Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 November	11 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Home for Curiosities[edit]

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

No credible assertion or evidence of notability for this new film Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources cited has the "in-depth discussion" needed to establish notability. Some don't even mention the subject. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific of the sources which don’t mention the subject. In depth should be there since there is a director interview by a magazine linked. Notability should be given by the numerous festivals and awards this movie received — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicusnerd (talk • contribs) 01:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. The awards section is completely puffed up with "official selection entries" (which are not an award), and those that are "awards" are not significant in any way like the "Best Actor Award" which is handed out like candy. -- Whpq (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MOVIE. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Searches yielded no critical reviews of the films, and the film festivals which the film participated in were all very minor festivals which are geared towards encouraging young talent (basically pre-professional festivals for young people).4meter4 (talk) 22:07, 17 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firefly planets and moons[edit]

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

In-universe, non-notable, plot-only minutia better suited to a fan wiki. TTN (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft with no criteria for inclusion, indiscriminate list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as excessive fictional detail. It's already covered with WP:DUEWEIGHT at Firefly_(TV_series)#Backstory and Firefly_(TV_series)#Episodes. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NO MORE FICTIONAL PLANET LISTS!!! Clarityfiend (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per the above. Enough with the lists of fictional planets. Reyk _YO! 13:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. No more fictional planet lists. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:00, 16 November 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 22:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Catherine Cook School[edit]

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

Unnotable private elementary school and preschool. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill primary school. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that all of the WP:RS that saved the article in the 2008 AFD1 are dead links. an archive of the only non-local story shows that this was incidentally mentioned and the sources don't support WP:GNG (and maybe never did).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a run of the mill small private primary school, it fails my standards for schools; also fails the basic rules. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing that makes this school different and notable. Alex-h (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School is not notable. Fails WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:09, 16 November 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 Family Fortunes. Tone 22:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Star Family Fortunes[edit]

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

not seeing how this justifies a separate article to Family Fortunes Laun chba ller 20:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Family Fortunes; seems to contain more information than the main series page, though it could definitely be better sourced. YorkshireLad (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Family Fortunes. Makes sense if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge with Family Fortunes. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:11, 16 November 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 22:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NHL on Fox commentator pairings[edit]

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

Wikia-level trivia, violative of WP:NOTDIR. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings. Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not covered in independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 21:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:LISTN NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:04, 16 November 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 22:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NHL on Versus commentator pairings[edit]

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

Wikia-level trivia, violative of WP:NOTDIR. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings. Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excessive detail on broadcasts not covered in independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 21:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Enough of this NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 16 November 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 22:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL on NBC commentator pairings[edit]

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

Wikia-level trivia, violative of WP:NOTDIR. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings. Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excessive detail on broadcasts not covered in independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 21:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for similar reasons to the FOX article. SportingFlyer T·C 00:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LISTN which requires that the topic has "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The sources cited do not represent significant coverage of the group or set and also in some cases are not from reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to above, fails policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:06, 16 November 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 22:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL on CBS commentator pairings[edit]

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

Wikia-level trivia, violative of WP:NOTDIR. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings. Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete are there any more of these types of articles? List of NFL Europe on the NFL Network commentator pairings perhaps? SportingFlyer T·C 04:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons at the other "list of _____ commentators pairings" articles in recent discussions. It is getting a bit old, isn't it? Ah well, we do give people the authority to create!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just fails WP:LISTN. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 16 November 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 22:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL on ABC/ESPN commentator pairings[edit]

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

Wikia-level trivia, violative of WP:NOTDIR. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings. Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Excessive detail on broadcasts not covered in independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 21:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons at all the other List of NFL on ____ commentator parings articles. These should have been bulk deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought there might be more of these... SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 17 November 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 22:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding elements of Babylon 5[edit]

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

Trivial, non-notable in-universe minutia. TTN (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Outstanding elements"? A whole lot of WP:OR going on here. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure fancruft, original research list of plot elements._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WTH are even 'Outstanding elements'? Is this like the 'merge target for random deleted trivia'? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST. There's no objective test for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft about subjective, non-notable subject. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:59, 17 November 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 22:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Babylon 5[edit]

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

In-universe only fictional minutia. The set of items does not establish notability. None of the sources in the article appear to be worthwhile. TTN (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First we delete the lists of planets in xxx, then we work our way down. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crufty, in-universe, indiscriminate list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Secondary articles to main articles are necessary in several situations, including in situations, like this, where the article in question is a very popular TV series. The list itself does not need to be notable, nor is it a requirement under any policy, since its notably is inherent from the parent article. This list could just as much be in the parent article. The reason why it's split is because it would make the parent article unnecessary large. Each entry in the list, however, is (probably) not notable in itself to have a separate unique article, which is OK, and that is why there is a dedicated list article for that. The article itself is structured good and seems to confirm to the MoS guidelines (unlike many other articles), and is even referenced with 17 different sources. Also, I fail to see how this list is "indiscriminate" as it clearly lists "locations" in the "Babylon 5" series. If by "indiscriminate" the argument is "incomplete" then that is a different thing, but also not a reason to delete. --Gonnym (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This argument opens up any list of minutia in any fictional series. Weapons, special moves, fictional monsters, etc. Locations are in no way a necessary item to be discussed. Summary style information is enough. TTN (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some history: this article was created in 2009 as a page move resulting from Io (Babylon 5)'s AfD. The Vega Colony and Deneb 4 AfD resulted in the merge also. Epsilon III, Proxima 3 and Earth (Babylon 5) were also merged/redirected here. User:Aladdin Sane and User:Jclemens made some valiant attempts in 2009/2010 to address Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction (as it existed back then). The article has only been lightly edited since then. —maclean (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from my past work on various other Babylon 5 topics, I own sufficient dead tree RS'es that cover these fictional elements well enough to justify an article under GNG. I don't remotely have time to do so, as interested parties (if there are any) have likely deduced from my silence regarding deletion of plenty of other improvable fictional elements. You can call this a keep vote if anyone cares, but since everyone who remotely cared enough to improve older fictional elements seems to have given up and gone away, I'm note entirely sure what the point would be. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I first started editing Wikipedia in 2004 I loved those kind of topics (fictional geography). I still like them today - but they belong on wikias, not here. Feel free to transwiki anything here to https://babylon5.fandom.com/wiki/Locations if there is anything that we are covering that is not covered there already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Babylon 5#Setting. Goustien (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely in-universe plot summaries without a single reliable source being used - instead, the sources appear to be a mixture of primary sources, fansites, and original research. As the essential plot information regarding the setting is already at Babylon 5#Setting, and this is not going to be a particularly useful search term, merging or redirecting is not needed. Rorshacma (talk) 15:49, 17 November 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 22:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Street Lights (Kanye West song)[edit]

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

According to WPN:Songs

1) Has not been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.

2) Has not won one or more significant awards or honors.

3) Has not been independently released as a recording by several notable artists. The ones mentioned are not notable

On top of that, "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to WPN:Songs, "songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." What the nominator referenced is the section that talks about how songs also may be notable. In this case, coverage from non-trivial published sources independent of the artist and label can be found in Billboard, Pitchfork, and PopMatters, with coverage of covers in Rolling Stone, Vice, and Stereogum. Those are just the standalone articles that cover the song, not including coverage of the album the song comes from. --Kbabej (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes NSONG Unfortunately. Lightburst (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:NSINGLE. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:24, 16 November 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. There's another !vote to delete now, avoiding the soft deletion problem, and no arguments to keep after two weeks. Even with the light participation, I'd call that a consensus to delete. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dar-ul-Mominien Schooling System[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has a previous WP:PROD, so we should look for a consensus rather than soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD. This is a small, private parochial school. There's no reliable source about the size, rigor, or success of alumni. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 13 November 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 22:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery One[edit]

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

This fictional spacecraft gets many passing mentions in discussions of the novels and movies in which it appears, but significant coverage of the ship itself is lacking. Of the three sources cited in the article, one is not independent, one mentions the ship in passing as an example of artificial gravity, and one doesn't mention it at all. RL0919 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Artificial Gravity discusses the spaceship at length in an out-of-universe context, both with respect to its scientific feasibility, and its construction and filming. The huge rotating set for the artificial gravity scenes on the ship cost $750,000—a significant portion of the film budget according to that book. There is also The 2001 File: Harry Lange and the Design of the Landmark Science Fiction Film. Harry Lange, of course, is the NASA expert hired by Kubrik to design the film's spaceships and equipment. There are several other books with limited preview, but are clearly going to have significant amounts of information: 2001:Filming the Future and Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece. SpinningSpark 01:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Snow Keep per Spinningspark above. Since there was not a consensus here, I could not close. I would, however, suggest a possible renaming to include a parenthetical qualifier, but won't make it a specific caveat. Doug Mehus T·C 18:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Parenthetical disambiguation is only used when there is another article of that name to distinguish it from, and there is none in this case. See WP:PARENDIS; when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. SpinningSpark 22:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified by Spinning Park which enable WP:GNG to be passed and deletion is no longer necessary imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 17 November 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. No consensus to Delete and after a re-list, a consensus to Keep over Merge (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Wiggum[edit]

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

Another Simpson side-character that seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Coverage is limited to WP:PRIMARY/fictional biography, plus some mentions in passing like ""All other authorities, whether police (Chief Wiggum), politicians (Mayor Quimby), or clergy (Reverend Lovejoy), are mere bumblers before the awesome power of Burns", " Similarly, many stereotypes in Italy are related to the corruption of politics and the police, and therefore characters such as Mayor Quimby and Chief Wiggum find fertile ground in the Italian context.". The best coverage I found is in here, two paragraphs, but all that it really says is, after summarizing his quirks/etc. (i.e. plain description) is that he is a typical stereotype of a policeman. In other words, the coverage of this character is even worse than that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cletus Spuckler which recently ended in a merge. D'oh!... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters per nom. There are some mentions of Chief Wiggum in reliable sources, like in The Simpsons: A Cultural History page 91, as stated, but not really enough to justify a full article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weak, weak, weak keep. He's a well-known, easily recognizable character from the most notable animated series of all time, the character development section is worth saving, and he's got his own book, Chief Wiggum's Book of Crime and Punishment, and his own Lego figure. P.S. He's already in the List of The Simpsons characters, so redirect there if it comes to that. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is a PRIMARY source, so it is not much better than an average episode where he plays a major role, and there have been a few. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a source, merely an indication of his admittedly weak notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list, but which one? Why are some characters, such as our erudite chief, on List of The Simpsons characters and not on List of recurring The Simpsons characters? And I'm going to nominate List of one-time The Simpsons characters for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: Yeah, I am a bit puzzled about the difference. Outside of the Simpson family, I think all other characters are recurring, not a single one appears in ALL the episodes. Those two lists may warrant merging. The one-time list is cool but WP:TRIVIA, so you are probably right it needs an axe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or *Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters per nominator. Lightburst (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters for (reverse) WP:ARTICLESIZE reasons. Notable enough to be summarized somewhere, but not enough real-world content to require a separate article. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Without solid sources, there's no need for a full article. TTN (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters. The character does not neede its own wiki page and should get a mention there. Dellwood546 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of RS available. WP:BEFORE was not followed. See these books for sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. There has been so much academic research on The Simpsons and even psychology and literature college courses centralized around them that even minor characters have lots of references available.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: If anyone is not following WP:BEFORE it's you. First, a number of the sources you mention are also linked in the OP. Second, some of your sources are plain bad. For example, #3 is a novel, as in, a fiction, WP:PRIMARY source, that just makes a reference to the character. #6 just mentions in passing that a music theme related to the character was played in another show, does not even discuss the character itself. Your post gives no suggestion that you read any of those sources, they appear to be mere WP:GOOGLEHITS. Btw, your first source is not visible for me (copyright). Is it visible to you? Can you quote from it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Please read WP:CIVIL. You are being rude. The fact that the character's theme is analyzed is interesting to me, and it's showing some analysis even if brief. The reference to the character in unrelated fiction shows the character is more than just minor but has become a cultural reference beyond in-universe. The first source has a rather lengthy analysis of an episode in which the character plays a featured part.4meter4 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I called you out on the fact that you did not provide anything but a list of googlehits. Where am I rude? When I point out that I did WP:BEFORE and you accuse me I didn't? With all due respect, that was you being not so much rude as plainly incorrect. Now, I am sorry if anything I said made you feel offended, but I re-read my post and I have no clue what it could be. Moving on, don't take it as being rude, but the fact that you find something interesting is not relevant to something being notable. An analysis of an episode is suggestive of the said episode being notable, not of other plot elements in it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your characterization of the sources as mere google hits. I find your reaction to the RS an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. I stated that I didn’t feel you had followed WP:BEFORE based on the sources I found. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.4meter4 (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listing sources is not much more than listing google hit results. As I said, I reviewed most of them and found them to be in passing mentions at best. The ball is in your court: if any of them are in-depth, please say which ones and explain it in a sentence or two (per source). I am not asking anything that I wouldn't have done myself (or did, even in this OP). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some peer reviewed academic works that can be used as sources:

"Dubbing The Simpsons : Or How Groundskeeper Willie Lost His Kilt in Sardinia"; Ferrari, Chiara, Journal of Film and Video, 2009, Vol.61(2), pp.19-37 (Here there is an analysis of the character and how the character is viewed through an American lens and how it is viewed through an Italian lens. It analyzes the voice performances of the American version and the Italian version.)
"The Simpsons" and the Law: Revealing Truth and Justice to the Masses; Kevin K. Ho; UCLA Ent. L. Rev., Vol.10 pp.275-275, 2003 (Here the character is analyzed as the embodiment of police mistrust by the public, and also analyzes the character's physical appearance)
"The Simpsons: Public Choice in the Tradition of Swift and Orwell"; Considine, John; Journal of Economic Education, Spring 2006, Vol.37(2), pp.217-228 (Here the character is analyzed in context to other authority figures in The Simpsons as lacking any moral authority)
"The mediation is the message: Italian regionalization of US TV series as co-creational work"; Barra, Luca, International Journal of Cultural Studies, September 2009, Vol.12(5), pp.509-525 (Here Chief Wiggum, in Italy known as Commissario Winchester, is used as an example of how the Neapolitan accent is used to indicate either inept or criminal behavior in an Italian cultural stereotype)
"The Simpsons: Atomistic Politics and the Nuclear Family"; Cantor, Paul A; Political Theory, December 1999, Vol.27(6), pp.734-749
"Torture and Justification: Defending the Indefensible"; Adam Raviv; Geo. Mason L. Rev., Vol.13 pp.135-1341, 2004 (here the character is analyzed as means of embodying America's justification of torture)

Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now please quote from those to show us they offer in-depth discussion of this, not just mentions in passing. Your first source, for example, mentions Wiggum several times - but only to recount his fictional biography (in this episode, he did this, in another, he acted like thus). It provides a bit of analysis of the police in TS "The treatment of the Springfield Police Department in "The Simpsons" is hardly surprising, as it reflects a popular distrust of the police." but it contains NOTHING for us to use for the CW character since it does not contain a single sentence of analysis of him. It is a possible source for law enforcement in fiction article or stereotypes about law enforcement or such, but is of no help to our article. Which again suggests that you didn't even bother to read those sources, just found google hits that mention that character name. Sorry, that's not good enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the character embodies a stereotype/stock character doesn't invalidate the RS coverage on the character fulfilling that role. Further the three pages devoted to Wiggum in that article analyze his physical appearance and yes does point out that he is used as an embodiment of mistrust of the police, which contrary to your statement, is a substantial form of analysis and was the point made by the author in the published academic paper. 4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the author of that paper got it published despite a lot of it being pure plot summary doesn't change that it is a plot summary, not an analysis. Please feel free to quote any relevant sentences that actually go beyond WP:PLOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Clarityfiend:, @Lightburst:, @Sgeureka:, @TTN:, @Dellwood546: Please consider the new evidence. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to see them in action in the article to revise my thoughts. It seems like a mix of something and a mix of trivial mentions. If it's something you don't have time for, I'd recommend sandboxing it and proposing restoring it later on should this end up as redirect or merge. TTN (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing more time for discussion of sources brought forward in the last day of the original listing period.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Okay, folks, show’s over. Nothing to see here..." Andrew D. (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep due to considerably notability as verified in numerous reliable sources. --199.123.13.193 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or speedy keep. AfD's not for considering merging; this never should have been nominated for deletion. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This certainly falls in that grey area between pure keep and merge, but this isn't articles for merging. If someone wants to open up a talk page discussion supporting a plan to merge, have at it. Deletion isn't the answer though--Cube lurker (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be plenty of good sources online. I would not oppose a merger or sandbox. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Closer is reminder that WP:NOTAVOTE, and that some accounts here seem like WP:SPA and/or likely to have been cavassed on/off wiki for the purpose of casting a rationale-free vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:Please add appropriate notes on the accounts you suspect of being SPA. The only one I see is the anon IP comment. The others seem to have an edit history. I don't think canvasing is happening either. 4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 4meter4, due to their strong argument. Also Cletus Spuckler is far more worse than this. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck banned user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What were the odds on that being confirmed as a sock? Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 19:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An immensely well-known character in one of the most famous shows. I understand it may be hard to find good sources among the mass of false positives but the hardly means they don’t exist as has already been shown. It’s also obvious that merging was the true intent so AfD should have never been started. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that contains factual text like where "Wiggum" came from and he is more notable than the others in the police department. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 19:43, 18 November 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 22:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 5[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, twice created on top of a redirect. If the AfD decision is delete, probably needs to be protected as a redirect. Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence that the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE per WP:NEXIST. This is a historic London bus route which was serviced by the famous Routemaster and there is plenty written about their routes. I can look up that up when I have access to the relevant books but, for now, here's an example of recent coverage about a controversial route change. Andrew D. (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find that Route 5 is notable. Sources exist and if an article can have endless AfDs, perhaps it should be allowed a few recreations. we may find a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of bus routes in London. The article has been attempted to be recreated dozens of times since the first redirect back way back in 2010. As it stands, there is still zero evidence of notability. It should only be kept if users can demonstrate it can sufficiently qualify at AfC level. Ajf773 (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, uncited text issues addressed. 11Expo (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London. I fail to see anything notable about this route. Lacks significant coverage. It is not in touristy central London. Many, many routes derived from trolleybus routes when they decided it was cheaper to poison us with diesel fumes. Routemaster buses were everywhere back in the day so that is nothing special. In short nothing of encyclopaedic interest.Charles (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking...found Bus route 5 to Romford Market under review to serve Queen's Hospital, The 11 busiest London bus routes where you'll be hard pressed to find a seat, Proposed bus route changes for Coventry, Driver in hospital after bus crashes into lamppost on Barking Road, There's a guy in the German embassy trying to travel on every London bus route before he leaves town.

Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of those sources are nothing special. Many of them are local coverage. One is a trivial mention. One mentions Coventry, an entirely different city. One mentions a bus crash, not a claim to fame for any route. Ajf773 (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's with the focus on UK bus routes here? As I stated elsewhere, these should be an WP:IAR keep, unless a specific rule on bus routes has a low notability threshold. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What reason is there to ignore all rules??Charles (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesdrakew, didn't think we need one, per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, but I would say part sentimental attachment and part users go to Wikipedia for transit route histories (at least I do, and I suspect I'm not alone). I know that may not be what Wikipedia is, but I don't get the need to delete these either. How many London bus routes are there? Is it possible to expand the London Buses article by including a brief paragraph or two on each article? Doug Mehus T·C 21:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to do that. Just have route articles for only the minority of London Buses routes that are actually notable. Ajf773 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 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 22:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killersound[edit]

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

Created by a single purpose account in 2009 and PRODed a couple of days later. It survived but has had no significant improvements in ten years. It’s still largely unsourced and the two sources provided relate only to tangential details and are now dead anyway. If this is notable it needs a lot of work, but I think it isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article describing the subject's changing business model during its company lifespan, but without evidence provided or found to indicate attained notability whether in the music library, ringtone or Flash markets. The brief mention in a Q&A with Deadmau5 hardly supports the claim it is referencing and is in any case insufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:49, 11 November 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 by an admin. (non-admin closure) LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Snedden[edit]

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

Not finding enough online to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since the only listed "source" is IMDb, which is not reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a review of his performance in The Lone Gunmen from The New York Times. It's no longer unreferenced. Let's do this properly by following WP:BEFORE.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In view of the last comment, let's keep it open for a while longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 10:13, 10 November 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) 11:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Krabi F.C. season[edit]

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

It fails WP:NSEASONS with the team being in the third tier of Thai football. HawkAussie (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly fails WP:NSEASONS. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:28, 16 November 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) 11:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Memorial Institute Madhyamgram[edit]

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

Attempt for multiple AfD as per Wikipedia guidelines under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhir Memorial Institute Liluah. Unfortunately main article got deleted and this article was not noticed. Propose deletion for same reason: not notable per WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Master Of Ninja (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fairly new and growing but still run of the mill boarding school. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC) P.S. I note that, in a country of almost 1 billion people, there are likely to be over 200,000,000 children in thousands of Indian schools; realistically many of those will be NN. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Bearian's logic. Nothing significant to set it apart from the rest. Not notable. SerTanmay (talk) 07:04, 17 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrar Tipu[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Doesn't pass any criteria listed on WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Article has 4 refs, two refs are unrelated (about cricket world cup & his production house) and two refs are interview (which are primary ref). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.10:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep: Content of interviews may be primary source, but publication of interviews by two leading media outlets at national level should be sufficient to establish notability. Arman ^(Talk) 04:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but two interviews in two leading media doesn't enough for establish notability. Everyday they publish this type of interview but it doesn't mean everyone notable just because they are interviewed. otherwise we can start creating article about every person who they interviewed. I failed to see how he pass WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. No significant coverage. (May be not related. On bnwiki they redirected this article to the event 'O Prithibi Ebar Ese Bangladesh Nao Chine'). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete. WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON It is just due to single event that is 'O Prithibi Ebar Ese Bangladesh Nao Chine' and Did not see any reward. fail WP:GNG-Nahal^(T) 09:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. sources found to show notability. He did singing more song and event album published. I found now some of old news coverage, probably notability passes on GNG WP:NMUSIC.-Nahal^(T) 09:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Satisfies criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC. His production company also received non-trivial coverage, making it more than one event. BLP1E doesn't apply nor does TOOSOON because coverage is in 2011 and 2019.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Passes WP:NMUSIC WP:CREATIVE. Created notable music. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: No he doesn’t meet WP:NMUSIC as it clearly states that the article itself must be well sourced with reliable sources. Take a look at that article, it is not sourced properly in accordance with the aforementioned guideline. So how then does he meet WP:NMUSIC? Celestina007 (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: publication of interviews passes notability, not the interviews content's. --SalmanZ (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Looks like he passes WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject of article fails WP:GNG & WP:BASIC as he fails to gain significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NMUSIC. A google search turns up almost empty. Celestina007 (talk) 10:32, 16 November 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 22:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Smith (author)[edit]

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

Not notable. Online searches have found no sources independent of the subject of the article. Article history shows no substantial changes or edits by anyone other than the article's creator. Issues raised in February 2011, shortly after the article was created, do not appear to be addressed: it's an orphan, it cites no sources independent of the article's subject, it promotes the subject in a subjective manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmee2 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the guy was interviewed in Forbes and contributed several articles to Forbes as an author [8], [9], [10]. He is featured in Huffington Post Canada.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He is a bestselling writer. Did anyone who read what he has accomplished listed in the Huffington Post [11] doubt he is notable? Dream Focus 18:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Without taking sides, an online search would be difficult for a newbie much less a teacher with two graduate degrees and 12 years' experience on Wikipedia; in addition to several other Rick Smiths on Wikipedia, there's the Axon guy, a baseball player, and a police chief with the same name. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:AUTHOR I cannot confirm where he was a bestselling author. It matters. It is a claim repeated, however it was not NY Times. So not sure it confers notability. Huffington Post reads like a resume and does not look to have editorial oversight. Wm335td (talk) 22:09, 15 November 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. If the article should sit at a better title, the move can be done outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roots industries[edit]

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

The company lacks in-depth news coverage from WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Roots Industries, Roots Industries India or Roots Industries Group - not clear whether the article is about "... India" or "... Group", but certainly needs a capital "I". Article hasenough coverage in WP:RS to pass notability, though needs more work. 20 minutes after article creation seems too soon to take to AfD. And the newbie editor hadn't been given a "Welcome" message till I did so just now. PamD 08:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per HighKing's added information, or Draftify, was Draftify per PamD, and previously was Merge or Delete per nom. Prefer Merge as seems to fail standalone notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per Pam. A cursory search revealed enough RS to make a decent article, and the article already has enough RS to pass WP:GNG. No need to draftify as it is a functional stub.4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. This Time of India reference is classic churnalism based entirely on an interview. This from The Hindu is based on one and possibly two company announcements. This from Motor India Online is based on a company announcement.This from Auto Car Pro has no accredited journalist and is entirely based on information provided by the company. This from Auto Guide India is based on an interview with the chairman. All of those have no Independent Content and fail WP:ORGIND. Finally, this from The Hindu is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:54, 19 November 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 Kiwi FM. czar 15:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Z (Radio Station)[edit]

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

Subject in its current form fails WP:NOTE, with no online presence other than a website and an online stream. Large amount of content in this article was split from Kiwi FM on its creation, and regards the MediaWorks incarnation of Channel Z. This new incarnation is little more than a web stream reusing a defunct brand and shares none of the history of the old station (or, if it does, this is not made clear from any sources). Content regarding the original Channel Z station should be merged back into the Kiwi FM article. Heyitsstevo (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 17:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Kiwi FM. There is no evidence that this station, in its current web radio format, passes our notability standards for media — to collect any notability at all, it clearly has to hijack and lean on the branding history of the merge target. But other than the brand name itself, there's no reliably sourced evidence that the web radio incarnation inherits the history of the terrestrial radio network just because it's adopted the terrestrial radio network's former brand. Further, radio stations that change brands get one article that covers their entire history at the current brand, not separate standalone articles about each branding phase — so the fact that Kiwi FM used to be branded as Channel Z does not automatically warrant two separate articles either. All of which means that the web radio stream has basis for notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Kiwi FM, as per Bearcat. No apparent independent notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:11, 11 November 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 12:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sound of Boston[edit]

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

Non-notable local music blog that fails WP:ORG. Of the 11 sources in the article, only one (a college newspaper) is even a non-trivial mention by a third-party source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources fail WP:GNG:

Sources #1, #3, #14, #17, #19 are part of the subject's website(s). FAIL.

Sources #2, #7, #8, #10, #13 only give trivial mentions. FAIL.

Sources #4, #5 appear to be the newspapers of the college of the founders of Sound of Boston, not independent. BORDERLINE.

Sources #6 is not reliable, probably is non-informational poll. FAIL.

Sources #11, #15 are promotional material. FAIL.

Source #16 seems to be routine and trivial coverage promoting an event. FAIL.

Source #18 is the subject's YouTube channel. FAIL.

I don't know about #9 because a subscriber paywall popped up, but it appears to be similar to #8. Does not pass GNG or ORG. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons as not independently notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, fails WP:GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons per WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramjet (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons as not independently notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, fails WP:GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons per WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 13 November 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 is to keep the article . (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 04:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John E. LeBrun[edit]

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

Non relevant/notable politician. Dellwood546 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dellwood546 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly. --Enos733 (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple links to Canadian government documents and websites verifying the named individual was a lawful, public representative in the provincial government of Canada. Scriblerian1 (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN as LeBrun served as a Nova Scotia MLA. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This certainly needs some improvement, but serving in a provincial legislature passes WP:NPOL #1 right on its face. At the provincial, state and federal levels, we do not apply any notability tests above and beyond the fact that their holding of the office is properly verifiable — we would certainly still delete an outright hoax about an MLA who never actually existed at all, but a person who is plainly verifiable as having held a seat in the provincial legislature does not have to be demonstrably more notable than his other colleagues, because the importance of Wikipedia being a complete reference for elected legislators at the provincial, state and federal levels overrides anybody's individual opinions about who did or more less significant work in the legislature. And while our articles about people who held office 40 years ago often feature considerably less substance and less sourcing than our articles about people who hold the same office today, it's not because media coverage of politicians is some newfangled thing that somehow only emerged in the 21st century — it's because Wikipedians have a collective tendency toward laziness, and often just rely on sources they can find within five minutes on a Google search rather than actually digging into newspaper archives to find the coverage that absolutely did exist 40 years ago. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW and Bearcat, no relation. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has been elected to Nova Scotia House of Assembly and passes notability. Alex-h (talk) 14:59, 13 November 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. Tone 12:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DZRV-FM[edit]

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

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST. Sourcing is only trivial mentions or lists. Current sourcing is the same, in fact, one of the current sources doesn't even mention this station. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources here all attest to the existence of a DZRV AM in Manila, and completely fail to even mention the existence of a DZRV-FM in Bayombong at all (and no, Bayombong is not a suburb of Manila, so we can't just presume that it's the same station). We've historically had a massive problem with the creation of fake radio station articles in the Philippines — so the sourcing really has to be on point for a Philippine radio station, and this sourcing is failing to be on point. This is exactly why one of the base notability criteria for radio stations is that their passage of the other notability criteria is supported by reliable sources, and not merely claimed without sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2011 NTC Listing from PSA (station listed at page 23) and 2019 NTC Listing from FOI (station listed at page 3) state that the station exists. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only DZRV that appears anywhere in the 2011 list is the one in Manila, and the 2019 list is a dead link. If what you're trying to prove is that the article was created under the wrong title by accident, and the station exists but has a different call sign than the page title gives, then you'd better say that — but in the one of those two links I can actually read there's absolutely no DZRV-FM in Bayombong appearing on page 23. There is a station listed on this station's frequency on that page, but DZRV is not its call sign. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I recently checked those links and they're working. The callsign DZRV in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya is in both of those lists and the station really exists. I can't be wrong. In fact, I've browsed the list a few times before to check if it's there. If you fail to see it, then I'll just post screenshots here. _SUPER ^ASTIG 23:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you've got screenshots then you'd best bring 'em on, because I checked both links again and am still getting exactly the same as before: the only DZRV in the 2011 list is still an AM station in Manila, not an FM station in Bayombong; the only station which is listed on 90.1 FM in Nueva Vizcaya still does not have the call sign "DZRV"; and the 2019 list is still a dead link that just comes up blank. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Here they are. _SUPER ^ASTIG 23:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011 NTC Listing (Page 23, Nueva Vizcaya).jpg

File:2011 NTC Listing (Page 23, Nueva Vizcaya) Closeup.jpg

File:2019 NTC Listing (Page 3).jpg

Didja catch that the call sign you highlighted in the 2011 image is not "DZRV", but DWRV? As in, literally making me correct when I said that the call sign listed for 90.1 FM in Nueva Vizcaya was something other than DZRV? And precisely because there's a conflict between the 2011 and 2019 sources, we need additional evidence of which one is actually correct before you get to drop the mic. And also, do you have any sources to confirm that the station in Bayombong actually originates any of its own unique programming, which is another condition that radio stations have to pass to be considered notable, rather than simply relaying the flagship? Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The DWRV FM callsign belongs to the station in Camarines Sur, according to both sources. I believe it's just a typo error in the 2011 Listing. In my case, I'd rather resort to the 2019 Listing, knowing that it's updated. And aside from the other source and the external link found in the article, the other sources I found are this and this. _SUPER ^ASTIG 00:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which refer to it as DWRV rather than DZRV, thus contradicting your own point...and neither of which confirm, as also required by WP:NMEDIA, that this station (whatever its call sign really is) produces any of its own original programming rather than simply rebroadcasting programming produced by another station. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some books confirming the title as DZRV: [12], [13].4meter4 (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those books still list "DWRV Bayombong" as a separate thing from a DZRV that isn't in Bayombong. And neither of them answer the outstanding "does this station actually create any of its own programming, as opposed to just relaying programming that originates with another station" question either. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 10 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scanzoni[edit]

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

The page has not been edited in 6 years and is just a "may refer to" list. It should probably be merged or deleted. Dellwood546 (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dellwood546 (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A perfectly acceptable name list. You'll have to remind me where "not been edited in 6 years" is listed at WP:DEL#REASON. I don't seem to be able to find it. SpinningSpark 23:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a fairly standard surname list. I'm not clear on why this one should be deleted.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly good "dab" list. An argument could be made to use "hats" instead. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't redlink hatnotes per WP:REDHAT and the WWI general is currently a redlink. Also, the grandson of the gynecologist who has the same name as the general has an article on de Wikipedia and could also conceivably be redlinked. SpinningSpark 20:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NOPRIMARY. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid surname page. Nothing wrong with pages being dabs or name pages. Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanrakshan[edit]

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

Can't find anything to support a claim to notability. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Here are some sources to claim its notability. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 12:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: thank you for digging, I did come across these during my BEFORE. Let's dive in:

xnepali.net is a personal blog and should be actively purged, maybe even added to the spam blacklist.
nepalisansar.com is a business startup based in USA that is clearly going for quantity over quality and has no journalistic credential. The most it has going for itself is that its About page is written in first person plural rather than singular, which is counterbalanced by the bad English (despite being based in the US). The Submit article page clearly says it will accept self-promotional contributions from its audience as long as it is of wide interest, and also clearly indicates its editors (plural apparently) will bother fact-checking if the content liable to be controversial. So, without a clear indication that it takes it journalism seriously, it's not acceptable either. Note that it dubs this movie the most (...) controversial of 2017. Where's the RS coverage of that controversy then (rhetorical)?
That leaves us with two Kathmandu post (which is RS) articles which hardly take the movie past WP:CRYSTAL. The first one is a promotional/routine coverage of a song dropping that occured way before the film was released. The second one was an Op-Ed by an undergraduate student in the US on a broader issue, written solely on having watched the movie's trailer online. I am well-aware of the hardship involved in covering third-world topics here, and am way more lenient with the notability guidelines (evident by my tempered rate of AFD nomination). Although these particular sources wouldn't count an iota towards notability strictly speaking, I do give them some weight ("third world" argument again) as mentions on a national newspaper. But it's simply not enough.

(Rhetorical) Did the movie actually get released? Was it popular with critics? Audiences? Was it controversial? Was it taken note of for apparently covering a sensitive issues of politics and social justice?

The sources we have here are simply not good enough even considering the third world problem. This movie was in 2017, not ten years ago. Notable movies of the last decade do get decent coverage in actual RSes, even in Nepal.

Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I generally think that Usedtobecool is correct in their analysis of the English-language sources, until there is some attempt to search in the film's language/script, we can't be certain it doesn't meet the requirements of GNG or NFILM. Unfortunately, my own attempts to approximate the film's title in Devanagari were ineffective. I will add to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Article alerts to see if that generates any expert input. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, ne:संरक्षण (चलचित्र) is probably the article on Nepali Wikipedia, although it doesn't give enough context or a single source. Be careful with the google hits though, as Sanrakshan is a generic term for protection/preservation/conservation/etc. which means anything to do with helping the Nepali film industry would also be included in the results. I had found one link worth clicking: this, which is SIGCOV but still from before the film's actual scheduled release; and without anything else, I deemed it insufficient to get the film over GNG. I think one more RS SIGCOV from after the film's actual release (which must have happened) would be enough, which I couldn't find. No opinion whether more coverage from before the film's premiere would also do the trick. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom as not notable. Five sources were given but these were debunked by the Nom and User:Eggishorn agrees but hoping more is "out there" and it seems feels concerned there is a language barrier issue which is likely. The article either has less than reliable sources or the same source as repeat which does not add to notability. I will offer that something can be considered generally notable in one area or location (such as Nepal) but not in another area or country which means not everything from one Wikipedia will necessarily be world-wide notable to be in the enwiki or others. If nobody else can weigh in with independent reliable sources providing significant coverage then it just isn't world-wide notable. Other than a good faith search it is not the burden of those checking to be able to also determine the notability but the proof is according to WP:VERIFY. Otr500 (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to Delete (ultimately the burden of proof is to produce refs that can be verified at en.wp); try a final re-list to see if the WikiProject India film task force replies
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — There are many sources: Film talks about Madhes Movement [19] [20], Nikhil Upreti's first collab with Saugat Malla [21], has soundtrack [22] [23] [24] ,Upreti's comeback film after 4 year of break [25] ,it premired [26], had budget of 1 crore 40 lakhs [27], it got reviewed [28] [29], it won award 3 Dcine Award [30]. Merging all this together surely could make a start-class article. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CAPTAIN MEDUSA, merging it all would be a mistake as most of these are miles from reliable. That said, although it's still not past GNG, [15] is a legit review that I hadn't found and assuming Dcine Award is a legit major award (I'm not really up to date on who all are giving out awards in Nepali cinema nowadays), I think we have enough to Keep it. Thanks for your hard work. I'd say, please try to be more selective with your sources, but your process clearly has merits too. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also thank CAPTAIN MEDUSA for their diligence. Only the nepalmag.com.np and Khanthmandu Post articles, however, appear to be significant coverage about this film. The other references are not significantly about the film or very short announcements of, e.g., release dates. That said, two reviews, including in the biggest daily newspaper in the film's home country, are enough to qualify as notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:59, 15 November 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 Origin (comics). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Logan[edit]

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

This thing has been tagged for over a decade. There are no secondary sources--it's yet another Marvel/DC/Disney/whatever fictional character whose trivia and "fictional biography" was thought to be inherently notable. It's not--there is no secondary sourcing of any depth in this article or anywhere else that I can see. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L. BOZ (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- BOZ, on the basis of what argument? Drmies (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd keep though mentions in secondary sources are fleeting rathert than significant, so merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L is probably the consensus thing here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic. It's pointless to merge to those cesspool lists, but a new redirect to some prominent series would be fine. TTN (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Origin (comics) - not notable but plausible search term. Target has sufficient info regarding subject. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect as suggested per WP:CHEAP and to save the image. COI disclosure: The subject is related to Wolverine, but not me. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L.4meter4 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Diverse range of views; even the Redirects/Merges are two different locations; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Origin (comics) per Killer Moff. While he has made a few scant appearances elsewhere, Origins is his original and by far most important/well known appearance. The character is not independently notable, as the dearth of reliable secondary sources actually discussing the character in terms other than plot summary demonstrates, but is covered in the target article sufficiently and would be a plausible search term. Rorshacma (talk) 15:53, 17 November 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) 20:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design-Altruism-Project[edit]

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

Little coverage, mostly in blogs. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small academic/creative research project. Looks interesting, but has not received enough coverage to be notable per our standards. Same goes for the related page David C. Stairs, also at AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The subject has non-trivial coverage in multiple peer reviewed journal articles:

"Atmoterrorism and atmodesign in the 21st century: mediating Flint's water crisis.(Flint, Michigan)"; Dettloff, Dean ; Bernico, Matt; Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, Jan, 2017, Vol.13(1), p.156(34)

"BEYOND TREADING WATER: BRINGING WATER JUSTICE TO AMERICA'S URBAN POOR"; Narcisse, Denise; Race, Gender & Class, 2017, Vol.24(1/2), pp.27-64

"Fourth World Theory: The Evolution of . . ."; Dotson, Olon; Buildings, 2014, pp.155-194

~~Appologies for no urls as I am accessing this through an internal database at my university library and not through the internet.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

False. I have all three papers sitting in front of me, downloaded from here, here, and here. In all of them, the word "altruism" appears nowhere but in the bibliographies or, in the first paper, in a footnote to the statement, "As David Stairs observes, such an approach only serves to reinforce a spectacle of unqualified optimism, feigning inclusion all the while only ever addressing and inviting professionals and entrepreneurs." (~~The other papers don't mention Stairs either.~~There's no further mention of Stairs in that paper either, and none in the other two.) Largoplazo (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A promising Keep was withdrawn at the last minute; also issues with the David C. Stairs BLP; use one last re-list to bottom out likely Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is space on Wikipedia for a Design altruism article. Design for Sustainable Change has a chapter on it, a large part of which is an interview with Stairs. The project could be covered in such an article, but I don't think it works as a standalone. SpinningSpark 22:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a need to distinguish between "deign altruism", which very likely is a notable concept in academic debate, and this Design Altruism Project, which is one designer's blog. The first reference is a poster that does nothing more than list this blog. The DesignObserver piece is a debate between the blog's owner and others about the idea of design altruism but only tangentially about this blog. Those are the two best references. The searches above and my own WP:BEFORE demonstrate that most of the references to this project are by the blog owner. The owner may be notable given the number of those, but notablity is not inherited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Eggishorn. The fact that a media outlet addresses a notable topic does not make the media outlet itself notable. That has not been shown for this one. BD2412 T 19:33, 19 November 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. After two re-lists, there was no consensus (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Screen[edit]

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

Extremely short disambiguation page that links to the Nintendo DS and Multiple Monitors. Do not see this as a plausible redirect or disambiguation page, especially now that there are numerous dual-screen and foldable devices being available soon, including the Surface Duo/Neo, Huawei Mate X, and Galaxy Fold. Awesome Aasim 22:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: it may be too early to have a disambig page on this topic, but maybe in the near future! Awesome Aasim 04:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To start, disambiguation pages with two entries are just fine. Now, think of it this way. The disambiguation page for Dual Screen refers to two topics that are named for their dual screen. The simple act of having two screens is not enough to warrant an entry on the page. See Computer (disambiguation) for this. The The two entries for this disambiguation are Nintendo DS and Multiple Monitors. For the former entry, the "DS" stands for Dual Screen, as the system's name showcased the introduction of using two screens for a handheld device. The latter entry, working with multiple monitors can be equated to working with dual screens, or Dual Screen. While the Galaxy Fold and similar technology could be added to the list, as they do showcase their multiple screens, the existence of these devices do not minimize the need for a disambiguation page. In the end, they aren't truly synonymous with the term "Dual Screen". Utopes (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both Dual screen and Dual Screen to Dual-touchscreen which is almost always the context where "dual" is used._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Zxcvbnm:, how do you feel about my reccomendation? While it's true that "dual screen" can commonly refer to having two touch-screens on smartphones, it is not impossible that "Dual Screen" would refer to the Nintendo DS, or the act of having two computer monitors open. Because of the ability to associate multiple names with a topic, a disambiguation page should exist. If not at Dual Screen, then at Dual Screen (disambiguation). Requesting comment from @4meter4: as well here. Utopes (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both Dual screen and Dual Screen to Dual-touchscreen.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has the potential to be a useful redirect.Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: what Zxcvbnm said is a good alternative to deletion as the redirect is plausible, although I agree with the nom's sentiment regarding the uselessness of an outdated DAB. SITH (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet @StraussInTheHouse:, the new phones with multiple screens are not titled as the "Dual Screen Phone". The disambiguation page should only hold entries of articles that are named, or heavily associated with the name "Dual Screen". See Phone (disambiguation). That page is not a list of phone models, but only the articles named "Phone" or imply such. Sure, it's an extreme example, as there are many articles that could come close to this. But for something that is more uncommon, such as "Dual Screen", terms such as "Second screen" and "Dual touch-screen" make perfect sense on the list. Every two-screened piece of technology does not. Utopes (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems consensus that this should be either kept or redirect. Relisting to try and establish firmer consensus about which.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to make the split equal, but Keep. The distinction between dual-touchscreen technology and having a second screen for a computer is clear, each has an obvious article to point to, and both may be meant by the search term. That makes for a sensible disambiguation page. - An alternative might of course be a couple of hatnotes at the respective targets instead. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably heading for a no consensus (split of Keep and Redirect); try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As mentioned above by User:Zxcvbnm this is almost always used in context to the Nintendo DS, Therefor it should be merged to Nintendo DS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellwood546 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term dual screen has been in use for decades for dual computer monitors – long before game consoles even existed. Diambiguation is therefore required by some means. Furthermore, I would challenge whether Nintendo DS should even be on the page. There is no indication on its page that it is referred to as Dual Screen and the fact that that is what the acronym stands for is irrelevant. It is still only an example of a dual screen game console; even if the name contained the (expanded) term, it would still fail WP:PARTIAL as a partial match. SpinningSpark 20:47, 10 November 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Lee[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO on the criteria of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The entire article is sourced to primary sources and news organizations for which the subject worked. I have searched Google for outside interviews with her but found only one blog. Yoninah (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While that article about becoming a citizen is her own words is from CNN (I don’t necessarily see what’s wrong with that when it was in the context of covering the 2016 election as a CNN reporter and immigrant. They also made a video about it where she was interviewing fellow naturalized citizens in her ceremony), you clearly haven’t look hard if all you can come up with is a “blog”. Just searching I’ve seen multiple independent articles citing her reporting of things such as Elizabeth Warren as the presidential candidate, October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts (again, being that the guy tried to bomb the building she works in she would have first hand knowledge of that situation), MeToo, etc. What do you realistically expect from a journalist? At some point they’re going to be involved in the process. When the Washington Post is covering her account of working in the 2016 election, why would they not ask her questions? It’s still a reliable source that confirms things she said. When the New York Times is highlighting her as a one of the Millennial journalist on the rise, are you going to stretch and say this is now unacceptable just because her husband now works there? None of it means she isn’t a notable reporter just because you disagree with current sources. Trillfendi (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything written by her is just an article; it proves she exists, not that she is notable. She is quoted in one line in the New York Times source. She is written up by her alma mater, Georgetown University, and the organizations she worked for, Politico and CNN. Nowhere is there an article about her—an interview, a feature. Her career is young yet; maybe one day she'll be a notable journalist. Yoninah (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is that Washington Post editorial not about her? Trillfendi (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have one reliable source. Yoninah (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A source which disproves your comment.... Trillfendi (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your sarcasm. The rule calls for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (plural). You have one reliable source. This is not considered "significant coverage". Yoninah (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who said, Nowhere is there an article about her—an interview, a feature. which is evidently false. Trillfendi (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that there are not a lot of articles about her, at least via a cursory Google search. And I've read the notability guidelines. But she's covering a front-runner, and her reporting has been cited by several legitimate publications, such as Newsweek, Miami Herald, Elle, Washington Post, CJR, New York, People, etc. (I'm not italicizing all that...), even if some are "just" using embedded Twitter videos, etc. She also seems to be cited in a couple of books about the 2016 election. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure though if being used as a source is enough to establish notability about her, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my eyes, if many reliable sources are referencing her as a journalist across many subjects, does it not make her a notable journalist? Trillfendi (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the notability guidelines for journalists (if they exist), but from what I understand about similar topics, being used as a source and being the subject of coverage are two separate things. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I’ve seen they more often explicitly cite her as CNN’s MJ Lee instead of being used as an anonymous source. Trillfendi (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to Keep but not quite clear that there are sufficient RS to nail GNG; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Georgetown grad did very well. High profile work and sigcov.Lightburst (talk) 03:30, 10 November 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 post User:Genericusername57's expansion swings towards the subject being notable. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Owens[edit]

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

Article for relatively unknown pornstar. Single, unreliable source, probably fails BLP Jerry (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jerry (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jerry (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How has the article changed significantly since the last AfD request, when it was decided that it should be kept? Puddleglum2.0👌(talk) 01:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was largely kept because at the time a user was listing a string of articles for deletion all at once, leading some users to vote keep for mostly procedural reasons. Other articles in said string have been turned into redirects or deleted altogether in the time between. There was a good point that the star modeled for a couple illustrators, and apparently she was also used as a model used for a comic book character. But said illustrators aren't notable either, nor are the comics which she was apparently a model for. Jerry (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is in a terrible state, but the subject does get some RS coverage (e.g. Dallas Morning News) and sources mentioned in the previous AfD debate. The previous debate ended with a non-admin closure or a disruptive nomination. Not yet convinced either way whether claims of passing WP:BASIC are supported. • Gene93k ([[User talk:|talk]]) 02:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The only source here is “myplaymates.club”. When you actually try to find sources out there nothing cuts it to meet GNG standards. Trillfendi (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO Playboy Magazine's playmate of the month March 1988 is notable. WP:NTEMP. In addition Gene93k found the Dallas New article. Lightburst (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Half of those models do not have articles, and those that do are notable for reasons independently of their playboy status *as well.* The last example is rather iffy, though I would rather not pursue that article as well seeing Katarina Souri seems to at least be notable in Scandinavia. Taking a look at this article though, besides a one-off personal interest article in a local newspaper, there isn't much reason to keep this article up.Jerry (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jerry that appearing as the Playboy model of the month does not automatically confer notability. Cheers, gnu 57 19:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Sourcing to the websites of her employer does not show notability nor does IMDb. The articles lacks anything even approaching a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure the article may be sparse, but there is enough material from reliable sources to support a fleshed out biography.[31][32][33][34] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these seem to note her career as a local perfume-seller after her retirement. Even though there are sources supporting the fact that she is locally popular, if this was an article about a local perfume seller, she wouldn't be considered important enough for an article. Same with the comic thing, and there, her notability is shakier. The comic itself doesn't seem to be very popular, and I can't find too many independent sources mentioning it except in passing.Jerry (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you downplay that she was the producer of a popular perfume worn by celebrities like she's some perfume counter girl at the local department store. WP:BASIC notes that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and notability is not predicated on geographic scope or locality. Further the locality that you are dismissing is the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has had sufficient RS coverage on several different occasions, Playboy appearances, her comic book, and perfume. Three more sources I've found, one from Texas, the other two from California and Ohio. She is known outside of the Texas area. 1, 2, 3 Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and many RS flagged above. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:41, 12 November 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. Speedy deleted by Drmies per CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Armstrong[edit]

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

Lacking notoriety, author is subject of article (vanity / autobiography), lacking any credible sources, notices listed on page since 2016 requesting improvements KTurner40 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 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 November 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good find, doesn't seem to be notable, original creator seems to be subject or closely related to subject. Jerry (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually unreferenced vanity piece; notability not established. Kablammo (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:32, 10 November 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? 11:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a single allegation of notability; this is a run of the mill pilot and writer. The AfD notice appears to be missing from the page itself. I looked online to be sure and found nothing but social media posts, several of which are suspiciously close to this article and ads via Amazon. The page would have to be completely re-written to avoid copyright infringement and be written as an encyclopedia article. We are a private charity, not a free public web host; this is almost certainly the work of the subject or her agent. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian, what you describe is a valid reason to delete speedily as promotion-only, and I have done so. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela Mann[edit]

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

Actress does not meet WP:GNG. Has been tagged with a notability tag since 2008.

I couldn't find any major coverage of the actress. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NACTRESS & WP:RS. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By Googling her name, couldn't find reliable sources for establishing her notability Alibilbao (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination reason. Abtehas98 (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they've had roles — every actor has always had roles by definition, so if listing roles was all you had to do to get an actor over NACTOR, then every actor in existence would get an automatic notability freebie just for existing. Rather, the notability test is the ability to show some evidence of reliable source coverage about her, and that's lacking here. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birgit Maass[edit]

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

Run of the mill journalist. GNG fail. Page history indicates it is a possible autobiography. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: WP:MILL, WP:GNG, WP:NOT and WP:AUTOBIO are the relevant guidelines and policies. I also note WP:BLP1E - she's famous merely for hugging a politician. We are a private American charity, not a free web host for Brits or Germans or any other persons; our president was just fined $2,000,000 for mis-using a charity like this. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Imre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources I could find were academic publications with the subject as the author or automatically generated profiles that do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Imre, although it's quite old. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I can't find sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find the book reviews that would allow him to pass WP:AUTHOR and we have no evidence of any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better reliable source coverage than this even attempts to show. People are not inherently notable just for owning cooking schools, or for being on the board of directors of the BIA in the small town where their cooking school is located, and historians don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because their writing exists either — no matter what occupation you're trying to put out as his notability claim, he still has to be the subject of media coverage about his work in that role to clear the notability bar. As well, the old AFD discussion isn't actually as irrelevant here as it may seem at first — this version was literally recreated just slightly more than one year after the original discussion's closure, by the same WP:SPA who had created it the first time, but even though it wasn't even the slightest improvement on the old version it somehow slid under the radar until now instead of being immediately speedied on sight as a recreation of deleted content the way it should have been. Salt this while we're at it, because it has literally all the classic hallmarks of being self-promotion by a person who's very likely to just try again a third time once he notices that it's gone. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF, and WP:42. Just to be sure, I looked and found nothing on JSTOR, nor Google News. Improving health equity for First Nations, Inuit and Metis people: Ontario's Aboriginal cancer strategy II has been cited exactly 10 times. Many people teach cooking. This is almost certainly an autobiography. I remind our Canadian friends that our president was just fined USD $2,000,000 for self-dealing with a charity like ours, eh? Bearian (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djibril Sarr[edit]

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

Despite playing five games in a WP:FPL league, a search on the internet comes up with no results which would fail WP:NFOOTY. HawkAussie (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than WP:NFOOTBALL pass. If sources can be found (and I cannot find any) then please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't appear to be any online English-, French-, or Portuguese-language sources that cover this footballer's career in depth. Everything is routine coverage like match reports. With a comprehensive failure of the GNG, the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL doesn't hold. Jogurney (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Kharatha[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability - only one reference discusses him in detail, the rest are links to Google searches and places to download his music. ... discospinster _talk 00:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources supporting notability. Barca (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no RS for notability. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable musician. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Ceethekreator (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable singer. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:49, 14 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urbach Tower[edit]

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

6-month old observation tower. While there are some decent sources, it is far too soon to say whether the notability will be a lasting. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Believe the article can be expanded. Enough resources out there. Give it time to be notable. Conlinp (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Give it time to be notable." That's not the way it works. If it is not yet notable, then it doesn't yet get an article per WP:TOOSOON. SpinningSpark 18:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Preponderance of sources indicate the building is a first and the technique used to build it as pioneering, making it notable.Djflem (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Urbach Tower Is A New Landmark In Germany That Was Built From Self-Shaping Wood". May 22, 2019.
"Urbach Tower Pioneers "Self-Shaping" Wood Construction Technique". Core77.
Scully, Ruby Prosser. "Tall twisting tower is made from wood that shapes itself as it dries". New Scientist.
"Urbach Tower offers view of self-shaping architecture". techxplore.com.
""World-first" twisting tower is made from timber that bends itself into shape". New Atlas. June 5, 2019.
"A Unique Landmark Built from Self-Shaping Wood - Scale Magazine".
"Building with wood that bends itself into shape". ethz.ch.
"The Engineering Club - Self-shaping Wood and Material Computation". engineeringclub.org.uk.
"Stuttgart University designs world's first "self-shaping" building - News - GCR". www.globalconstructionreview.com.
"Researchers Use Wood's Natural Ability to Absorb Moisture to Create Curved Structures". interestingengineering.com. September 16, 2019.
K, Venkat (June 20, 2019). "Stuttgart University designs world's first self-shaping building".
Keep, meets WP:GNG, although not all of the above sources may be deemed useable, there are enough to show that this structure is wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability is not temporary. Notable now, we presume that it will stay notable. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Olawale[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in a professional league game yet. HawkAussie (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has never played in a qualifying game. Of couse the fact that one game can make a footballer notable is just plain sick and wrong. Until we stop the over coverage of sports Wikipedia will have a problem of under covering women. It is time for a change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply a case of WP:TOOSOON he currently doesn’t have in-depth significant coverage in reliable source for inclusion as per WP:GNG but would probably possess later on but as for now article should be deleted. Celestina007 (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A case of WP:TOOSOON. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:09, 14 November 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.