Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 July	29 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete 2011 association football domestic cup champions, keep 2011 in UEFA. Fenix down (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2011 association football domestic cup champions[edit]

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

This page should be deleted as it is basically useless and it's already covered by 2011 in association football. Plus, there are no other lists like it for other years KingSkyLord (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also pretty useless and they aren't worked on or improved heavily:

KingSkyLord (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These two articles shouldn't be bundled, the original appears to be WP:OR but the second one seems to be a classic case of how WP:USELESS is an argument to avoid at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 05:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2011 association football domestic cup champions but keep 2011 in UEFA. Giant Snowman 07:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the former, keep the latter, not least because no policy-based reason for deletion has been given -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the inital page but why are people wanting to keeping the 2011 in UEFA page as that is the only one of it's kind. HawkAussie (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing back against a "useless" nomination, really. There's nothing wrong with that page as an outline, except possibly for the fact it's not part of a larger set. SportingFlyer T·C 08:09, 30 July 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Glendinning[edit]

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

Subject certainly fails WP:NHOCKEY as a player, with only 21 games in the AHL and 119 games in the IHL and with no preeminent honours to speak of. BUT, if his coaching career establishes notability I will withdraw the nomination. Tay87 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Doesn't have the coverage to meet the GNG. Being coach of the year in a Canadian junior league is not enough to meet WP:NHOCKEY and I don't see anything else that supports notability.Sandals1 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have to agree with the above. Barca (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our absurdly broad inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 31 July 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al Junaibi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, poorly sourced, only won a non-notable award (without sourcing). The Banner talk 20:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 20:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: creator by now blocked as sockpuppet(eer). The Banner talk 20:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. CLCStudent (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Ali Khalaf[edit]

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

A prolific author, but not one who has received any personal coverage; and apparently not a highly decorated or influential academic either. A scattering of coverage over an Islamist incident only provides passing mentions. Khalaf seems to fail WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF, and WP:NBIO in general. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell all his supposed publications are self-published, and all his supposed discoveries are in his own self-published journal. I didn't find reviews or even publishers for any of them. (It's a little confusing, though, because his Fauna Palaestina has the same title as a different and more notable one, he:Fauna Palaestina, edited by Levy and Amitai and published by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.) Maybe the titles are translated from another language? Most of the ISBNs are unrecognized but the "Family of Sharif" one links to something with a title in Arabic. There is a long list of sources but they all look either to be by the subject rather than about him, non-reliable sources (e.g. facebook posts), newspaper stories that do not establish notability (quoting him about racism in German schools) or trivial puff pieces (breathlessly reporting that his wife uploaded a photo to the National Geographic reader contributions section). None support the actual content of the article, his work as a scientist. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not seeing the coverage I think is necessary to meet the GNG. Looking at google scholar doesn't show me anything to convince me he meets WP:NPROF.Sandals1 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had PRODed this once already, finding insufficient sources. That hasn't changed. A loose necktie (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Story of Evil[edit]

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

It's clear from the sheer length of this page that someone really, really loves this topic. I don't want to dump on the effort that's been put into the page, but I don't think the topic is notable enough for Wikipedia.

The sources I found (and on the article, and on the ja.wiki article) were all blogs. I checked the name as given in English and Japanese. There's no coverage from independent reliable sources that I can find. Caveat: I don't speak Japanese so I'm relying on Google Translate and it's entirely possible I'm not searching the right thing in Japanese. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, unless citations showing significant coverage in reliable sources are added before the close of this discussion. bd2412 T 01:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability shown. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is the majority of this massive article completely unreferenced cruft, but the sources that are present are not reliable sources. They are blogs, youtube videos, and store pages. Rorshacma (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notability. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:33, 2 August 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. Consensus herein is for the article to be retained. While a common axiom is that "AfD is not cleanup", the article remains unsourced as of this close. It would be nice for proper verification to be added to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne, Nova Scotia[edit]

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

Article is only one sentence long, I don't think it establishes notability. – numbermaniac 13:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 13:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 13:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 13:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have a Lower Melbourne, Nova Scotia.... As for Melbourne proper, while that are better known Melbournes, this Melbourne passes WP:GEOLAND - and even has an adjacent lake named after itself - [1] (which is a game sanctuary for waterfowl). Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But do we need that Lower Melbourne article? Even that is only a few sentences long, and it doesn't establish notability either. – numbermaniac 04:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd posit that Lower Melbourne is less notable than Melbourne, however both are villages/towns that have been populated for a few hundred years - and should pass WP:GEOLAND fulfilling our role - WP:5P1 as a gazetteer. Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Municipality of the District of Yarmouth. WP:GEOLAND does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on every named settlement that exists — that attaches to the level of incorporated municipalities, not necessarily to individual neighbourhoods within them. At that smaller level, the notability test is the ability to write and reliably source some actual substance about the community, not just the ability to see it on a map, and communities which don't have the sources just get redirected to their parent municipality rather than standing alone as permanently unsourced one-line stubs which just state that the place exists, the end. The municipality is inherently notable per GEOLAND; the individual neighbourhoods within it get their own separate articles only if they can be substanced and sourced well enough to demonstrate a reason why they need a separate article from the parent municipality. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there's no mention of incorporated municipalities within WP:GEOLAND. Any separate settlement that is recognised is notable, even if it comes under another administrative unit. Areas of towns that are merely unofficial divisions within a contiguous built-up area are a different matter, but this is a separate, named village well outside the town itself. We have always held these to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we never have done any such thing. GEOLAND does not provide that if a community happens to have observable geographic boundaries and a name, then it's exempted from actually having to have any reliable sources at all — the question of whether an unincorporated community qualifies for its own article, or just for redirection to its parent municipality, always still hinges on how much content we can or can't substance and source about the community in its own right. Note that GEOLAND explicitly distinguishes legally recognized places (i.e. municipalities) as inherently notable, while downgrading places without legal recognition (i.e. communities within municipalities) as "considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG". Having a name is not the difference between "legal recognition" or lack thereof; having a municipal government is the difference. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - A settlement does not have to be a municipality to be "legally recognised". We have, for instance, always regarded every village or hamlet in the UK that has a name sign at either end of it (which are set up by the council, which is de facto legal recognition) to meet the requirements of GEOLAND, although many of them are not parishes (i.e. municipalities) in their own right, but are part of other parishes. There is a big difference between such a settlement and a small group of houses which may have a name that is used locally but is not otherwise recognised; the latter would not satisfy GEOLAND. However, it seems clear that Melbourne falls into the former category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Geographical Names Board of Canada lists Melbourne as an official place name[2], which constitutes legal recognition and qualifies for notability under WP:GEOLAND. As examples of places without legal recognition, GEOLAND lists subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, which usually wouldn't show up in a government place name database. Highway 89 (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Geographical Names Board is just a directory of place names that exist, not a conferrer of legal recognition upon them. They certainly have the power to forbid the use of names that might be offensive, like "Fucktown" or "N-Word Park", but their primary role is to descriptively list the names that geographical features have rather than to prescriptively bestow legal status on them. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per discussion above. --Doncram (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is an almanac as well as an encyclopedia. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Walker[edit]

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

Pronotion for non notable blogger. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Looking at the current sourcing, 1, press release. 2, by her. 3, doesn't mention her. 4, a picture. 5, by her. 6, a blog about blogs [3], not rs, gives her one whole sentence. 7, primary, shows her working. 8, FashionWeekDaily [4] gives her a whole sentence. 9, a bunch of images of unidentified models. 10 dead ([5] covers the same show?). 11, video is gone but picture shows it was an interview, title of source says PR. 12, does not mention her. A search found nothing good for GNG. She has not done anything particularly noteworthy. Walked some fashion shows. Was a reporter. Blogged. Launched a website (copyright 2023). May have been an extra on TV (nothing on imdb). Nothing says notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging those involved in the last AfD: TheRealFennShysa & DustFormsWords. --MrClog (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete honestly I’m not sure what specific norms and precedents we’d apply to an article of this type but the sources look like trivia to me. If there’s some policy to say they’re reliable independent sources I’m happy to be contradicted. Mccapra (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per an excellent analysis of the sources. The best I was able to find was a biography on a website she is or was an author of [6]. But as a WP:PRIMARY, it does not establish notability, and so she fails WP:BASIC for the lack of SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Ohn Chit Moe[edit]

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

Non-notable beauty-pageant, lacking significant coverage in reliable media otherwise to justify GNG. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. I don't think a teen beauty pageant shows any notability. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty pageant winner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XavlegbmaofffassssitimiwoamndutroabcwapwaeiippohfffX[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:TOOSOON. Absolutely nothing on this page is a reliable source except for some minor coverage by MetalSucks, and even then the coverage isn't even for the band's music. Just a crap band that got some minor Internet attention for having a really stupid band name Second Skin (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This articles seems to only attract attention for its name. There are instances like this in the sciences, like Brainfuck programming language. However, unlike that esoteric language, this article does not have reliable independent coverage. Sociable Song (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND and WP:1E: its name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the comments above; namely they can't get past WP:1E since their music has not been noticed in the media and they have only gotten a few minor mentions of their ridiculous name. I will give each of the guys in this band a nickel if they can recite the band's name purely from memory. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Citations to coverage by Metal Injection and Metal Hammer have been added to the article since the creation of this deletion proposal. Between those and the MetalSucks citation, that adds up to at least three independent, reliable sources, and therefore the article no longer fails WP:NBAND. Though the ridiculous nature of the band's nature is mentioned in most coverage, articles about the band also range in topic from the release of their album Gore 2.0 to the release of a music video for one of their songs, and so the article therefore does not fail WP:1E. –Matthew - (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Second Skin's statement that coverage of the band by MetalSucks "isn't even for the band's music" is just blatantly not true. As you can see in this article (which is one of at least two times the website has covered this band), it's primarily about the release of one of the band's albums, with discussion of specific tracks from said album. –Matthew - (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a plethora of sources (and this is not even a plethora) does not always add up to notability for Wikipedia articles. This article still does not meet WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok there's like 2 sentences about the music. Haha big deal? That page basically says "LOOK AT THIS RIDICULOUS BAND NAME, oh and the music is pretty good too... BUT LOOK AT THE NAME AND TITLES LOL." It's painfully obvious that the entire web and converge was only written cuz of the band name alone and anyone can see that. Also even if two other source publications wrote about this band to talk about their dumb name cuz they had nothing better to cover that weekend still doesn't make the band pass WP:1E. Second Skin (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite Matthews comments, the article does not meet WP:BAND. On a lighter tone, who thought this would be a good name for a band? AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Lightburst (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I know I’m not supposed to edit when the discussion is closed but just to answer your question it’s kind of a ongoing thing to have ridiculous long names in the goregrind genre, take a look here for the ultimate example. This band on the other hand takes that trait and uses it as a horrid gimmick for attention purposes and publicity to cash in on their otherwise bland music Second Skin (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Outrageous, offensive and perverse name. Subject fails WP:BAND, fails WP:GNG and WP:1E is applicable. Lightburst (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reviewing the sources in the article and attempting to find more, I am completely unconvinced that this is anywhere near enough to meet GNG/#1 of WP:BAND. This band also appears to fail all other criteria of BAND. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodoljub Vulović[edit]

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

Consensus was already reached in 2017 that this person is not notable. This new version of the article has the same sources, there are no new sources to prove that the notability has changed in the last 2 years. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging all participants in the two previous deletion discussions: @Joe Decker, LibStar, Sun Creator, Xxanthippe, Antidiskriminator, and Dlohcierekim:. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you can snowball the vote? 49.199.215.211 (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to "snowball the vote"? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Heepman1997 (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC) (that IP was me logged out)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why is he any less notable than, say, Baja Mali Knindza? Heepman1997 (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are less reliable sources with significant coverage on him. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is in 18 more languages, and I think that there is enough information on the Internet about Rodoljub Vulović to create a page in the English Wikipedia about him. Operation 0 (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist appears to be quite popular and well known in Serbia, a Google search finds a good amount of news articles about him, and lots of platforms with his music. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Now change to delete, after i looked more, realized sources are poor, and other language editions on here also are badly sourced.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The "Keep" votes above show little awareness of policy, because a vote saying that there are lots of articles should go ahead and list some of them, and the fact that the singer is covered in other Wikipedias is meaningless if those are poorly sourced as well. Granted, the Bosnian articles currently at footnotes 3-5 in the article seem to indicate that he has gotten some notice in that region's media. Beyond those I can find nothing beyond the typical retail and streaming sites. The three aforementioned articles might be enough for a basic stub article, but I don't think he has quite gotten enough reliable media coverage for his music. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If his page is deleted, then why do we not delete the hundreds of lesser known artists on here, who just happen to be based in English speaking countries? He is no less important then them, even if many sources are not in English. I personally found a large amount of news articles mentioning him with just a quick search, which could be used to improve the page. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete them. You will have my support WP:Otherstuffexists. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete and salt. Sources inadequate. Also BLP contains political material verging on racism. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:CSD#G4 One would have thought that significant coverage in reliable, verifiable, independent sources (sing along with me you know the rest) would have been brought to this subject before it was again created. This is by no means an improvement. Dlohcierekim (talk)00:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @xxanthippe - how is the Roki artile in any way racist? Heepman1997 (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The area of the world that this BLP is associated with has in recent history been subjected to genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass murder committed on ethnic grounds. The ethnic views attributed to the subject, without evidence apparent to me, may constitute a personal attack. Regardless of this, there are not enough in-depth sources to satisfy WP:GNG, and I see little sign of satisfying any SNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

His supposed racism is not a reason to delete the article, because he could have received reliable media coverage for that. If the article happens to survive, its presence on Wikipedia would not be a promotion of ethnic cleansing, though we would know that this is a guy with disagreeable beliefs. But the point of this debate is that his political opinions are just as non-notable as everything else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong that the English Wikipedia should be used as a battlefield by Balkan ethnic warriors for their internecine feuds. However, this is beside the point as WP:GNG is not achieved here. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - per nominator.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep 183.177.231.187 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC) blocked ISP Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete and salt ASAP. Sadly, the only proper coverage he got is in two Serbian tabloids Alo and Blic [7] [8], which aren't reliable. The sources in the article include a blog as well, also unreliable, with a solid piece in RTV BN but alone is not enough. Does not meet any of the NMUSIC criteria nor there is multiple significant coverage of him in reliable sources. Considering it is a 3rd AfD with 2 ending in deleting it, salt this. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 19:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry J. Latham (writer)[edit]

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

One review in an obscure semi-monthly journal doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The angle to take this would be his novel's important in anti-Mormon writing of the era. Thmazing (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any evidence that this writer is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artin Borsali[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable low level footballer--Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable footballer who fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL HawkAussie (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnography and Participation Observation in Educational Context[edit]

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

Reads entirely as an essay rather than an article, out of project scope Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopaedic, Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedia article; more of an opinion piece. Simple as that. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is plenty to write and cite on education research but this is written as an incomprehensible essay. czar 22:31, 3 August 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 Sentinel (comics). I see that a lot of the argument here is about WP:IPCA which ... is tagged as an essay, so it's not clear whether it can be considered a widely shared opinion to the point of being a guideline/policy or simply one opinion among many. Even if treated as policy/guideline it's not clear that it would justify deletion here; the first line of thought is that one shouldn't split the article when it will be deleted as original research but there is no detailed argument as to why this list is original research and the second that the starter article should have been trimmed first but that does not automatically imply that a spinoff should be deleted if the article wasn't trimmed first (it's also not entirely clear whether the article was actually not trimmed).

The second line of argument is that there is no reason for the article to be split off from the main list as the article hosting it isn't close to the size limits, and that the content should thus be merged back. This argument has not been explicitly contested (Dream Focus's argument allows for the content to be kept in the main topic, Lightburst and Andrew Davidson are mostly contesting the WP:IPCA-based arguments and the nom is making a blank assertion that the content should be got rid off but with little explanation as to why) and has gained some support, and it seems to be (somewhat obliquely) grounded in WP:SIZERULE - which is a guideline. By headcount we are 3+1 merge, 1 delete, 1 redirect, 2+1 keep (the "+1" refers to Dream Focus, who by my reading is open to either outcome) and that plus the aforementioned arguments justifies a merger to satisfy both the arguments in favour of preserving the material in some way and those that it shouldn't take the form of a separate article. Thus, merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sentinel in other media[edit]

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

Per WP:IPCA, spinouts like this are not allowed. The information should be pruned, not disposed of in a separate article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IPCA says clearly that "when "In popular culture" sections grow excessively long they are split into subarticles." and so the nomination's claim that this is "not allowed" seems to be quite false. The title of the page in question might be improved though as it's not clear because Sentinel is a case where extensive disambiguation is required. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's like talking to a brick wall, but if you read the other parts of it, it says "Don't split the section out if you think it would be likely to get deleted." An article that is almost entirely original research is likely to get deleted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, Zxcvbnm's interpretation of IPCA is correct, and either you know it and are deliberately pretending not to, or you don't, which is arguably worse. There's nothing "clear" about your interpretation at all -- in fact one needs to go well out of one's way to extract that interpretation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZXCVBNM's position is illogical because it is begging the question and a circular argument. He asserts that the article in question ought be deleted because it is not allowed and that it is not allowed because it ought to be deleted. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to start Wikilawyering and getting into semantics. I think any typical editor would understand the gist of what I said._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a clear need to try to understand the nomination's reason for deletion as that's what we are supposed to be considering. This is not your typical "in popular culture" spinoff. What it seems to be is part of a large set of articles which cover X-Men in other media. The X-Men is a big franchise and we seem to have numerous articles about their treatment in media besides the original comics. The Sentinels are major recurring antagonists and so it seems sensible that they should be included too. I'm not seeing the problem or the relevance of WP:IPCA. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep either here or the other article. I don't see any reason why it can't stay in the main article. Dream Focus 19:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Overly detailed lists with information like A Sentinel appeared in a Danger Room simulation in Marvel Anime: X-Men. are not enough to make an exception to the long-standing "Don't make standalone 'In popular culture' articles". Andrew Davidson misrepresents (deliberately?) what IPCA says above, since before splitting out articles like this meaningless fancrufty mentions are supposed to be trimmed; additionally, Sentinel (comics) isn't even that long -- somewhat more than half the article text appears to currently be devoted to "In other media", and so that should have been trimmed before consensus was sought to create this fork article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IPCA is the basis of the nomination and it is nonsensical in several ways. In the first place, this is not an "in popular culture" article. Such articles take a topic which is not normally considered popular culture, such as Abraham Lincoln, and then focus on the appearance of that person or topic in pop cultural works. So, Abraham Lincoln in popular culture tells us about the appearance of that character in movies such as Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. The topic in question in this case is a comic book character which is pop culture to start with. It's just a split between their numerous appearances in comics and their appearances in other derivative media based on the comics, such as animations, live-action movies, action figures or whatever. Not the same thing. Andrew D. (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic in question in this case is a comic book character So ... you don't even read the articles before auto-!voting "keep" in AFDs now? A quick glance at the article in question would have revealed that "Sentinel" is not the name of a character. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, your response actually has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote, and is an irrelevant rant about the difference between "in popular culture" and "in other media", which appears to indicate either incompetence to contribute constructively to AFD discussions or deliberate bad-faith trolling. Additionally, the "numerous appearances in comics and their appearances in other derivative media based on the comics" actually indicates an ignorance of the POV problem with some devoted comic book fans insisting that all of these works are adaptations of the comics (which almost no one reads anymore) and virtually everyone else who says that they are basically independent works based on characters that originate in comics but are better known from previous "adaptations" including Saturday morning cartoons, movies, etc. For more information see Talk:Mr. Freeze#"Originally called Mr. Zero" or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character) and the multiple RMs at Talk:Joker (character). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Andrew D. makes a strong case for "keep". The nomination points to WP:IPCA as a rationale. However I do not see that WP:IPCA states that the subject is not allowed in its present form. Lightburst (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: It says that before splitting the subject off into a subarticle, it should be trimmed first, and only then, if it is still too long, should it be split (However, it is important to use caution in splitting out such articles: [...] Attempt to pare the section down first. In some cases, the section is not so much a new article as it is just bloated. In others, the section should be split off, but paring down the section first will help the new article stand on its own.). The A Sentinel appeared in a Danger Room simulation in Marvel Anime: X-Men. example I cited above (which also appears, verbatim, in Sentinel (comics)), as well as the fact that the difference in byte-count between the body of the subarticle and the current text of the main article's "In other media section" is about 20,000 vs. about 19,000, is proof that no such trimming was performed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: It was trimmed, it's just been restored. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: The information appears to have been completely blanked and ported over to the new article.[9] What I meant is that, before the "article split" solution was attempted, the meaningless/crufty Obscure X-Men Adaptation A showed Character B reading Document C, which, on a freeze-frame and close read, indicate that Sentinels exist in that adaptation's universe.-type mentions should have been trimmed to see if the section was still too long then. I'm not even saying that the section was/is too long to stay in the main article (I don't think that), just that anyone who does think that should have trimmed that content before deciding to split the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Sentinel (comics) (as has already been done) and Delete. There are lots of issues with this article, the most obvious being that "in other Media" implies the reader knows what the primary media is. Readers wouldn't either, because the current version doesn't even link to Sentinel (comics). Plus, the article this was split from isn't anywhere near the lower limit for a size split. I'm not sure what the idea was here. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sentinel (comics), per Argento Surfer. The main article isn't nearly large enough to warrant this section being split to a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sentinel (comics), per Argento Surfer. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As noted on WP:N a topic can be considered notable if it meets GNG (which nobody is claiming here) or one of the subject-specific guidelines that include NACADEMIC; it's also not clear what "the article is poor in taste" refers to nor why it would require deletion. I know that some people advocate deletion of GNG-noncompliant articles even when they meet some other notability guideline and that this practice is often applied in AFD closes, but here I am not seeing anyone explicitly advocating for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allyson Lawless[edit]

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

not that notable. Ozar77 (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allyson Lawless was included in the Wikiproject Women in Red redlist index. Being an international fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering is notable. AllyCAD is well known as a low cost CAD option for engineers. Yes, the article needs more work. Searching her name on Google provides many sources that I need to dig through for quality before using them in the article. --Madds212 (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ozar77 (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per Madds212. bd2412 T 01:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #1 as a South African engineer elected an international fellow of Britain's Royal Academy of Engineering. StarryGrandma (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is poor in taste and fails to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable and meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association - Royal_Academy_of_Engineering#Fellows_of_the_Royal_Academy_of_Engineering states: "Honorary and International Fellows who have made exceptional contributions to engineering are also elected". I do not see deletion rationales here - WP:Not notable is in WP:ATADD, and "poor in taste" is close to WP:IDLI. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:40, 4 August 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 Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series. The consensus is pretty clearly in favour of getting rid of this page again, with the favoured alternative be a restoration of the redirect. There is only one argument specifically in favour of deleting rather than redirecting, but it hasn't really convinced anyone else and it's not a very strong argument. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Character design of Final Fantasy[edit]

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

Entirely fancruft, no secondary sources, fails GNG - you know the drill. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to primarily be a giant WP:OR collection of any character-related connections between games of the series. If somehow kept, it needs to be renamed, as there’s very little in “design” or “development” content here. It’s much more of a shallow take on a “recurring themes” type article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change back to REDIRECT and stop wasting people's time This was a redirect for years. [10] 19 May 2016 it was turned into a redirect then Zxcvbnm decides to restore it years later to send it to AFD. Why waste everyone's time with this? If the valid information was already merged over, then let it be. Dream Focus 17:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects can be restored at any time, deleted pages can't. I'm not sure how you can think they are one and the same._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not one person edited this article since [11] it was turned into a redirect over three years ago. You don't restore an article from a redirect unless you believe the article should be kept, not because you just want to delete the entire history of the article because you are concerned someone might eventually restore it. You should've just sent it to the redirect deletion discussion area. It has gotten 1,748 Pageviews in the past 90 days, so a valid redirect to exist. Dream Focus 17:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't send it to redirects for deletion because they would've told me to do exactly this, nominate it for AfD due to its past content._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No independent secondary sources to show notability. This stuff belongs on a wikia, not in Wikipedia. Narky Blert (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect - Its fairly obvious that this article should not be kept, but I agree with Dream Focus that I don't see why this restoration and AFD were necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no information merged over that remains in the article. So there is no reason to restore the redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and restore redirect per WP:CHEAP, WP:DEADHORSE and who knows what else. No valid rationale has been provided on why the redirect should be deleted (and no, preventing future recreation is not a valid reason when the edit history shows no attempts of such happening). I'm not one to assume bad faith, but I do consider it to be lying through omission how the nominator failed to acknowledge in his statement tgat the article has been a redirect for three years, until he himself recreated it and nominated it for deletion(!?). This isn't what AfD is for, and it feels like WP:GAMING to me. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 00:38, 31 July 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 Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Monsters. Procedural issues aside, all the arguments here are either that the redirect should be restored or that the article violates guidelines and should thus be deleted. This is effectively a consensus in favour of restoring the redirect, as the guideline-violating content goes away that way. There is only one argument (by Zxcvbnm) that deletion is preferable to redirecting but it hasn't convinced anyone else and there is no overriding policy or guideline requiring so (revert warring can be dealt with by protection, for instance, and hasn't happened yet anyhow according to the arguments here) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters of Final Fantasy[edit]

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

Delete as entirely fancruft that fails GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GAMECRUFT content much more in line with what fan-wikias cover. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speed close and restore redirect On 13 April 2009‎ it was turned into a redirect, all valid information merged over to a proper article. [12] There was no possible reason to restore it just to send it to an AFD. Dream Focus 17:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? It's perfectly allowed to send a former article-cum-redirect to AfD per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read what you linked to. You only do that if there is a dispute, and there hasn't been in the ten years since this was done. Dream Focus 17:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, thats a valid personal editing philosophy/stance, but really not a valid “speedy close” rationale. If it’s already here, may as well discuss it. At the very least deletion will cut down on these anonymous attempts to stealth-restore it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Over 10 years without any stealth restore it, so that's not a valid reason to waste time with this pointless nonsense. Dream Focus 17:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - My apologies, I was confusing this one with a similar one. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That one had a single IP address on July 2014‎ try to revert it after it had been a redirect for years. Still not seeing this as a real problem. Dream Focus 18:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Either way, saying it's "pointless nonsense" is not only accusing other editors of being WP:INCOMPETENT, assuming bad faith, but also patently wrong. If you think it's pointless, why comment? Clearly it is important to you if you feel the need to voice your opinion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This was a redirect, and it was tagged as This redirect was kept in order to preserve this page's edit history after its content was merged into the target page's content. I have not done an examination what content (if any) was merged, and I see no indication that the nominator did so. If content was merged then this is a mandatory keep-or-redirect for copyright reasons. Alsee (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little if any content was merged to the current incarnation of the article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No independent secondary sources to show notability. This stuff belongs on a wikia, not in Wikipedia. Narky Blert (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect - Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character design of Final Fantasy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minigames of Final Fantasy, there was no real reason to restore these redirects to articles just to send them to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting them so there is no unnecessary debates or revert warring in the future is a "real reason"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But there weren't any on this article for over ten years until you reverted it for this AFD. Only one of the mentioned articles has ever had any issue with redirect reverting, and even that was over five years ago. This is basically creating a debate to solve an problem that didn't actually exist.Rorshacma (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, I would have just sent it to RfD but doing an AfD is required for articles of a certain size. You are free to abstain, but voting "restore redirect" while citing no reason to is not helping anyone._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and restore redirect per WP:CHEAP, WP:DEADHORSE and who knows what else. No valid rationale has been provided on why the redirect should be deleted (and no, preventing future recreation is not a valid reason when the edit history shows no attempts of such happening). I'm not one to assume bad faith, but I do consider it to be lying through omission how the nominator failed to acknowledge in his statement tgat the article has been a redirect for ten years, until he himself recreated it and nominated it for deletion(!?). This isn't what AfD is for, and it feels like WP:GAMING to me. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 00:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is the typical practice with this. Please actually read Wikipedia guidelines before throwing out bad faith accusations._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly isn't "typical practice" if several experienced editors are questioning and completely bewildered by what you've done. If there's a Wikipedia guideline for recreating articles literally just to nominate them for AfD ten years after they've been redirected, then please cite it. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the burden is on you to show that I am breaking the rules by doing this. So, where is the rule that explicity prevents people from reversing a redirect and then nominating an article for AfD. It certainly isn't based on article age, because WP:LONGTIME says that an article's age doesn't matter whatsoever in a deletion discussion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Julius Amberg[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPROF. He may have briefly been an assistant professor when Einstein was studying to become a maths teacher but this does not make him notable. As stated in his bio "It seems that he did not publish much apart from his thesis" Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Domdeparis:, @Johnpacklambert:: When I wrote the article I was aware that notability criteria were very low. But the element already existed in WD... I will no object the deletion or the keeping.--Ferran Mir (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The notability guidelines for academics are more aimed at the present day than at mathematicians of the late 18th and early 19th century. And we do have one in-depth source on the subject [13]. If we had a second source, independent of that one and more in-depth than [14], I think he'd pass WP:GNG. He doesn't appear to be significant except as a teacher of Einstein, but significance is different than notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There were a couple of what look like wire-service stories about a letter of Einstein's that mentioned Amberg, when the letter was auctioned in 2017 [15][16] (which gave enough detail to find the auction house's record). Still doesn't seem to be adding up to in-depth coverage of Amberg himself, though. XOR'easter (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Thapaliya[edit]

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

no extensive news on him... Ozar77 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ozar77 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Sources on page are PRIMARY, PROMO websites, and/or not WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every writer who contributes to notable publications is notable. That is really the only standard that would make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe just too soon, but I don't see WP:BIO here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTPROMO and not WP:RS. - MA Javadi (talk) 19:04, 3 August 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 redirect to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Gameplay. SNOW restoration of redirect to preserve attribution history. I've never heard of this RfD norm (re: undoing a bold redirect to have a hearing at AfD) but based on the response, I recommend reconsidering the practice. czar 22:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minigames of Final Fantasy[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, the minigames are not independently notable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary spinout, as the mini-games are not independently notable, and with the good state that most Final Fantasy game articles are in (many GA/FA level), they're already better covered more appropriately at the respective articles - there’s realistically nothing to merge. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speed close yet another pointless restore from redirect and send to AFD At Talk:Minigames_of_Final_Fantasy#Merger_proposal consensus was to merge it over, and the article redirected in October 2011. Dream Focus 17:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close/Delete - what was the point of un-redirecting an article that was merged 8 years ago just to send it to AfD? An RfD would have been more direct. --Pres N 23:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- RfD frowns upon articles that were boldly redirected with a history being deleted there, their policy is to send it to AfD no matter how old it is._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (aka SPEEDY KEEP). Prior to being a redirect it was an article which was merged. These diffs[17][18] show that the page&history must be retained for copyright attribution reasons. If Gameplay of Final Fantasy doesn't already attribute the merge from Minigames of Final Fantasy then such attribution needs to be added. Alsee (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is about minigames, not gameplay in general. That would be incorrect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - ZXCVBNM if you had checked the diffs I provided, you would see I was correct. On 13 October 2011, user:PresN copied content from Minigames of Final Fantasy, pasted it into Gameplay of Final Fantasy, and changed the minigames article into a redirect. That makes it a copyright matter, and we are required to retain the page-history. That means we are required to retain the page in some form. The most reasonable way to retain the page is as a redirect. Alsee (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect - As in the other similar AFDs created by the nominator, there was little reason to restore these to articles to send them to AFD. Restoring them all back to Redirects, as they had been for years, is the obvious answer. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and restore redirect per WP:CHEAP, WP:DEADHORSE and who knows what else. No valid rationale has been provided on why the redirect should be deleted (and no, preventing future recreation is not a valid reason when the edit history shows only one attempt of such happening). I'm not one to assume bad faith, but I do consider it to be lying through omission how the nominator failed to acknowledge in his statement tgat the article has been a redirect for eight years, until he himself recreated it and nominated it for deletion(!?). This isn't what AfD is for, and it feels like WP:GAMING to me. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 00:40, 31 July 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 Ubisoft Montpellier. SilkTork (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LyN[edit]

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

Unnotable proprietary game engine that does not appear to be used anymore, so I don't expect any more sources to come. Fails WP:GNG and any other notability guideline I can think of. Lordtobi (✉) 08:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 08:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 08:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does short mean non-notable? This was used by four notable games. Even if not innovative in the way that the Quake engine was, it's still an identificable, sourceable step in the development of such things, by a major games house using it for their main titles. If we delete this, it leaves a gap. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley, it's just one source that says "the engine was developed together with this game", the others are "this game uses the engine". There is exactly no source that goes into any detail that would qualify for "significant coverage" as required by WP:SIGCOV. Lordtobi (✉) 10:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is your point that this article is inaccurate, and that it wasn't used for the games claimed?

Or is it that despite being used, as described, it's non-notable anyway?

Because otherwise you seem to be advocating the legal fallacy of 'riding two horses', and advancing two claims as to why it should go, when each claim actually defeats the other. If the article is inaccurate, then fix it. But if it's broadly correct in what it claims, then it should stay. At one time, Ubisoft used it for their Rayman title (i.e. their premier title). It was Ubisoft's main product for that period. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is accurate. It is also complete, as represented by sources. The problem is that this article's "complete" is two introductory sentences and a four-point bulleted list. I do not see where you get the notion from that "this topic is not notable" and "there is not enough in-depth coverage to sustain this topic's notability" contradict each other.

The topic is not notable just because it was used in some notable games, because notability is not inherited. LyN was also never used for any Rayman title, as you claim.

Please take a look at the guideline I linked, starting at point #1:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The first source is an interview, in which the interviewee claims:

Yes, a brand new engine called LyN was created alongside Rabbids Go Home and will serve many forthcoming games. It is a revolutionary graphical engine thanks to its structure and technology that make it at once easy to use, effective and evolvable. With LyN, we can create games for both old-gen and next-gen consoles.

The other three sources have this to say:

We actually shifted to the Lyn Engine [...] We're using an internal engine that we call Lyn [...] Using the LyN engine, [...]

The latter three clearly are only trivial mentions that say that the engine was used (as I stated previously), and the first one also fails to go into detail with the topic. As the guideline's #3 puts it:

There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.

There are not multiple sources that go beyond half-a-sentence. If an article, with all available sources in place, cannot expand beyond a few introductory sentences and a bulleted list, it is, at best, a WP:DIRECTORY, which is also against Wikipedia guidelines. Lordtobi (✉) 11:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons above. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a sentence mentioning the engine and its games to Ubisoft Montpellier, the folks who created it. The sources already in the article show a modest amount of verifiable information on the topic--who made it and which of their games use it. Per our policy WP:ATD of preserving verifiable content, selectively merging verifiable content is preferable to deletion. Hence, a selective merge of a sentence (what I consider due weight) to Ubisoft Montpellier is recommended. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mark viking, out of curiosity, would you consider Rabbids Go Home, the game the engine was developed for, as an alternative merge target? Lordtobi (✉) 19:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rabbids Go Home also seems like a reasonable target, as long as the other games developed with LyN could also be mentioned. I am less concerned with the target article--subject experts on video game development have a better feel for this than I--as long as the information is preserved. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a general preference, where the engine is used by multiple systems, to target the creators rather than one of the systems. Slightly less surprising. --Izno (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTPAPER. As the content involved is pretty small, we could perfectly easily merge it to both. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, in this case. If it were more substantially sourced, only one, but as it is not.... That leaves yet the target for the redirect (which might also be Lyn as a possible typo). --Izno (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because all of the sourcing is trivial passing mentions, and there’s virtually no content to even merge. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Ubisoft Montpellier. Just a one-sentence mention, per Mark viking, then redirect. No objection to Rabbids Go Home as an alternative merge target. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 19:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keyvan Sheikhalishahi[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:ANYBIO. The sources are too weak. I didn't look at all the multiple awards for his shorts but those I did look at are from pay to enter festivals. This is WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Does not meet either WP:FILMMAKER or WP:ANYBIO. Has potential, but I could not find any sources to substantiate notability, and I really wanted to. PhobosIkaros ✉ 00:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 19:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Divertimento (2020 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF by quite a bit. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Astreck[edit]

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

3 identical press release articles and a very very short IMDB page do not an notable artist make! Fails WP:NBIO Dom from Paris (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear notable, article needs a large amount of work anyway.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Gascoigne[edit]

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

The subject's only claim to notability is being one in dozens of links in the descent of Catherine Middleton from Edward III of England. Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries; everything of note about this Anne Gascoigne can be said in a single sentence in Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Surtsicna (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia should not create articles just to flesh out genealogies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems to be entirely exist because of her distant relationship to Edward III and the current Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Such relationships do not make are notable and as noted above WP:Not genealogy. Dunarc (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevance or importance in and of herself. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:16, 29 July 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwili[edit]

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

Promotional, fails WP:N. Sourced to trivial mentions and promotional material. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't treat as a PROD since it was nominated in 2015, but the cited coverage is promotional and a near complete dearth of notice from reliable sources (only TNW?) Note also that the fr:Kiwili version was deleted last year. czar 19:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been created by a SPA[19] who also created a corresponding article on French Wikipedia. That one got deleted twice[20]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 19:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Jackman Ashton[edit]

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

Non notable "philanthropist" and "storyteller". The sources are too weak to show she meets notability requirements. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to say that there is no reason to put philanthropist in scare quotes. That said, being on a university board is not a defact sign of notability. Even when it is the state-wide elected boards we have for 3 univerisities in Michigan, even more so for that of UVU which is an ascended community college. True, it is without question a university today, I am less sure about its status when Ashton was on the board. As a BYU alumni I would love to demonstrate that Ashton is notable, but I am psotive she is not. She probably had a defining role in her husband's business success, but Wikipedia is built on sources, so unless you can source that, nothing is there. Her endevors have not risen to the level of notability. Positions like a university art museum board clearly do not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are not scare quotes but to draw the attention to the fact that when you read the article there is nothing to show that she is either. She has organised a storytelling festival but there is no mention of her being a storyteller herself and there is no suggestion that she is a philanthropist in the sense that she has made large donations of her own money to charitable causes. I suppose she could be described as a "festival organiser" and "real-estate developer" but this may not be the tone the article creator was aiming at. It would have been better if I had said this in my nomination I think. I have just look at the page for the festival that she founded...it is unbelievably promotional. I shall be taking a hatchet to it soon. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Qumsiyeh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Nothing found in a BEFORE search to help notability Dom from Paris (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With only one publication in MathSciNet ("Mahalanobis distance under non-normality"), having only five citations in Google Scholar, she is very far from notability as a mathematician or statistician. Any notability would have to rest on her work with the Mormons. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, plus we would need some sources unrelated to the LDS, and my searches aren't finding them. Delete (but do ping me to reconsider if such sources are found.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything makes me want to keep this article. I have struggled to include more articles in Wikipedia on Latter-day Saint women. "non-white" (maybe, the US census would count her as white) Latter-day Saints are also a group I have tried hard to include. Inclusion of more articles on women with careers such as math professor would also be wise. However now that articles on Mia Love and Astrid S. Tuminez among others have clearly reached the level of inclusion without question, I have accepted that we need to remove articles on people who just do not meet notability criteria. The issue is not that we need a source that is not in some way tied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If we had a review of her work in BYU Studies and a whole issue of the Mormon Studies Review when it was under BYU control devoted to her book, than I think it would be clear she is notable. However not every writer of works in some way related to the restored gospel or the culture of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who gets a review of a book they wrote published in the Deseret News is notable, and that is the only thing tending towards a truly reliable source that we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by an admin per WP:G12. (non-admin closure)---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vasco Dantas[edit]

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

An autobiographical article for a musician that doesn't meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria and fails WP:GNG, the sources are too weak. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the page for G12 speedy deletion (violation of the copyright policy). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Damn, I missed that, sorry. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete 1962 Stockholm Concert[edit]

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

Not notable, not enough available sources. Because this is an unofficial release, having been released only in Luxembourg in 1991 long after Coltrane's death, naturally there aren't going to be many sources or links. Vmavanti (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Graz Concert[edit]

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

Not notable, too few available sources because this is a compilation and an unofficial release. Naturally there aren't going to be many links or sources that mention it. Vmavanti (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 28 July 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Musasizi Timothy Karubanga[edit]

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

A few listings and a couple of press release rehaches do not show notability for this person. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG this may well be an undeclared paid edit. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there is no evidence of notability under WP:BIO. A page on his company Tim Tech Consults has already been deleted and the author has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tinsley Advertising[edit]

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

Article doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, few passing mentions but nothing indepth. Claim of winning a number of awards but outside no proper WP:RS to support.

Bringing it here for re-evaluation, article was created since 2011. Lapablo (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Fischer (artist)[edit]

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

Poor sourcing - most personal details are either taken from his escort profile or an interview with him, so are very primary and unreliable. The DJing section is entirely unsourced and rather promotional. There is a claim for notability as co-winner in a category of the 2007 Grabbys, which is sourced. A check for other sources online and over on German Wikipedia do not really result in sufficient independent sources to reliably verify claims. A critical review of this article would not leave much more than a stub article confirming he exists and with a mention of the 2007 Grabbys (if deemed notable). Therefore suggest to delete as likely failing GNG. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ and pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's a promotional article with promotional sources such as his escort bio which is hardly rs, also the awards are for porno group sex scenes which even the now defunct pornbio notability critetia deprecated, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional for non notable person.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable DJ & porno performer, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 30 July 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. Due to limited participation in this discussion, WP:REFUND applies. However, I believe Usedtobecool has made a strong argument for the insufficiency of the existing known sources. I would expect anyone recreating this article to make substantial, well-cited improvements so as not to end up right back here. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chhyaka Lohan[edit]

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

A macguffin for spam and POV pushing. ~~I don't see how any sources could be talking about the subject, based on the article, and the titles of sources.~~ Extraordinary claims are made without a single RS provided to support them. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 15:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 15:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Usedtobecool: You say that based on the titles of the sources, they do not appear to be talking about the subject. My question then is: did you read the sources? I would say it is good practice to make sure the sources do not mention the subject before nominating an article for deletion. (I can't read the sources due to the language barrier.) --MrClog (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did. The claims made are too extraordinary, for me not to. I strongly suspected that these kinds of articles had survived here because everyone was afraid to question it, due to language barrier, so I lost accuracy in my words. I only meant to say the context itself should make it clear that this is a crap article used for spam. Note 1 and 2 (in English) don't talk about the stone. Notes 7,8 and 9 are blogpost and wordpress blogs. The rest have their own domain but that's about the extent of their credibility. I don't understand the language of notes 3 to 7 in precise details but I understand enough to know what they are talking about. They essentially say the same things as notes 8 and 9. Note 9 is in English. There isn't more detail in the other language sources than what is offered there, i.e. there's a stone in Kirtipur, which is seen as a symbol of Gorkha aggression. It's used as a rallying point for anti-Gorkha activism. All of these sources have a strong anti-Khas and pro-Newa nationalist bias. There are no RS provided to verify the devilish picture painted of the Gorkhas in the article. In absence of RS, there isn't even a way to tell that this is not a hoax created by Newaa nationalists. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The pure fact that it's controversial and a lightning rod for nationalist POV-pushing doesn't justify deletion, and on the face of it "a stone in Kirtipur, which is seen as a symbol of Gorkha aggression" could be a notable subject. The article can easily just say that. But the coverage in RS seems to be extremely slim. In English, at least, there's almost nothing. In the sources on the article, the link in note 6 is broken, so leaving aside the blogs the only reliable source that describes the rock seems to be note 3—which is also all I can find on Google, and is just a short mention—and possibly the Lahana News and the Nepalbhasa Times (notes 4 and 7). I don't speak the language so I'm open to changing my mind if someone can clarify the content of those two sources, or turn up alternative RS. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- This is a poor article, but on a potentially notable subject. It needs a lot of editing, as it appears to be partly a COATHANGER. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least one RS source on the dispute over the treatment of the conquered exists, though I am not comfortable adding it to the article as I can only view it in snippet form: Kumar Pradhan (1991), The Gorkha Conquests: The Process and Consequences of the Unification of Nepal, with Particular Reference to Eastern Nepal, Oxford University Press. There may be enough here for a weak keep with the Kathmandu Post reference I added earlier, as I can not evaluate the Nepali sources myself and assuming good faith. Another possibility might be merging to Battle of Kirtipur in an "Occupation and commemoration" or "Modern interpretations" or such section. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the dispute over whether the noses/ears/lips of the invaded were cut, exists. I once watched an interview of a prominent Nepali historian who said -- some European had given a first-hand account of having seen the crime, while another visiting only a few years later didn't report seeing anyone with deformed face, raising doubt, since not all of the population could have died out in so short a time, meaning either it didn't happen or was vastly exaggerated. Your google book seems to hint toward the same kind of dispute over whether it did happen and how widespread it was. However, that would be immaterial to this discussion, which is about a stone and its notability. I don't see sources that talk about the controversies surrounding the annexation of Kirtipur talking about this stone. Indeed, a stone that symbolises an event should at least make an appearance as passing mentions at the anniversary of the battle every year. I don't see anything like that. What I see is a fringe section of the very recent Newaa nationalism movement trying to spread hate through the use of blogs. And one of them being able to get the stone mentioned in a national newspaper once. That's why it fails notability. If there was a historical significance (and not a recent nationalist reinterpretation or co-optation), we should expect to see the sources. The burden of proof lies on the article, especially when it makes extraordinary claims. If sources surface to prove that this is not fake news, the article can always be recreated. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 16:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool and 24.151.50.175: I'm getting a bit lost here (and I'm guessing a closing admin/editor will probably get lost as well...) Just to be clear:

There's a dispute about whether some historical atrocities happened.
This article is about a stone which is a memorial of those atrocities.
There are various sources discussing the atrocities, but not the stone.
The only RS referring to the stone in English is the Kathmandu Post article.
There might be some non-English sources that talk about it, but we don't know. (?)

Does that sum it up? On the face of it, I can't see how The Gorkha Conquests would add anything to the notability of this article if it doesn't mention the actual topic. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 02:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. Let me try my own words:

There is a dispute about whether atrocities happened. Deniers have the lower ground.
There is a dispute over how widespread the atrocities were. Those who claim it was very limited have the high ground.
It is almost certain the stone is real. It is very likely it's a symbol of Kirtipur's broken pride. It is quite likely it's a symbol of resentment toward the historical Gorkhas for the humiliation.
It is not clear, if there is resentment towards the historical Gorkhas, that it's because of the widespread acceptance of the narrative of widespread atrocities, as opposed to a simple resentment for historical embarrassment and humiliation.
It is not at all clear that this hatred translates to anti-Gorkha or anti-Khas sentiment among the people in the present day, as it is being implied.
It is not clear what the percentage of people is, in Kirtipur, who take any of it seriously.
We have no sources to tell us exactly what it stands for- Kirtipur's broken pride, symbol of humiliation, monument to atrocities, memorial of the victims, symbol of resentment of historical Gorkha, symbol of resentment of present day Khas people. Notice that the other blog in English says it's venerated with butterlamps as a memorial to the fallen, while the OpEd says it's spit on.
The article was written by a Newar nationalist sock-farm with a clear bias against the Gorkhas ,(which has been blocked now), using their own blogs and other biased non-credible sources, and a few RS bombs that don't mention the subject at all (See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/RukshanaNewa).
The only RS was added by someone else after it came to AfD. That is also an OpEd by a self-reported student of Nepali history based in London (not even claiming local familiarity).
This stone doesn't seem to appear in historical sources even though Newar as well as other Nepali and Indian historians have been working freely for at least the past 50 years. And makes a sudden appearance with the birth of xenophobic Newar nationalism in the last decade.
Writing anything other than "It is most likely a real stone in Kirtipur of potential historical significance" is impossible with the sources that we have. We shouldn't have an article on a subject that doesn't have RS to support content but has been a forum for plenty of POV pushing spammers to spread misinformation and continues to be.
So, it should be deleted until such time as reliable and academic sources appear so that any editor unfamiliar with the subject has sufficient ground from which to keep those spammers and POV pushers in check. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:38, 28 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Cilliers[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. No indication of awards or charted songs. The entire biography and each song link are the work of the same editor, and except for those linked songs, this article is an orphan. This article offered a short promotional biography. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Masum Reza^📞 18:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching his name turns up these two entries on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0798136359 and https://books.google.com/books?id=QtkxAQAAIAAJ , which along with the daystar.com article is three sources. Additionally, the nominator does not demonstrate any checking of either Afrikaans language or offline sources, given his work in the 1990s, one should check the indexes of genre-related periodicals.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His album Gloryland was certified gold by Recording Industry of South Africa which meets WP:MUSICBIO. -- SamCordes^Talk 04:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am undecided for now, but this should be relisted at minimum because there are still 2 issues here:

1) His album getting a certifiable gold is unverifiable, and goes against our policy at WP:V. If there is a proof he got one, a Keep per WP:MUSICBIO Criteria 3 would be applicable. But for now, that can't be said.

2) The book sources both seem to be passing mentions from the snippet views Google Books offers, which does not represent WP:SIGCOV. I have yet to see a proof that the subject is notable (WP:NRV applies). WP:MUSTBESOURCES also applies, as "any claim that sources exist must be verifiable", so we can't assume that he was covered in "genre-related periodicals". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verification for gold status:About Raymond Cilliers. As for Google books in particular the one authored by Pieter Pieterse appears to be more than a passing mention, although I only have access to snippet view. The Vuka SA Google books is possibly only a passing mention; also both are foreign language. Someone with knowledge of Afrikaans would have better luck searching for and evaluating the sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Tulp[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability standards. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page about a radio talk show host on a local station in Jackson, Mississippi, columnist for local paper. There is a little local coverage on the page, and my searches do not find anything better. Fails WP:BASIC, failsWP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article supports a claim of notability as a radio host and nothing was found in a Google search in terms of additional sourcing. Alansohn (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable political talk show host in only one market.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability standards. WP:BIO --SalmanZ (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV in any sources. Just a non notable radio host which there are many of. Josalm64rc (talk) 21:15, 2 August 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. Overwhelming Keep Consensus. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tazeen Fatma[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Person is wife of Azam Khan but that's not criteria to have Wikipedia page of hers.

She didn't receive any major coverage in WP:RS to have Wikipedia page dedicated to her. Here, most of the sources used are non reliable and doesn't help to receive the WP:Notability. Like,

1. Fails WP:RS
2,3,4,8. Websites of government. Repeated citation. Doesn't help to achieve notability.
5. Fails WP:RS
6. Website of university where she studied.
7. WP:RS but again she is mentioned as spouse of someone.
9. Not Reliable source and only negative mention about her regarding case on her son.

I don't think Tazeen need any Wikipedia page. Hence, this debate. Harshil169 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an elected member of India’s Upper House, described as a ‘leader’ and pro-chancellor of a university, she’s certainly ~~notable~~ significant. Mccapra (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. She meets WP:NPOL "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" as a member of the upper house of India's national parliament. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What the hell? nominator WP:IDONTLIKE ??? Clearly she meets WP:NPOL: Current or Former member of parliament are always notable. 117.18.229.108 (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC) 117.18.229.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Azam Khan (2nd nomination). --Muhandes (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another case of WP:JDLI from this editor on a notable Indian woman. Please see WP:BEFORE as the subject clearly meets notability criteria WP:NPOL. Netherzone (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Don't bring gender in between and refrain from doing sexist comments. See the references of the page, one government site is cited by 4 times. Other citations are negative and some are not reliable. If you don't know then visit India deletion sorting. I have submitted some other articles too for deletion. Remove glasses of gender before commenting, stuck on policies. --Harshil169 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep according to this source here 1 2 3, She is a Member of Parliament. Pass WP:POLITICIAN.--Nahal^(T) 10:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPOL. ∯WBG^converse 13:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need some improvement, but people who verifiably served as members of state legislatures pass WP:NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep Clearly passes WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NPOL. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL is a member of the Rajya Sabha the upper house of the Indian Parliament.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:22, 3 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Azam Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person who hasn't achieved enough attention in WP:RS. Reliable sources are not used here to achieve the criteria in the page.

1. Times of India (RS)
2. Same article is again quoted
3. Non-RS (Myneta.info is just website which displays data of elected representatives)
4. India.com is not news organisation. Fails RS.
5. Reliable source but controversy in faking birth certificate.
6. Reliable source but stay on arrest of him.

In this case, the person fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG criteria who hasn't received any special coverage to have Wikipedia page. Already, Wiki community reached on the conclusion to delete this page and this page is again created as he won the election. But winning election doesn't guarantee person should have Wikipedia page as per WP:NPOL.

Hence, this debate. Harshil169 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Meets WP:NPOL "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them". He is an elected member of the legislature of a state of India. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tazeen Fatma. --Muhandes (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL as member of provincial legislature.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a legislature of a state of India passes WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per NPOL. ∯WBG^converse 13:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need some improvement, but people who verifiably served as members of national legislatures pass WP:NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NPOL. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:22, 3 August 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. My reading of the discussion is that this is crap, but it's crap that WP:RS have written about. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gemmotherapy[edit]

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

Pro-fringe article tagged for notability since February 2016 and last edited (up to the AfD tagging) in 2017. I did not try WP:BEFORE, but the tagging user (Delta13C, renamed to Dino monster just before vanishing) did, and from the titles alone I can immediately tell that all the sources are likely fringe as well. Mainstream analysis demanded since September 2011. (Delta13C found no evidence of mainstream sources.) The lack of edits, as well as being an orphan, is a sign that this alternative treatment is not notable. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – Firstly, LaundryPizza03 it is an obligation as the nominator to do at least a simple WP:BEFORE. The assertion that someone has done it simply isn't enough. Now, by looking on Google News, you see a lot of news articles—that were made after the notability tag was put onto the article. However, Google Books has the most sources and most are pre-2016. As a few examples, I've found this source that satisfies GNG and looks reliable plus directly referencing this gemmotherapy because I'm half-convinced that there are a few (smaller than this) studies by the name from sifting through google. I've also found this but it's not as solid a source. Anyhow, as you sift further you find more and more sources, this source even asserting there are hundreds of European sources available, but most of them aren't in English. I'm 90% sure that these refer to the same gemmotherapy in the article, but only in one am I fully sure. All in all, there are plenty of sources; it just needs to be expanded. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change to ~~Neutral~~ upon further reflection. Will look more. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as all there seems to be are fringe scientists writing books, a Tasmanian family, and Fox News. Sure there's some reliable source among the several hundred asserted but I don't have the time to find it. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources is the Pharmacopée Francaise, which seems to be mainstream (now replaced by the European Pharmacopoeia). Is there significant coverage or just a mention? Peter James (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemmoth%C3%A9rapie#Notes_et_r%C3%A9f%C3%A9rences
Keep. As a lot of things in herbal medicine, this may not be scientifically proven, but passes WP:GNG based on publications noted on the page and during this AfD. Even simple Google search for books [21] shows the subject is clearly notable. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to be notable even if its fringe and needs some improvement.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turion[edit]

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

Delete per WP:2DABS. Turion (botany) should be the primary topic, as the originator of the word. The AMD Turion was codenamed as such from the word. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no indication that the botanical use is the Primary Topic. Page views suggest 14 a day for botany, 54 a day for AMD: not overwhelming either way. PamD 10:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR). -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alizeh Shah[edit]

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

Non-notable Pakistani actress, just 14 mentions on Google News. Bbarmadillo (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Created by a sock puppet account. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:NACTOR on the television and film credits shown in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis3D[edit]

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

Non-notable game engine, fails WP:GNG. I have been able to find a handful of passing mentions of the sort as "This game uses Genesis3D", but that is all, and very few of those. Nothing that specifically discusses the engine that I can tell. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While there are a few sources available, nothing qualifies as significant coverage. Lordtobi (✉) 14:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found three sources via Google Books. Game Design Foundations by Roger E. Pedersen, Guide to Graphics Software Tools by Jim X. Chen, and 3D Game Art by Luke Ahearn (can't see the actual content, but I can see the index which shows that an entire chapter (Ch. 8) is dedicated to the article's subject). --MrClog (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Ahearn chapter looks compelling, at first glance, but hard to tell from the preview alone. czar 12:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Nicholas Brown[edit]

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

Article has effectively been completely unsourced since its creation in 2010 (IMDb is WP:NOTRS). Subject almost certainly doesn't clear WP:NACTOR, and doesn't look to meet WP:BASIC either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and no redirect. I agree with IJBall. Not notable for an article. Passing mentions on some references I looked at but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage. A redirect to an article about one of his projects involved in not really feasible as none have any significant information about the actor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not even close to reliable level. One is IMDb, which aims to include everything, which is not our goal, and the other is the subjects own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not pass any sort of notability {N, ANYBIO, GNG, or ACTOR).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lacks the coverage needed to meet the GNG and also fails to meet WP:NACTOR.Sandals1 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Warner[edit]

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

Insufficient indication of notability. FamilySearch is user-generated and therefore not usable. The Boston Globe obit appears to be a regular paid-for family obit, not the kind that a paper publishes independently. The other two sources, Guardian and Life, are trivial mentions, not in-depth. I couldn't find anything else on a search. Notability is not inherited. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably should be a redirect at the least to Harpsichord (however he is lacking from there, but he should be there) - there's some coverage in - this Routledge book (as well as a coverage I'm unable to assess quality wise (snippets) or brief mentions in - [22][23][24][25][26]. I suspect the subject might be notable via a newspaper archive search (from the 50s-90s - tricky era for online searches) - if someone gives newspaper archives a spin they might find something (both in terms of harpsichord and in terms of other activities around Lexington). Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added more sources and edited the text. I have so far only searched Newspapers.com and done some googling. It would be well worth checking the sources which Icewhiz found, if someone is able to access hard copies (I don't think they're digitised beyond the snippets on google).

I looked at possible articles to include his name and a link to this article, and they all seem to need some work. "Electric harpsichord" redirects to an 18th century instrument, the Clavecin électrique, which does not seem sensible to me at all (but I don't know enough to start another article about 20thC electric harpsichords). The Baldwin article does not mention harpsichords at all. Electric piano has a section on Other electric keyboard instruments, which mentions a different Baldwin electric harpsichord, designed by a different person, but not this one. The article Because (Beatles song) mentions the electric harpsichord several times, and in the list of Personnel, names the Baldwin electric harpsichord, linking Baldwin to the article I mentioned above, with no mention of harpsichords, and "electric harpsichord" to the electric piano article .... I guess at the moment I would say Keep, because merging anywhere is going to take a lot of work. I will try to do some more searching, though. (Perhaps Eric Herz, his co-designer on at least some of the harpsichords, should also have an article - I spotted some coverage of him while searching for Warner.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RebeccaGreen has done a great job in adding sources and a merge to harpsichord would be as absurd as merging Colonel Sanders to chicken. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 28 July 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 Loro Parque. Less participation than I like to see in an AfD, but ultimately, the only argument to keep is from the article's author, who was unable to provide sources which convinced the other participants that this was notable. If you want to try again, I suggest doing it in draft space, and ping the participants of this AfD to get their opinions. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Kiessling[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. This is a WP:BLP whose article is a WP:COATRACK for their amusement park. Redirected, but the redirect was undone by the article creator. SportingFlyer T·C 15:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as the editor that redirected it originally. To address the editor who reverted my edit's concerns, while the article cites independent sources, the independent sources have insufficient coverage of the subject as they are largely database entries, a textbook example of trivial coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve There are numerous reliable sources within the article which are not data entries but could certainly do with adding more from the same page on the German Wikipedia as well as other sources. This can be a bit more difficult as some are in Spanish but they simply have be translated. However this does not warrant a deletion of this page and it is not a WP:COATRACK just because it talks about his important business ventures. Spy-cicle (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the deWiki page prior to redirecting the article, I don't think those sources contribute any additional notability, with the possible exception of the book used to back up the bird-prize claim which I was unable to track down. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the German Wikipedia page there are numerous Spanish articles that could be translated and put on the page ensuring it meets the notability guidelines however I am unable to do this now. For example: https://www.canarias7.es/siete-islas/gran-canaria/wolfgang-kiessling-denuncia-el-desprecio-de-marco-aurelio-perez-AF5654893 , https://www.canarias7.es/economia/kiessling-no-es-facil-de-entender-pero-soy-empresario-de-corazon-ML2937842 , https://www.efeverde.com/noticias/loro-parque-fitur/ , https://www.efeverde.com/noticias/kiessling-loro-parque-animales-exoticos-zoos/ , https://www.puertodelacruz.com/wolfgang-kiessling-en-el-puesto-165-de-las-mayores-fortunas-de-espana/

I think these sources are a stronger case for notability, but I'm not quite sure GNG is met. The Canarias7 and Efeverde sources rely extensively on quotes from Kiessling as the executive of Grupo Loro Parque. The Puerto de la cruz source is of unclear reliability, and is just reporting on Kiessling's inclusion on a list of richest people in Spain. Inclusion on such lists generally does not contribute to notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and Improve~~ This is my final summary for why this article should not deleted. Firstly this is clearly not a WP:COATRACK just because this article talks about Kiessling's numerous business ventures involving Loro Parque and Siam Park it does not mean it is a WP:COATRACK. As the page states: "An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article." The same goes for Wolfgang Kiessling. For Example Bill Gates is not a WP:COATRACK for talking about his involvement with Microsoft. Secondly, the article contains sufficient reliable and independent sources to meet WP:GNG but could to with improvement by including more sources as mentioned in one of my responses to talk. But if you still believe this is on the borderline of WP:GNG please consider this as an exception as it is merely a guideline and not a strict rule (WP:IAR).unsigned comment added by Spy-cicle (talk) 19:20, 4 August 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. Withdrawn by nominator. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclefly[edit]

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

Non notable local band, no actual independent sources; article written by current members. Listing also Generation Sap. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 28 July 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 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. Delete Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search finds [27] as substantial coverage, as well as Billboard magazine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- the nom appears to want Generation Sap bundled; presumably Crave (Cyclefly album) should be listed as well if someone fixes the bulk nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sound power~enwiki; I withdraw this, and will incorporate the sources you have found. Happy days. Ceoil (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 28 July 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. Renaming is a possibility that can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 09:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of furry comics[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not the place for a simple list of comics that only interest a certain audience. Such listings would be better served in a category. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I understand it, having a related category is not an argument against having a list. What WP:LISTN does state is: "Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ...; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I am trying to find whether furry comics have been discussed as a group or set in reliable independent sources. "Funny animal" comics (or comics featuring anthropomorphic characters) certainly have - not surprisingly, as they have been around for over 100 years. I haven't yet found any RS discussing "furry comics" as a group, so they may not meet WP:LISTN. I'll do some more searching. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As RebeccaGreen said that is not a valid reason to delete an article. It should be renamed to List of anthropomorphic comics. List of anthropomorphic animal superheroes redirects to List of animal superheroes, and Anthropomorphic character (comics) redirects to funny animal. I have no idea why "funny animal" is a thing, I don't see any reliable sources calling anthropomorphic animals in comics by that term. Dream Focus 02:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Funny animal" is a common term for comics about anthropomorphic animals like Pogo Possum and Donald Duck. It's been in usage among historians and academics since the sixties. Here are some examples Argento Surfer (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Three pages of Google results for that, although I click on some and don't see it in the links. "Anthropomorphic comics" gets three pages of results as well and is a more logical title since "funny animals" are not always funny at all, some not trying to be humorous even. Dream Focus 13:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - A misnomer used to describe comic books, you say? Balderdash! Argento Surfer (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. I have no preference on what the new title should be. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Albedo Anthropomorphics. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gallacci[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only sources that show up in searches for this person are either passing mentions or only relate to the person's work, Albedo Anthropomorphics. Fails WP:GNG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reposting and expanding my comment from previous AFD. I'm not going to !vote, as a I have a WP:COI, as the current publisher of some of Gallacci's past output (Fusion). However, I should note that Gallacci and his Albedo work were key in the furry realm, he really invented the Furry, as can be seen here and here and here and here, but his most noted days were pre-WWWeb. For one example I can quickly find, he was cover-featured and interviewed in issue 129 of Amazing Heroes, 1981, as you can verify here and here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Albedo Anthropomorphics, his most famous work. What few sources I found center mostly on that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Albedo Anthropomorphics. The aforementioned links do not make a compelling case for independent notability. The redirect target sufficiently places his role in the larger "realm". czar 12:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 12:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanguine Productions[edit]

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

The only source that shows up for this company contains a passing mention of the company. No other sources exist. Fails WP:GNG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironclaw[edit]

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

No sources exist for this subject, even the suggested search on the Talk page brings up nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do exist, the creators company is linked in the article where its website URL can be found and this very game can be seen. It also comes up in multiple google searches. The page could use more sources on the page itself, true, but that is no reason for deletion. WP:GNG. Raktus (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC) — Raktus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I have edited your signature, as you did not properly use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your post. In addition, the company's website is considered a WP:SPS in this case, and is not enough to satisfy GNG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of people born after a failed abortion attempt[edit]

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

Created to preserve the content of the POV category Category:Abortion survivors, comprising a tiny list of people notable primarily in anti-abortion propaganda. We already cover the medical concept in various other articles and don't need a list of people for a particular POV aspect of it. So NLIST problems combined with being a tiny unnecessary POV list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Never heard anyone group people by "abortion attempt" viz ✦ 14:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It doesn't make sense to have this article, given that it appears to be duplicative of Category:American anti-abortion activists and Category:Abortion survivors. While there are some notable individuals who specifically talk about the fact that their parents tried to kill them in the womb, there's nothing unifying about the category that distinguishes them from pro-life activists more generally (who are, for obvious reasons, most likely to talk about this in public). It would be better to simply include this information in each relevant person's article, assuming that there are sufficient reliable sources and noteworthy third-party coverage of these claims related to each individual. Michepman (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This whole article is really useless KingSkyLord (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Michepman The Category:Abortion survivors is at WP:CFD at the moment. The voting is edging towards delete. One editor suggested that the contents be listified. To prevent information loss, I created this page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator I think that this is primarily just a factual list and not POV pushing. Arguably, the desire to delete could be seen as POV pushing. The preamble to the list was cut 'n' paste from the main abortion article. I'm not wedded to it. The article can lose the preamble but might look strange without some context. While all attempted-abortion-survivors in the current list appear to be also involved in "anti-abortion propaganda", as it is phrased above, not everybody involved in "anti-abortion propaganda" is an attempted-abortion-survivor; the sets do not overlap perfectly. I've also now included the article as part of the wider Category:Survivors which includes holocaust, lynching etc survivors. So there is precedent for this kind of thing. The article is useful as the info will be held nowhere else conveniently once the CFD is carried. For the people involved, it is a defining fact of their lives. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only three things listed, not enough for a list article. Dream Focus 05:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply After a quick Google search, I found another and added her to the list. Are we really so sure that this list has no potential to grow? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added a biography of a non-notable living person to a list (WP:BLPLIST) based on an exceptionally poor source (WP:RS)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A list is a list. There's no wiki rule that says everybody in the list has to be notable. In fact lists are for accumulations that would otherwise not be notable in their own right or worthy of articles in themselves; it is only in a list that their relevance is seen. Are we really so sure that this list has no potential to grow? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list isn't meant for only activists, if there is a non-activist you can add it. Oldenburg Baby wasn't an activist even if activists use it to support their position. The potential POV with the name of the category can be solved by renaming instead of deleting. Blumpf (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am not wedded to the name. Am open to alternatives. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being a survivor of a failed abortion attempt does not appear to confer notability, as there are many more individuals who could be included in such a list (supposedly there are a dozen or so each year in the United States, [28]) who are nonetheless not notable individuals. The only individuals listed here who have articles are notable for being anti-abortion activists, not because of the manner of their birth, and so I was going to suggest merging to a list of anti-abortion activist individuals, but we do not appear to have one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the above. I understand why the original person created this article, since it sounds like the category is being deleted or will be deleted in the future. However, I don't think that this article really makes sense as a standalone article. As a compromise, I would support including this information in the pages of the individual pro-life activists or figures listed here and potentially including a subpage on (for example) abortion or pro-life or similar articles which would include a list of people who have specifically been identified in reliable, notable sources as abortion survivors. Michepman (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a Plan B, I could support this suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:04, 3 August 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DipTrace[edit]

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

Consists of promotional content only. Pancho507 (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am appalled that an article such as "DipTrace" is nominated for deletion. "DipTrace" has 610,000 results shown on Google and numerous results on YouTube. Yes, the article needs to be improved, but that's NOT enough to warrant a deletion request. Also User:Pancho507 broke reference links during an overly agreesive edit, which still needs to be fixed. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:GNUM. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 17:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 5 days, and User:Pancho507 still has not fixed the links in the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A clearly notable software package. The nominator should carefully study WP:DEL-REASON to learn what kind of problems in an article mean that it should be deleted and what kind of problems in an article mean that the problems should be fixed. (Full disclosure: I am a former DipTrace user. I still think DipTrace is a good product but in my opinion KiCad is better.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 1 August 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.