things going on with this article that I find very strange, and indicate of attempts to present a non0-neutral point of view of the subject,. For example: the photo of Biermann is captioned "Venice Biennale 2019" and has the description "BC Biermann at the Venice Biennale circa 2019". To most readers familiar with the art world the Venice Biennale is one of the most important exhibitions of contemporary art and an exhibition in one of the national pavilions is highly indicative of notability. Biermann did not participate in that exhibition. The photo is dated 10 June 2019, during the biennale that ran from May to 24 November 2019. What Biermann participated in was another non-notable exhibition [25] that occurred at the same time, also in Venice. It's not exactly a falsehood to say he was at the biennale, he probably went to see it, but it is highly misleading to suggest he participated. Vexations (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I tagged this for notability while patrolling to see if the author could improve the referencing (as I didn't think it met GNG); however, I realized that the author is a pure WP:SPA who "dropped" this +16,000 character BLP as their first edit on Wikipedia (e.g. this could also be a WP:UPE/WP:SPI issue as well). Britishfinance (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage like this [26] suggests to me that NARTIST may be met, but I agree that this has the hallmarks of promotional editing and would not object to its deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your NARTIST comment above, given that source is actually not indepedent, as it (IEEE) was promoting his participation at the IEEE panel. PK650 (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PK650, I missed that detail, good catch. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and UPE/SPI concerns. Having gone through the refs and google search, there is very little good RS on this subject, and nothing in the way of a quality RS with WP:SIGCOV. Most refs are either not WP quality to assess an artist BLP and/or not independent of the subject (e.g Heavy Projects). I find passing mentions in books on "Augmented Reality Art" like this, and here. Perhaps Augmented reality art will become something and BC Biermann will become more appreciated, however, currently, he is not getting any real coverage in the art world – if the main art magazines/art sections of newspapers don't want to cover him (and have zero SIGCOV on him), why would Wikipedia? Britishfinance (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to L235 who has run the CU on Dp1973 and Relev121. Britishfinance (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Keep per the above, it seems that several are applying more traditional (print) fine art source standards to digital art and seem to miss quite a bit of coverage. We're not sure how the above searches were conducted. Though we could see how this classification could move from "artist" to "technologist". However, Even a quick google search reveals the first 3 pages devoted to the subject specifically in these areas, inc. chapters in AR texts like AR, Art, and Public Space. In Augmented Reality: Innovative Perspectives across Art, Industry, and Academia and appears in several related AR art articles such as https://www.fastcompany.com/1682447/rethinking-public-space-bc-biermann-s-augmented-reality-urban-art. Subject seems synonymous with AR and art and appears to be one of the principle forerunner of augmented reality murals. Subject seems a regular at SIGGRAPH which is the leading event in the field https://s2019.siggraph.org/conference/programs-events/studio/studio-workshops/ and has published in this space https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3214745.3214747. Most refs appear independent of the subject. It appears the 1 rather minor error in thread was resolved (biennale vs. design). To be a bit more accurate from the comment re: venice biennale, venice design is sponsored by biennale and runs concurrently with it. VXDLAB site shows teaching 5 courses (not 2 as incorrectly mentioned above) (vfx, 3d, ar, vr, ui ux). Best to properly vet commentary before posting as some of the above seems a bit non-neutral and appears to rely to heavily on thinly conducted research. As such, we suggest a more constructive approach and appropriately fixing any remaining items in the article.

venice design is sponsored by biennale and runs concurrently with it Nonsense. The list of sponsors is here:[27]. I'm fed up with the deception. The main contributors to this article are not editing in good faith. Delete. Vexations (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brief analysis of the sources. There are a few that may be secondary, independent and reliable. The majority of sources however is by Biermann himself.
- [28] 2013-05-03 Susan Karlin for Fastcompany seems independent, generally reliable.
- [29] 2013-03-01 same author (Susan Karlin) as fastcompany
- [30] e-book published by Syngress, imprint of Elsevier. Wassom refers to his blog, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20120203084511/http://www.wassom.com/interview-bc-heavy-biermann-taking-back-public-spaces-with-ar.html which has virtually identical text.
- [31] Biermann's PhD thesis
- [32] Discussion with Biermann
- [33] looks like a rewritten press release, only mentions Biermann as a participant
- [34] blog, dead link (archived at [35])
- [36] Biermann talking
- [37] discussion with Biermann
- [38] slideshow by Biermann
- [39] video by Biermann
- [40] Emily Long for the Lamp is a media-literacy org. Possibly a reliable secondary source.
- [41] Kate McGee for NPR, likely independent, reliable
- [42] Biermann's own website
- [43] video by WorkLearnMobile
- [44] video by Biermann
- [45] website by Biermann
- [46] website by Biermann
- [47] article by Biermann
- [48] press release by Biermann
- [49] talk by Biermann
- [50] autobiography by Biermann
- [51] festival website; briefly mentions Biermann
- [52] employee page with (auto?)biography
- [53] by Biermann
- [54] mentioned as member of committee
- [55] mentioned as speaker
- [56] interview with Biermann
It may be possible to create a stub-like article from the few usable sources identified above, but it would be a very different article than the CV we have now. I still support deleting this version (and banning the sockpuppets of the UPE). Vexations (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, none of the above give a single piece of WP:SIGCOV from a quality independent WP:RS. To have a BLP, we must have at least one decent independent RS doing a piece in which he is the main subject. We don't have this. Britishfinance (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per all of the rationale above. Netherzone (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NotButtigieg (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:19, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Falaque Rashid Roy[edit]

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

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even just from looking at the filmography listed here you can tell that WP:NACTOR is not met. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete: subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources thus failing general notability criteria, subject also fails notability criteria for actors. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: seems to have had a significant role in one film, but nothing more. While the actress may become more notable in the future, at the moment I don't think she passes WP:NACTOR yet. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:47, 6 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. Tone 11:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sumika Boyrachasya[edit]

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

Most of what little coverage there is, is largely about Kumari (goddess), with little attention given to who the person taking the role is. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Any novel case for inherent notability as a godperson (not yet in our guidelines), I considered and rejected. There isn't just one Kumari. Every Newar community can have one, many in fact do, making them number several at a time, reigning as little as four years. Royal Kumari as apparently the most important Kumari, gets a recurrent discussion in the Kumari main article. Whatever the fact behind that may be, the subject isn't one, anyway. These appear to be just children who take a role for a few years and then go back to their normal lives- normal schools, normal jobs. And the subject has also done just that. In short, fails GNG, isn't covered by any SNG, and there isn't a good reason to consider adding a new SNG. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a mess waiting to happen if we allow it to stay. Although I am tempted to compare this role to that of beauty queens, who are maybe worse because they only hold the title for one year, if that. I once thought every state beauty queen was notable, I since came to see them as not, and probably nominated over a hundred such articles for deletion. However we still have a lot of hold outs in there from the old days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 4 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Vista Estates III, Arizona[edit]

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

Not only is this just a subdivision, it's the third phase of a subdivision. Fails WP:GNG (had to drop the III to discover Desert Vista Estates is just a subdivision) and WP:GEOLAND, and only sourced to the GNIS database (and a census data aggregator which uses the GNIS database), which is accurate for the names of places but not for whether a place satisfies our notability reqirements. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an advert but we could possibly redirect it to the neighborhood or place it's located in.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Tucson, Arizona#Southern Tucson but it seems so insignificant in that context a mention there doesn't seem appropriate.----Pontificalibus 08:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subdivisions are almost never notable, unless they morph into being a true neighborhood.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another subdivision that would need to meet GNG pre GEOLAND#2. Another entry in GNIS that is sourced only to the ephemeral "Living: the Phoenix Housing Guide V. 6 #1. Dallas, Texas: Baker Publish Inc., 1983/1984." MB 16:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Time for another mass AFD... GEOLAND explicitly says that subdivisions are not notable without substantive sources, and none exist. Mass-production of non-notable permastubs was malformed. No redirect. Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subdivisions are not notable without SIGCOV. Lightburst (talk) 05:38, 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. Tone 11:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Mahon (percussionist)[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician Dawnseeker2000 07:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dawnseeker2000 07:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable backing musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 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.

No need to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:71A:ECF:E16A:2D7B:6D08:CFF1 (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpendra Kulshrestha[edit]

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

I did not find anything noteworthy about this journalist. There is already a declined draft here Draft:Pushpendra_Kulshrestha. The article was previously created by blocked sock which gives me the impression of undisclosed paid editing. Jikaoli Kol (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as reviewer of the declined draft. Note that there was also a previous version of this article that was deleted under BLPPROD; this version is referenced, but also has a history of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article is kept, the draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, the closer should decide what to do with the draft. I recommend that the draft also be deleted because they are the work of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 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 keep. Although the 7 days have not completely passed yet, I see no reason to drag this out as consensus is overly clear and the nom has been blocked as a CU-confirmed sock. Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avijit Roy[edit]

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

Non-notable as single article per WP:AUTHOR. The article was created after the person's death; the person is like Faisal Abedin Deepan, whose article has been merged with Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. The other reasons that indicate that why this person is not notable like Faisal Abedin Deepan are (according to Wikipedia's WP:AUTHOR policies):

The person is not regarded as an important figure or not widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

The person has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has not been nominated for such an award several times.

The person has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.

The person has not an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

Overall this article is notable for only one event (the person's death as he was attacked by Islamic extremists) that's why it should be merged to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. Tayger Paydesh (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Nomination made by CU-confirmed sockpuppet. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.159.83 (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.-Nahal^(T) 16:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Author-related deletion discussions.-Nahal^(T) 16:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject wrote several well-regarded books in his topic area and founded a well-known website that has its own article. His murder was the first of a wave of murders, some of the other victims were targeted solely for their association with Roy. Question to nominator: do you have another account on Wikipedia? Why is it this AFD is the very first thing you've ever done? Excuse me for saying, but I find that highly unusual. Most users start with simple edits and work up to things like AFDs. --Krelnik (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Krelnik:, Did the person write any single notable book? If any, then please give reference and explain with details. Tayger Paydesh (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)~~ Sock comment struck. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Article. This person was killed for his recognition as an atheist, atheism can't make a person famous; the person made a website which still exists and run by his wife. The person wrote ten books and none of them earned any recognition in readers-world; the person's books are available in goodreads also, but goodreads can't give a book author that recognition which is given by literary-critics. Avijit Roy was a blogger, he is recognized for his blog writings and Facebook status, his writings were against Islam which is the major religion in Bangladesh, Bangladesh government and general mass didn’t give any official recognition to this person that he was a well book author. He worked in US, he had money to have his written books published and also he had his books in book fair stalls, these things didn't make him famous and Wikipedia can't have a separate article for him as a policy of WP:AUTHOR. Merge with Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh where other bloggers like this person have been mentioned, some of them have separate aeticles before which are now merged with edited versions, one example is Washiqur Rahman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.138 (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. i don't find any reason deletion or marge, the article itself notables sourced. he is singularly a game as a notable person. almost this article has many reliable source, Pass WP:GNG. This article should not delete.-Nahal^(T)

@NahalAhmed:, The person was crime victim, Wikipedia can't have articles for all crime victims; there have been so rape victim women in Bangladesh, Wikipedia doesn't have articles for them; Avijit Roy is notable for his death as he was attacked Islamist terrorists, he is not notable for atheism or book-writing, atheism can't be an excuse for an Wikipedia article, Avijit Roy's blogging Website (Mukto-Mona) don't have article in this Wikpedia, Roy's wife's article Rafida Ahmed Banya exists (She is a living person, see WP:CRIME).

Please give strong logic on behalf of this person that why should this person's article should not be merged with Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh; Washiqur Rahman Babu's article has been merged because the person was not notable for his writings; If Avijit Roy was notable then please provide English language reference (reliable and strong) of his notable books.

Please mention one thing poet and novelist Humayun Azad was notable and his daughter writes books (see here), it doesn't mean that his daughter's article in this Wikipedia will be created. Avijit Roy's article should be merged with Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh; Roy was not like Taslima Nasreen or Humayun Azad, his recognition was just an 'atheist blogger'. If you want have Roy's article to be stayed please say something strong, Wikipedia in other languages possess Roy's article but that doesn't make him famous. Sock !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced with extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources. These cover multiple events in the subject's life, and therefore WP:BLP1E, WP:VICTIM and WP:NAUTHOR are not applicable. He clearly passes the bar for notability. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The subject is notable but not that kind of notable and famous that his article should be separately stayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.159.111 (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Sock !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washiqur Rahman (2nd nomination) and [57]], similar person like this person, whose articles have been merged after deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.159.23 (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Sock !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh, the person had been noted for being attacked only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.159.24 (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Sock !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... WP:SNOWBALL.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:59, 7 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. – bradv🍁 06:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titular line[edit]

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

This was PRODded but then I noticed that I PRODded it in 2009 and that was undone, so we can't PROD it again. My original PROD rational was based on WP:NOTDICDEF. The rationale this time, by User:JasonAQuest, was "It's barely a dictionary item, for a little-used phrase, and has attracted no development since it was created over a decade ago. (This deletion rationale is already longer than the content of the article.)" I supplemented that (before I noticed the repeat PROD) with "Frankly, as given here, the article is WP:OR. The one source given only uses the term, it doesn't explain it. The presentation here is essentially "I saw this term somewhere and, based on its use in that context, here's what I deduce and generalize its meaning to be." Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I'd argue that the previous PROD means it shouldn't need a repeat PROD: it should just be deleted. The only "reason" (frankly, a lapse of reason) it wasn't deleted before was that Wiktionary wouldn't take it, which simply means it doesn't belong in either place. 10 years ago a drive-by editor dropped a turd here, and Wikipedia has been occasionally polishing it ever since. Just flush. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't qualify under any of the criteria for speedy deletion, and PRODding just doesn't work like that. See WP:PROD. Largoplazo (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If your point is that the process is clearly broken in this case, I agree. Keeping an article that no one argued should be kept, simply because no one else wanted it, demonstrates a bug in that process. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point was to explain the way it actually works and to distinguish it from the way you seemed to be saying it works, the way you believe it should work. If you want to discuss changing the way it works, it will serve no purpose to discuss it here. You'd have to do that at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:OR, and the turd stuff. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's barely even a thing that qualifies as a dictionary term. The previous voter cites WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:OR correctly, and one would be hard pressed to find evidence that writers, critics, or other experts even use the term at all, beyond passive mentions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:08, 5 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. – bradv🍁 06:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Haase[edit]

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

So, she was a late-round (in final 30) contestant in Deutschland sucht den Superstar (season 11), Jan-May 2014, and was in "GirlBand" which broke up after the release of its first single, and has been a contestant in a couple of other things. All non-notable. At Deutschland sucht den Superstar (season 11), she has zero prose written about her.

As detailed in the article, she continues to try to achieve entertainment success, without great success.

Her native language Wikipedia article was deleted Jun 18 2018 as not notable.

6:30 a.m., Jun 18, 2018 Gripweed Discussion posts deleted pageMelody Haase (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/11._Juni_2018#Melody_Haase_(gel%C3%B6scht))

This article is WP:Reference bombed with 18 references, mostly in German and difficult to review, but are either promotion or mere mentions at the top of the list, moving into tabloid reality show live coverage in the reference padding.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I came across this article in the copy edit list a while ago, and fixed it up as much as I could. I added a notability template at the time, as well as the BLP sources template. Most sources are tabloids, and in my opinion none really count towards WP:SIGCOV. No real claim to notability under WP:ENTERTAINER. Achaea (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her article was deleted on de.wiki because "do listings of irrelevance make someone relevant?", with AfD commentators describing her an "irrelevant scandal noodle" and "as relevant as Page 3 girls". – sgeureka ^t•c 23:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linda A. Mason[edit]

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

This individual is not notable by stretch per WP:ANYBIO. KidAd (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 00:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 00:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 00:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yale thinks she is notable. Non-trivial biography in the Boston Globe. She is quote in the book Giving Back: Connecting You, Business, and Community, Cape Gazette Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I cleaned up article and reorganized it a little so it reads less like an advertorial and added a book review by Publishers Weekly with ref. Subject has vast background with nonprofits and co-runs a global business, and authored a book released by a traditional publishing house with wide coverage. Passes WP:BIO and easily meets WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the above two !votes have got it right. XOR'easter (talk) 01:00, 6 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 no consensus. Considering the manner in which the first AfD went. I have no other reason, but to close this second nomination as no consensus. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyan Silks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advert article. Kutyava (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable company and satisfy WP:CORP and WP:GNG. But, the article definitely needs a rewrite and references need to be added which are available on the web. Should be tagged instead. 2409:4073:2012:E927:9DCB:43D3:32BA:78BC (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, do we really need an article on Kalyan Silks, and Kalyan Group, and Kalyan Jewellers, and Kalyan Developers, and T. S. Kalyanaraman? A selective "merge" of all these may be in order? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Binaris[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. References provided shows appearing on different lists but she is never discussed with in-depth. She appears to also to be rich. But wealth doesn’t translate to notability. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Speedy keep: This is ridiculous beyond plausability. Can you not read or can you not comprehend? I’m convinced you people stalk the new page log just to find women to delete for no valid reason. Does the Sunday Times of South Africa not go “in-depth” about her career origins and achievements at over 500 words? Is Glamour magazine all of a sudden not a major fashion publication? That which has not only asserted facts about her life but career achievements? There are also sources out there in such as Cosmopolian. Is Independent Online now not a reliable source of South African affairs that they could even report on career and financial stati of their residents? If this is “failure” of general notability, or at the very least NMODEL (a subject you clearly have no understanding of whatsoever), then you really need to reevaluate. Trillfendi (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi To imply that your co-editors who are hard working are sexist or “cannot read and comprehend” is a stone throw away from constituting a personal attack if not already one. But in the end learn to be WP:CIVIL to your co-editors. Furthermore i’m a female editor by the way but I’d never allow emotions overrule WP:COMMONSENSE i always endeavor to leave my emotions in the “emotions jar” before editing on here. Cheers dear colleague.Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows it’s common knowledge that Wikipedia has a bias against women. I leave civility at the door of righteous indignation. You can’t sit here and say you actually read the sources, all of which given came to one consensus that her career has been doing very well so far internationally and locally, and say that there isn’t a reading comprehension issue here. Otherwise you would have left this perfectly fine article alone instead of wasting time. Period. Trillfendi (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from such chracter assasinations and baseless accusations against fellow editors. The fact that some of us do not want Wikipedia to be more overwhelmed with articles on non-notable individuals should not be used to engage in acts of hate speech as you are doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I said what I said. No other reason besides unconscious bias that this article, which has no issue of independent reliable sourcing or notability, would be proposed for faulty deletion just because they don't like it. Now if they couldn't see or understand said sources then this isn't the place for it either. Trillfendi (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:MODEL and there is significant coverage in reliable sources. This article was nominated for deletion after it was live for just over an hour. It seems that a thorough WP:BEFORE may not have been done before the nom. Netherzone (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When we are turning to primary sources like complete listings of graduates to esdtablish an article we are building the wrong way. Wikipedia is not the place to present and make people notable, it is meant to only cover those with significant 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: MULTIPLE reliable sources in the article already established that she graduated from the University of Cape Town before her career. That one sentence only used the public document listing of graduates to specify in itself what class she graduated in! Trillfendi (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. This person is not notable enough yet. Give it time. - Darwinek (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm let’s see...

Cosmopolitan: We’re looking at you, Alex Binaris. Having walked the runway for many renowned fashion houses including Chanel, Elie Saab and Louis Vuitton, not to mention being featured in the pages of British Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar, Binaris is a bona-fide supermodel who we can’t get enough of.

Sunday Times: Her leap into the big league is impressive for someone her age, 21.... Locally, Binaris has worked on several editorial shoots including Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan and Glamour, and has graced the cover of Wanted and Pudeur magazines. Internationally she has shot a Louis Vuitton fashion spread for Elle Japan, worked with French photographer Vincent Fournier for a shoot published in Harper's Bazaar US and featured in Teen Vogue.

Glamour: Alexandra Binaris, hotly tipped to become one of the most notable names in fashion – and quite rightly so. Within a day of signing with Boss Models, Alex was introduced to the head scout of Elite Paris, who immediately snapped her up for their prestigious Europe modelling group. Despite only having modelled for a short time, Alex has walked the runways for some of the finest fashion houses in the world, from Louis Vuitton and Chanel to Jean Paul Gaultier. And as if that wasn’t enough, she’s also been featured in top style magazines like GLAMOUR magazine.

Now that’s not notable for a model? And the sources are entirely about her, hence significant coverage? Pray tell. What “time” is needed for something she has already expressly done? This is the disarming lack of understanding I’m talking about. Beyond belief. Trillfendi (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that she meets WP:NMODEL, with "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The Sunday Times article is significant coverage; Wanted and Glamour South Africa both have two informative paras. I have added a bit of information from the sources to the article. It sounds like the article creator has more sources, as Cosmopolitan, mentioned above, is not yet included. As it was nominated for deletion just one hour after being created, they may not have had time yet. Per WP:ATD, it could have been tagged for notability before being brought to AfD, thus allowing the creator, and other editors, more time to develop it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft to allow time for improvement by those editors who believe that the article can be improved, so as to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 19:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I’ll admit I don’t fully understand the rationale being put forward for deletion here. This person is clearly notable, with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. She passed the general notability guideline as well as the standards specifically for models. Could the article be better? Sure, but AFD isn’t meant to be used to highlight criticism of prose. The suggestion to move this to draft is well meaning but IMHO unnecessary in this case — the article sufficiently demonstrated the subject’s notability as written and can be improved from in article space. Michepman (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MODEL because of significant media coverage Cheeburger (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trillfendi. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:05, 5 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. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elladan and Elrohir[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional characters. Only meaningfully discussed in [58], all other references in reliable secondary sources appear to be referencing that first article and do not provide additional coverage. Article also contains some possible OR problems, as there is an entire section speculating on what the names could mean, which is unsourced. The rest of the article is all plot. The one substantial source is not enough to demonstrate SIGCOV. Hog Farm (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my prod: ": Two fictional characters that couldn't even justify separate articles at the height of Tolkien fancruft creationism, apparently. Fail WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are background, minor characters and have not received enough secondary coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elrond#Lord of Rivendell These characters are a very minor part of The Lord of the Rings ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They just go along for the ride in LOTR and don't even show up in the films. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not showing up in the films is not relevant, but just coming along for the ride is a key to them not being important. Arwen might not even make it to notability on the book, the films give her an expanded role, even if they cut out her making Aragorn's banner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Tolkiencruft. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 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. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idril[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Has some mentions in scholarly works, but only mentions in passing and name drops. Hog Farm (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not the secondary sourcing needed to justify this article. I am almost seeing the light at the end of the tunnel of the unreasonable number of Silmarillion articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Half-elf#Half-elven There is only one in-depth article that discusses this subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:43, 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. – bradv🍁 06:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TopGun Designation[edit]

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

Promotional article for what seems to be a non-notable award given to CEOs and CFOs. Most of the incoming links seem to have been added by the article creator years ago. Raymie (t • c) 00:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 00:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 00:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Article is almost entirely promotional, no reliable significant coverage to be found. No article for Brendan Wood International to redirect/merge to. MarginalCost (talk) 03:11, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Dab page written to include new valid entries, hat tip to User:Boleyn. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hareth[edit]

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

Dab page with only one working link. Hog Farm (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's one working link was irrelevant - no mention of 'Hareth' on the page so I will remove it. However, it is a given name - please see changes, Hog Farm. Someone more familiar with Arabic may know if it's worth considering a merge to Harith. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:55, 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. – bradv🍁 06:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shey Rivera Ríos[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage in independent, secondary sources, does not meet WP:GNG. There's some decent independent coverage in the introduction of this piece, but I wasn't able to find anything else. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You beat me to nomination by a matter of seconds! I only found 4 sources about her: two are trivial event listings, one is a poem she submitted to a Jamaican newspaper, and the last one is the hyperallergic piece, styled largely as an interview. I am unaware if that publication is considered reliable in the art world, but as far as I'm concerned she absolutely fails GNG. Unless more coverage such as the hyperallergic piece is shown, she fails WP:ARTIST as well. PK650 (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the coverage is basically bios and announcements by organizations where they have worked or will work. There is an absence of independent coverage here. (For example, the Hyperallergenic review is about a show at the place where they used to be the director, so one can wonder about how independent that is.) The art career aspect is very meagre.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a product of a Brown University course. If the creator is reading this, it was good editing but the notability isn't there. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/send to Drafts: I worked with the students who wrote this article. The article is just building, and I let them know that the sources were not at the level needed for Wikipedia.

Rivera's work and art are notable in Rhode Island and national contexts:

Rivera served as the second artistic director of AS220, one of the most important art organizations in Rhode Island and New England, and made important decisions during their tenure that determined the direction of the organization, most notably the deeper representation of Rhode Island's Latinx and LGBTQ communities in the organization;

They are a finalist for one Rhode Island's most prestigious fellowships, the McColl Johnson Fellowships

They were a speaker at TedxProvidence.

They were the keynote speaker at the National Association for Latino Arts and Culture's Regional Arts Training Workshop

They are a public humanities fellow at the John Nicolas Brown Center For The Public Humanities, and an visiting artist at the Rhode Island School of Design's Art Museum

Their work related to Puerto Rico earned a mention in journalist Ed Morales' history of Puerto Rico Fantasy Island:Colonialism, Exploitation and the Betrayl of Puerto Rico.

They are one of Providence Monthly's 10 to Watch.

I think part of the issue may be their name. Rivera has been referred to as Shey Rivera Rios, Shey Rivera, and Sheyla Rivera at different times in their life. Here's a quick bibliography of sources I've found; unfortunately many secondary sources in this region of the US (Providence Journal, Boston Globe) are behind paywalls, making it even more difficult to find quick, Google-able proof of notability.

Siclen, Bill (18 October 2015). "AS220: Alive and still kicking at 30 - Providence-based arts and performance center making new plans for the future as it celebrates a milestone". Providence Journal. p. 1. Retrieved 31 December 2019.

"Pawtucket's Arnold wins prize to write for one year". The Times (Pawtucket, RI). 26 February 2019. p. A1. Retrieved 31 December 2019.

Silva, Elda (1 May 2016). "Arts' struggle for representation not unique". San Antonio Express. p. A9. Retrieved 31 December 2019.

Wells, Jackson (19 April 2018). "Panel discusses Puerto Rican recovery". Brown Daily Herald: Brown University (Providence, RI). Retrieved 31 December 2019.

JKHumanities|✉ 18:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the items you cite do not really contribute to notability. Being a director of an oganisation: well, lots of people are directors, it is a job. Being nominated for a fellowship: not the same as winning. Speaking at TEDX: not significant... the October 2019 TEDX providence had over 20 speakers. Keynote speaker at a regional training workshop: another part of having a job (director of AS220). The coverage here is very weak, and the examples like the ones above are an attempt to synthesize notability form a job, some speaking gigs and a very minor art career. What is missing here is independent in-depth recognition in the form of sourcing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

to tag on to this, TEDX conferences are independent of TED and don't a priori convey any sort of authority. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that the sources are not at the level "required", it's that the person herself is non-notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Unfortunately those supplementary ones you've provided do not contribute to her notability given they're not about her exclusively. I speak Spanish and am aware of Latin name conventions and any problems that might arise when searching for sources; as far as I could tell there is simply not enough out there to justify the inclusion of this biography on Wikipedia. PK650 (talk) 06:22, 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. – bradv🍁 06:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Veselinov[edit]

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

Despite only playing 13 minutes in a WP:FPL league, this player fails WP:GNG as there is barely any results for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article of a non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 01:30, 6 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.