Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 November	23 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) 23:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Texeira[edit]

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

GNG Fail. I did find a couple of sources, first dealing with some of her lobbying work and second regarding an arrest. Together they do not constitute enough coverage. Even if they did, I am not sure the article would say much more than she is a political consultant who got in a bit of trouble with the law. Very run of the mill. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nom that the available sourcing does not support a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paid for spam article. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per RSs. She gets coverage for her fundraising, and lobbyist work, in addition to her arrest. arrest - detailed in Politico and for the dismissal of charges in the Bradenton Herald. Additionally I find many articles about her fundraising for political candidates like this mention in the Tampa Bay Times and the Florida Times Union - She also wrote an editorial in the Tallahassee Democrat. She gets hired as a lobbyist as well- Orlando Sentinel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightburst (talk • contribs)

Lightburst, you know the standards here really well so I am not sure why you would cite these trivial mentionsas supporting her notability.

"Since the company bought The Miami Herald building last spring, it's hired a dozen lobbyists, including uber-fundraiser Brian Ballard; ex-education commissioner Jim Horne; ex-congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart; and Democratic lobbyists Sean Pitts and Nancy Texeira." (Orlando Sentinel)
Authoring an editorial (Tallahassee Democrat) is not a supporting item either.
The Tampa bay times says only "Galvano and other senators raised an extraordinary $44 million, with a giant assist from and tireless fundraiser Nancy Texeira of St. Petersburg."

The dismissal of charges source is good, as is the Florida Times Union source. The others are trivial coverage. In total, we do not have enough for GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NPOL and GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Folks, really, there's so little coverage of her, especially considering her attempts at getting publicity. Many people have written op-eds, including me, and that does not lend itself to notability (although if she was otherwise notable, it would be worth a line in the external links). If I were her, and I read this AfD, I would fire her publicity agency. Not that she did that of course - it would be so gauche. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's name dropped in media coverage, but there is nothing specifically about her as the main subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:43, 29 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 point in wasting time (non-admin closure) Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Bella[edit]

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

Non notable actress. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON? Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 22 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) 22:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 22 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) 22:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm asking for a keep, mostly due the fact she seems to have more experience as a child than do most of the Bollywood actor articles you see popping up. There is some coverage. I think WP:THREE is good enough at the moment. scope_creep^Talk 10:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an actress (voice or other) is known for their work, and this one has had significant roles. We have enough coverage to show notability Like this non trivial coverage in The Omaha Herald. Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Omaha coverage and non-trivial roles in (the English versions of) the extremely notable Frozen franchise, amongst several other significant acting credits like Shimmer and Shine. — Bilorv (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, well i think her role in Frozen isn't that significant since she played young Anna, not old Anna, which is played by Kristen Bell. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She played young Elsa, not young Anna. It's not a main role, no, but it's a significant acting credit in the context of being one of the most popular films in history. Combined with her other significant roles, such as a main role in the series Shimmer and Shine, this gives her notability. — Bilorv (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACTOR criteria 1 with prominent roles in notable productions such as Shimmer and Shine tv series top billing and film roles with coverage such as omaha.com, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this might be the first time I've !voted such a way at AfD, since child actors and voice actors are so rarely notable and appeals to think of the children annoy me so very much. However, Frozen is no ordinary film; it's the biggest franchise for the little set. Even smaller parts create notability, since children will demand their baby sitter/child minder to watch this insipid tale for the 34th time, please, please, please, Colleen! Bearian (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it strange that no one went for a Frozen reference and called for a Snowball Keep. Capt. Milokan (talk) 02:09, 29 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl B[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NM. Article does not make a claim of notability, nor can I find any sources that aren't track listings or write-ups by interests trying to sell his music. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nominating statement: there is no claim of notability and no independent, published sources that show the subject meets wither WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability clearly not shown in the article, and nothing out there shows notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. For now. Not notable enough.BabbaQ (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 22:37, 29 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Westmoreland Outlet World[edit]

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

Non notable local shopping centre. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a single story building with 12 shops, this local shopping center does not seem to meet our notability criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 29 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 move completed. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Delta Epsilon[edit]

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

Propose deletion so that Kappa Delta Epsilon (society) can be moved here. The local sorority at Dartmouth does not meet notability requirements. Naraht (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move Kappa Delta Epsilon (society) over Kappa Delta Epsilon because it is the primary topic in a WP:2DABS situation and disambiguation is not required. There would need to be a hatnote to the Dartmouth section. I'm not agreeing that the Dartmouth topic is not notable: the place to take that up is at the article Talk page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhnotsoloud On Talk:Dartmouth College Greek organizations?Naraht (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: yes. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move Agree with nom. I don’t think this actually needs to be at AFD, it could be at WP:Requested moves. Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 29 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. ST47 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred R. Stevenson[edit]

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

Autobiography (see sole author) that fails to summon up a remotely convincing amount of in-depth references. I guess it's a good illustration of the pitfalls of WP:AUTOBIO in action. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal promotion without the base of reliable sources coverage. RS is also lacking in the German Wikipedia version which is also an autobio, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (copied from user's talk page) Hi, why should this article to be deleted? I wrote it first in german with some help from the mentoring program and it was highly appreciated.

I translated and edited it, made sure to follow the common rules. I have no idea what I did wrong.

Thanks, Alfred R. Stevenson (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alfred R. Stevenson, the issue is not content or translation (both of which are fine for this type of article); the issue is the lack of independent sources that cover you, personally, at some length and detail. This might include newspaper or magazine articles, online publications, discussions in books etc., all of which - and this is the important part - should not be written by bodies connected to you; i.e., not your employer, academic institution, or your own webpage. At bottom, what we need to assess is whether you are notable enough that people are writing about you, and such sources are required to demonstrate it. I don't see this kind of sources in the article, and I couldn't find them on the web either. Since I assume that you would be aware of any high-quality material that has been published about you, and have not made use of it, this suggests that it doesn't exist. - The difficulties of assessing your own notability (in the special Wikipedia sense) are one of the reasons why Wikipedia strongly discourages people from writing about themselves. I'm somewhat surprised that the German WP was happy to publish the article without demur; their criteria aren't that different from ours... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Yup, on checking previous commentary on deWiki about the German draft [1], I can't quite follow the reasoning of editor Tkarcher - they correctly identify a lack of independent, in-depth sourcing, but then sign off on a version that is lacking any. Ich fürchte, das sieht noch nicht gut genug aus :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Technically, we can delete this article merely because it is an autobiography; a newbie 15 years ago could get away with this argument, but in 2019, it's not to be taken seriously. Looking further, conductors are not automatically notable. I can't see anything, not even one factor, to show notability under that guideline. Looking more broadly, there is a complete lack of significant coverage about this subject. We are an American charity, not a web host for German conductors. The President of the United States was just fined $2,000,000 for doing what the subject of this page has done, which is self-dealing. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have rules against autobiographies. We need to diligently remove them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rivet (software)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Found a total of two short press releases in computer magazines [2][3]. No independant or significant coverage. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless article gets improved and even then I may not be convinced.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:27, 26 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. ST47 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bijoy Nandan Shahi[edit]

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

Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If no more information about this cardiologist can be provided from reliable sources that would make him notable then I suggest this page be deleted. AssadFin (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AssadFin (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a stub but he has received the Padma Bhushan, a major Indian award. News coverage of that is not just "being in the news"! Almost all of the recipients already have articles here. See List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (2000–2009). StarryGrandma (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a lieutenant general qualifies under WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the Padma Bhushan is a high award in India. Many of the Padma Bhushan recipients on wikipedia have detailed information on their life from several reliable sources. I'm glad that since beginning this discussion, some information has been added but so far we have three sources and only a lead. Adding more information to improve the article is advised. AssadFin (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes both WP:ANYBIO and WP:SOLDIER. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: What makes the difference in a valid stub article and an WP:INVALIDBIO or a pseudo biography is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This criterion is applicable to all aspects of notability including WP:ANYBIO and WP:SOLDIER. Just stating a subject qualifies is not sufficient without actual proof. From the sources provided, and lacking finding any on a search, then the words "Clearly passes" is dubious.

I wanted to find more information on the third highest country award the subject received but was unable to do so. The article is sourced by two primary sources with one being a press release. One just provides the name of the subject, "Dr. (Lt.Gen) Bijoy Nandan Shahi", under "Previous awardees", and the other (Ministry of Defense press release) gives some information on the military service. The "Outlook" source simply provides the subjects name among several others under "Padma Awards 2004".

The suggestions of AssadFin are valid because, even if kept as is, a future AFD may result in a different consensus. There simply is no biographical sourcing so some needs to be provided. This one paragraph stub (as sourced) with three sentences would be better off located somewhere else, as the BLP criteria is supposedly more stringent. Either the sourcing criteria is important or not really, and a local consensus to "keep" should be on valid reasoning according to policies and guidelines. That other award recipients have articles ("Almost all of the recipients already have articles here") is usually not a good argument. If some of them are this poorly sourced maybe a closer look is warranted. Otr500 (talk) 06:20, 26 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 Carnegie Corporation of New York. Sandstein 11:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great Immigrants[edit]

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

Notability concerns; no independent references found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on notability concerns. I searched for articles in reliable mainstream publications that have the award as the article topic/focus (i.e., not just a passing mention), and came up with two only: [4][5] There's some stuff on less reliable or non-independent platforms, such as Oprah [6] and various university press releases [7]. Overall, this to me does not seem to rise to a sufficient level of notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Redirect as suggested below would be fine IMO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carnegie Corporation of New York, and if better sourcing could be found, you could even incorporate the list there, but not without sourcing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This award is given each year to immigrants who have worked very hard to improve America and it's communities socially, financially, ethically, etc. These people, famous and otherwise, have been reported on by their schools, local papers, etc.. but also the New York times. I believe it should be included. If changing it to the Carnegie Corp page is the only answer, then I'm happy with that since those who find it relevant enough to link to it would still be able. Tuuzi (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep. The awards appears to get regular coverage in the States News Service but I am having trouble identifying how reliable of a source that is since it lacks an online presence. My university has access to their articles at the Nexis Uni academic research website. If that source is considered reliable and independent this probably is a keep because their is considerable coverage on award winners.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The US was founded by immigrants. However, the sources provided no not provide proof of notability. The site listed under the Sources section, "List of 2019 Great Immigrant honorees" (I added the year), might work for that year but 2015-2018 is unsourced. There needs to be sources for those years. The "princeton.edu" source is specifically about Angus Deaton and Aleksandar Hemon, and the history.com source is about "Andrew Carnegie".

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. There is no further explanation but just a list of people. Notability and accuracy can be doubted. If this article is allowed to stay, it will lead to future additional of names in which can be doubted. Who will screen the names one by one? Even today, can anyone provide the proof of notability or evidence? Strong delete or redirect to Carnegie Corporation of New York as per recommended by User talk:Onel5969. This article should not have existed on its own. - Jay (talk) 09:04, 30 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. ST47 (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Agents[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is worse than nothing. None of the references given makes a clear case for notability, and much of the information is unverified. If this company is notable, the article needs to be properly referenced. If no one is willing to write an article with a verified claim of notability, it would be better to delete it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company has significant RS in multiple independent publications including a peer reviewed journal article: "Trust me. I'm an agent." The ever-changing balance between author, agent and publisher'; De Bellaigue, Eric; LOGOS: The Journal of the Book Community, July, 2008, Vol.19(3), p.109 (peer reviewed). The article gives a history of the formation of the company and its rapid success as a large agency. Other RS includes [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. The article does need improvement, but that isn't a valid reason for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Do you have a link to the full text of the De Bellaigue article? I looked at this and it didn't mention United.

I looked at the sources you provided links to. Those may be RS but they are either not independent (based on corporate news releases), are routine coverage such as a change of personnel, or fail to provide significant coverage (mere mentions). I don't think they help establish the level of notability required by WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a later section of the article title "A Merger Gone Awry". I can only access through a proxy by my university so I have no url (its at ebscohost.com). Here is further info to help you locate. ISSN: 09579656; DOI: 10.2959/logo.2008.19.3.109; Accession Number: 502936977 Hope this helps. 4meter4 (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While 4meter4 has mentioned a possible book reference above, it is only a single reference and therefore does not meet the criteria for "multiple" references. Also, I am hesitant to accept it as a good reference because the indications are that 4meter4 fails to understand the criteria for establishing notability. It is not simply a search for reliable sources as stated above. References must provide significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content - the definition of Independent Content can be found at WP:ORGIND. Of the other references put forward, this from The Bookseller is based on an announcement and fails WP:ORGIND, this from deadline.com and this from screendaily.com are mere mentions-in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH, this from deadline.com is based on a company announcement and is only a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and finally this from the Evening Standard describes one of the founding agents of the company but provides no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 22 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. czar 17:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zayn Saifi[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Sources all appear to be parroting a press release. Sources themselves are local and niche and probable are not reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Even assuming it's all true, there's no evidence at all in reliable sources that this is a real living person. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 25 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. Can be draftified via WP:REFUND if somebody wants to work on it. Sandstein 11:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nika Finch[edit]

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

A working producer, with some minor awards, but nothing which meets WP:FILMMAKER. Searches turned up virtually zero under either her professional name or Veronika Polovko, so she fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I searched for reliable sources but very few are there WP:GNG, also it should not be judged on the basis og WP:NNC. I think it should be moved to draft for further improvements and untill reliable sufficient reliable sources are available it should be kept in draft. Rocky 734 (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky 734 Do provide the few reliable sources you claim you found which establishes her notability here on this AFD. I have searched and couldn’t come across anyone. Celestina007 (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A common guideline to establish notability is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Subject of our discussion is sorely lacking in this. Celestina007 (talk) 14:50, 16November 2019 (UTC)
Comment Non trivial coverage in Russian Time Magazine a publication with editorial oversight. Forum Daily. Lightburst (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's one Polovko (Половко) in Ukrainian WP and two in Russian WP; she isn't there. No-one under Polovka (Половка) in either. Narky Blert (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft there may be enough material to show notability. I posted these above and I repeat these non trivial coverage here Russian Time Magazine a publication with editorial oversight. Forum Daily Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. She may be noted and maybe not. The article looks promotional instead of informative as what an encyclopedia should have been. If any authors want to do research to expand it (draft), please do so in your sandbox - Jay (talk) 08:56, 30 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. Seems like a solid delete consensus has developed after the relist, due to concerns that there is fundamentally only one source available and that this kind of topic requires particular care with regards to its sourcing due to e.g WP:CHILDPRO. A merge was considered as well, but the counterarguments based on outdatedness - which also apply to arguments that it is important for this topic to be documented - and that this content was already once on Pedophilia and Hebephilia and was later removed carry weight - plus, if this article is a verbatim copy of a primary source, one could simply recreate the content from the source if the need were to arise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols and Logos Used by Pedophiles[edit]

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

Sourced only to a Wikileaks page; this seems to fall afoul of WP:NOT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:BEFORE search would have revealed that it's also sourceable to the Huffington Post, the New York Times and the Daily Mirror. It's massively verifiable. For me the question is whether it belongs as a separate article or whether it would be better merged elsewhere (and if so, where). On general child protection grounds I think it would be good if Wikipedia published this information in some form.—S Marshall T/C 00:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
. Keep This is important encyclopedic information. However I can understand how pedophiles would be adverse to publication of this information.Oldperson (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG with the additional sourcing provided by S Marshall. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, it should obviously be moved to Symbols and logos used by pedophiles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This entry is effectively a carbon-copy of a one page FBI bulletin from over a decade ago. It has received some renewed coverage because of Pizzagate and related debunked nonsense, but none of that adds anything of note to the topic. WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources, but the sources S Marshall provided above are both just rehashing what the 2007 bulletin says. Nblund^talk 21:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not disagreeing. My position is that this information is verifiable and useful, i.e. the information should be retained somewhere (but could be merged or moved) and this is a good idea on child protection grounds. Your position is that it's not notable so shouldn't appear as a separate article. These two positions are not mutually exclusive, actually, but the outcome would need to be "merge" or "redirect" to preserve attribution. For the avoidance of doubt I would prefer not to keep this content where it is because nobody will see it. It doesn't protect children as well as it could unless we put it somewhere visible, in a higher profile article with a title someone might search for. —S Marshall T/C 23:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm dubious on whether offering this stuff without context is all that helpful for protecting children: the bulletin is over a decade old, the information was mostly only relevant to investigators, and misreadings of it contributed to nonsense, like Pizzagate, which have done actual quantifiable harm to innocent children and adults while offering an inaccurate picture of how most real-world child sexual abuse happens. Maybe it is has enough historical value to warrant a mention at Pedophilia#Pedophile_advocacy_groups, but it is probably out of date and potentially misleading, and I think it would be pretty irresponsible to present it as a useful tool for anyone when the FBI itself never intended it to be used that way. In any case, I agree that a standalone article is the worst of all options. Nblund^talk 02:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you wouldn't offer this information without context or in a misleading way. When you call it "historical", I agree that these symbols are less likely to be used nowadays, but they're still immensely relevant to the present day when we're shining more of a light on paedophilia. Someone who browses Wikipedia, and recalls seeing one of these symbols at some time in the past, worn by someone they know, might very well start to ask questions they wouldn't otherwise have asked. This kind of thing is how we catch them.—S Marshall T/C 19:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This information is a service to our readers. I am sure the Federal Bureau of Investigation has done their due diligence. And our encyclopedia can be updated as new symbols and logos emerge. This passes GNG with RSs. Lightburst (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption that it is a "service" is not supported by the sources, which indicate two prominent instances of misuse (snopes1, snopes2). Even if true, "it's useful" isn't really a reason to keep, and we have exactly one source and no updates since 2007. Why would we have a standalone article based on a 12 year old memo? Nblund^talk 00:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems previous RfCs have not agreed on the reliability of Snopes. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Snopes. Snopes is considered generally reliable, and you haven't really provided anything to support your views. Nblund^talk 01:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read through the actual RfCs. Was not as clear as the link you provided. My rationale is in my !vote. This passes GNG with RSs. If your argument is that this is not updated, that in another matter. Reasonable editors can disagree, that's why we are here. Perhaps a name change to Symbols and Logos which have been used by Pedophiles Lightburst (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to give this information higher visibility than that. I feel that if was kept at that title, it would be seen by relatively few people.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't put a word in bold in this debate yet, so I'll go with selective merge to both Pedophilia and Hebephilia. Redirect to be kept in order to preserve attribution in compliance with the TOU.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is perhaps close to a merge consensus (the concerns about this not meeting GNG carry some weight - multiple sources that are based on the same source are often counted as the same source-, but so are the arguments that there is sufficient sourcing to warrant preserving the content in some fashion) but I think some more discussion is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Flyer22 Reborn and Legitimus: as they might have useful input here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't even merge with the Pedophilia and Hebephilia articles. The symbols aspect was briefly covered in the Pedophilia article before, but without images. It was later removed at some point. With decent sourcing, the material could be briefly covered in the Pedophilia article again. Either way, this article is not necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As seen at Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 19#Etmology, material on symbols was removed from the Pedophilia article in 2015. Read that discussion for why. And at some point in 2013, someone did add a symbol that was eventually deleted: Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Girllove symbol. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. So we need a different merge target. The symbol was deleted under CSD F8, so there's no obstacle to reuploading it.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most suitable merge target is a section within the Pedophilia article. But I do not see that the material in question should be merged there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This information has no place on an encyclopedic website. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient for WP:GNG with RSs. Sourced good, and is of use for the project.BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and per Nblund and Flyer22 Reborn. I am sympathetic to S Marshall wanting to get the word out on how these people operate, but as pointed out, this "article" isn't really helping with that. The vast majority of child sexual abuse is by people who outwardly blend in, with no identifiable symbols. And this isn't an encyclopedia article nor could it be, as it is really just a gallery of images. Having a gallery like this of symbols most abusers do not use on any of our articles would be WP:UNDUE and misleading. Note that we do have this FBI document as an external link at List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations, which is itself linked in a hatnote in the "Pedophile advocacy groups" section of Pedophilia. I don't really see any other way to cover this information, without it being a misleading one-sentence side point that implies that pedophiles/child sexual abusers often use these symbols, but again, most don't. A few do, which makes them easy for law enforcement to find and track, and that is the purpose of the document. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all RS lead back to the same FBI release. All other arguments in favor of keeping are just WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merging. We have an FBI report, and a snopes article about the FBI report. That does not meet WP:GNG. The sources themselves are fairly routine coverage as well. The arguments to keep are not convincing, if this actually had lasting importance then there would be little trouble finding significant coverage about it. Oldperson's keep in particular is problematic per WP:ASPERSIONS. ST47 (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 You have misread WP:ASPERSIONS. I did not accuse any editor(s) of being a pedophile.Oldperson (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47When I wrote my comment. I was thinking of the pedophiles who would be reading the article. Not the editors. I took it for granted that the editors were astute enough to understand that, and that there was no guilty conscience who would assume that I was addressing any possible editors.In future I will try to be more precise, however I have learned that doing so will net me a WP:FORUM or SOAPBOX tag. Considering my at length explanation I stand by my vote and reason.Oldperson (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well that's unfortunate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I was upset at the comments of Oldperson because "the short answer" did make it appear that anyone with an oppose !vote to inclusion might be supportive of some kind of Pedophilia. I didn't even know Pedophiles Have Their Own Secret Code And They're Using It Right In Front Of You - On Your Children. As a grandfather of 10 "my personal opinion" on these sick people probably should be kept to myself, so I am glad a longer answer for clarification was provided.

As presented (lacking content per Nblund) there are very valid concerns for not allowing a stand-alone article. However, I think there "is important encyclopedic information" but it has to be presented in more than some symbols in a list. "Trust" in anything related to the FBI (due diligence) has historically not been very high. The site does use Wikipedia (page 6) in reference.

Merging to Pedophilia (or even Pedophilia#Pedophile_advocacy_groups) might be an issue as it is a B-class article, and a reason some editors do not think AFD is the proper place for merge discussions, even though it is an option. Hebephilia is a c-class so that could be an option.

Concerns over the supposedly debunked pizzagate are real. There has been news coverage (News5 Cleveland) in 2018 concerning "April 25" (Alice Day) and the use of an innocent looking "teddy bear symbol" that is not on the outdated list. A 2017 New York Post article states "The FBI says it’s epidemic, and that at any given moment, 750,000 child predators are online.". This is disturbing and shows Wikipedia needs to cover this area as there is more recent coverage than 10 years old. There has to be better sourcing than an FBI report or Snopes which might be alright for fringe theory content but does not advance notability. I do not know the extent S Marshall is willing to be involved but efforts here are commendable. I would be willing to join in further efforts to explore possible inclusion. If the article is deleted maybe userfying would be agreeable in the interim. Otr500 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to merge, then I'll help with that, although I'm wavering a bit in the light of what Flyer22's said to me. I feel that Wikipedia has very high visibility and this gives us a role to play in child protection, provided we can do that within the overarching constraints we face on source quality and reliability. I also feel that although Wikipedia isn't Snopes, we do have a role to play in fighting disinformation. If we don't cover it, people will still find this kind of content but they'll find it on blogs. But I do see and respect the arguments in the other direction as well. It's a tough one and it raises issues that are better suited to RfC than to AfD.—S Marshall T/C 16:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly per Flyer22 and Nblund. In a less important topic the sourcing might get it over the line, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification. Additionally my gut feeling is keeping this is far likely to encourage another pizzagate-esque conspiracy theory than to advance child protection. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see enough sourcing to make this notable, and it’s very important for us to be extremely careful with anything which may come off as pro-pedophile activism, as per WP:CHILDPRO Samboy (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The discussion is mostly about whether we should be essentially reproducing a purported FBI file identifying certain symbols as being used by pedophiles. I think that in this sensitive topic area we should not do so based on a single, primary source that originates with Wikileaks, an organization with a murky agenda of its own. Anything they host can't really be considered reliable. Sandstein 09:59, 30 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. ST47 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban Velásquez (actor)[edit]

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

The only relevant thing is that he is the first Venezuelan actor to work on Disney Channel. But of the rest, he has not had major roles in series or films, debuted as an actor in Soy Luna, and barely had a recurring role in Bia. — Bradford (Talk) 08:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Bradford (Talk) 08:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifthavenuebrands (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has references, is well categorized and not promotional has a neutral wording and does not violate any wikipedia policy.--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing shows notability. Not everything that is referenced needs an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to draft because nothing seems notable enough but I will suggest to keeping it in the draft until it meets criteria. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 09:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 22 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. ST47 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Peña (actor)[edit]

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

per WP:NACTOR. In addition to that, the only 3 sources there are speak in general about Bia. — Bradford (Talk) 08:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Bradford (Talk) 08:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article has references, is well categorized and not promotional has a neutral wording and does not violate any wikipedia policy--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - actor fails NACTOR (only one show) and there wasn't much coverage to indicate that they should be notable just for that one show (indeed, it's limited even just on Bia) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to draft as the article doesn't have any reliable sources to prove NACTOR. But I will suggest to move it to the draft for now, if actor got more roles and got notable enough, article will be moved back to the mainspace. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 22 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Litt[edit]

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

Non-notable photographer who fails WP:CREATIVE. The article contains many citations, but little independent coverage. The sources are either produced by Litt, have passing mentions of her, or are interviews that contain no original reporting. The page was declined multiple times at AfC under the title Draft:Alex Litt; pinging reviewers KJP1, Theroadislong, and Praxidicae in case they would like to comment. The article creator likely has a conflict of interest, so WP:TNT also applies. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article seems to be solely promotional and is lacking in reliable sources, museum collections or critical reviews. Subject of the article does not meet criteria for WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article about a non notable individual that fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Celestina007 (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete -Fails notability guidelines, unable to find substantial independent coverage of this person. ABF992 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a web host for dog pictures nor a promotional agency for artists, but rather a charity, and in 2019 everybody should know that. We have standards, and this young artist has not won any significant awards nor coverage in reliable sources. It appears to be far too soon for an article on her. Even if she were notable, so much would have to taken out that a complete re-write and coding would be necessary. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Lalbhai[edit]

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

This Indian businessman comes with a lot of references (half of them doubled up under slightly different titles), but it appears that there is only one that might pass for "independent, in-depth, third-party coverage": [13] - and that's Forbes, so probably paid for. Outside of that we have listicles [14], a two-part promotional "diary" [15][16], and plenty of board membership press releases. This does not seem to add up to sufficient personal coverage of acceptable quality. Suggest redirect to Arvind (company). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Arvind (company) - Recently created by a single-purpose editor, who has all the hallmarks of an undisclosed CoI. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a run of the mill businessperson written by an SPA in promotional style, with a single source that is reliable and in-depth. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete just another business person that exists, and can be verified. But the subject doesnt have significant coverage, thus fails WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:08, 28 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 Doom WAD#Miscellaneous. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 11:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freedoom[edit]

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

There is undersubstantiated evidence that Freedoom, basically a free and open-source software version of Doom, is a notable subject. It appears that the only reason it could be notable is that it has been used as a free alternative to the commercial game that could be used to play Doom WADs and test mods normally designed for that game. It is a shame as this free encyclopedia loves free stuff. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 18:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 18:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doom_WAD#Miscellaneous I was unable to find anything besides the passing mentions and a student newspaper (which makes it unreliable) coverage at [17]. The article contains either WP:PRIMARY, or unreliable references like a fan blog Doomworld. Fails WP:GNG, which requires in-depth multiple coverage in reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, the only source that can verify the facts of the article is the official GitHub page, the game itself being a GitHub project. Too bad this FOSS is not as notable as Tux Racer. On the bright side, media related to the game can still be used throughout Wikimedia projects. For example, some projects such as the German Wikipedia lack fair use because their primary countries simply do not have it (although ideally they and everywhere else should), so in the case of that Wikipedia's Doom article, it uses a Freedoom screenshot. Some other projects such as Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata voluntarily decline fair use and allow such free and usable—if still non-notable—media. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 20:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not aware of any Wikipedia guideline which states that a student newspaper is not a reliable source. The Washburn Review appears to be a reliable source, since “The Washburn Review is a member newspaper of the Associated Press (AP) {...} The Review is a recipient of the 2006-2007 National Newspaper Pacemaker Award.”. In a previous discussion on using student newspapers to establish notability, it was pointed out that “if the Harvard Crimson printed an article about an a cappella group from UCLA, that would tend to help establish notability for the group because that would mean that the group was receiving attention outside their own college community”. Same deal with the Washburn Review and FreeDoom; this is not something local to that college, so the Washburn Review’s discussion of FreeDoom does establish notability. See also another discussion, where consensus was that student newspapers like the Washburn Review, which has received awards, are generally reliable. Samboy (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Soft Merge to Doom WAD; preserve the history of this page. There is coverage in two reliable sources: Article about FreeDoom from a large univerity’s newspaper; note that I am aware of no Wikipedia guideline which states that a university student newspaper is *not* a reliable source. Student newspapers have fact checkers and editors and are not self-published. In addition, there is an article with entire section about FreeDoom, further establishing enough notability to preserve this page’s history. There is also a full article in French article which may be self-published; I don’t know enough French to determine the site’s publishing standards. There are a large number of passing mentions, which means this is notable enough to keep the page’s history around (otherwise, we will end up with the situation like with TripleA, where the article gets deleted multiple times until it survives AfD): “it does include maps from the Freedoom Project” “it’s such a comprehensive mod that even FreeDoom or maybe even the Doom shareware episode will do” “the (free) Freedoom will suffice, if you don’t own Doom 2.” “Note that the game is compatible with FreeDoom, the open source initiative to bypass the legalities of Doom's code being open source, while Doom's engine isn't.”. I will also mention FreeDoom being discussed in multiple books.

I am changing my vote so we don’t have to relist this page and can reach consensus; there’s enough reliable sources discussing FreeDoom to make a section in Doom WAD but probably not enough to make a standalone page yet, but I see no reason to completely nuke this page either. Samboy (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to redirect since you have found an excellent WP:ATD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:55, 30 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 Kate Moross#Isomorph Records. (non-admin closure) Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isomorph Records[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Page is also heavy in WP:PROMO and focuses heavily on Kate Moross, who already has an article that includes much of the info about Isomorph found here. Examples of apparent coverage are also primarily about Moross, on closer inspection. For example, this interview is primarily about her design on the record sleeves rather than any function of the record label itself. This interview is the only coverage I was able to locate that focuses on the record label and its artists instead of exclusively focusing on Moross' design. Sources included in the article are mostly external links to self-published material and vendors who sold the records. One FACT article appears to be a release announcement. I believe the other is the photographed label profile linked above (the Flickr caption notes that it's from FACT). This leaves us with one brief, interview-heavy source. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kate Moross#Isomorph Records. The label has been defunct since 2012, and it appears that during its entire existence it only ever released the five non-notable singles already mentioned in the text. There is nothing to merge, since the text and citations from the one reliable source, FACT magazine, are already reproduced word for word at the proposed redirect target. Richard3120 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect my search does not turn up enough notability and Richard3120 proposes a good target for a redirect. Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Richard3120 and I'm fine if it is deleted first because of PROMO. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 26 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. Consensus seems to be that the provided sources, even the Turkish-language ones, primarily consist of passing mentions. Speedy keep rationale isn't a rationale for a speedy keep. The attempt to evade WP:SALT is noted. ST47 (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Uyar (businessman)[edit]

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

This article is a recreation of Emir Uyar, which was salted as a result of this 2017 AfD. I am starting another AfD rather than requesting G4 deletion because there appear to be sources in the current article that weren't discussed in the previous AfD.

Most of the sources are focused on Uyar's company, the Permak Group, and only contain passing mentions of Uyar. Others, like this, are interviews with Uyar that contain no original reporting or significant coverage whatsoever. There may be more sources in Turkish media that I am unaware of, however, and I would like to get input from other editors. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment, it is because you were searching in English. In the Turkish press, the mentions are not passing. AlAkhtar32 (talk)
Delete Still a non-notable businessman and a very clear attempt to work around the AfC process and SALTing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment. Without addressing this particular page, I am extremely concerned about the sudden rash of promotional articles about Turkish business men on English Wikipedia, written in the same style by SPAs. I'll leave it at that. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, completely notable in Turkey. I wanted to write about someone in the media and will write about more Turkish people in the future. I have no connection to him and just noticed something missing in Wikipedia that would be informative for people who need to learn more about Turkey and its influential people. AlAkhtar32 (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, greetings and peace be to you my brothers. I am a Turkish editor who is passionate about writing and editing pages for many different Turkish people and topics, without the bias and censorship that is besieging our country. Emir Uyar is a famous high-profile personality in the Turkish media who has attracted a lot of attention for his relationship with Adriana Lima, his work on sustainable green energy in Turkey, and his deep, strong connections in Germany, Italy, and all over Europe. He is mentioned on CNN in Turkish, and these mentions are not passing or trivial, CNN Turkish 1 CNN Turkish 2 Hurriyet Daily Mail. Search for him and Turkish and you can see that there is zero doubt that he is a notable, influential man.

You see, there are many similar notable Turkish businesspeople who have Wikipedia pages and do not face such problems - Alinur Velidedeoglu, Saygin Yalcin, Baran Süzer, Esref Hamamcioglu, Murat Ozaydinli, Erol Ozensoy, Mehmet Emin Toprak (businessman), and many more. Some of these businesspeople are even less notable than Emir Uyar, but you do not target them because of the simple fact that they were not deleted before. We need a stronger and fairer process than this.

During the days when Emir Uyar was not as notable, someone else had tried to write a promotional page about him which did not meet Wikipedia standards. I am a frequent follower of Turkish media and news, and see that now he has gained a lot more notability in many different ways, he should deserve his own Wikipedia page. I am completely sure that he is a notable person for the Turkish audience.

You might ask, why someone not in the company would want to write something about him? It is because I am a Turkish student and activist who likes to write biographies about the many people I see in the media who do not yet have Wikipedia pages, or had been deleted before because some other editor had been overly promotional in the past. I believe in my country Turkey and I want to put it and its people in the spotlight. I believe in the democratic processes of Wikipedia and the free knowledge it offers for all of us.

Wikipedia is blocked in my country, so I request you to not censor this page the way our government censors our people. I believe in the Wikimedia project and I firmly believe you can make the wise decision to keep Wikipedia an openly democratic encyclopedia for my country and for my people. I want to write more pages on Turkish people who have contributed to our country in many positive ways without the fear of censorship or reprisal. I give thanks to you for your efforts in contributing to this great project called Wikipedia. Peace and blessings my brothers. I kindly hope you will not hastily delete without careful consideration. AlAkhtar32 (talk) 13:04, 27 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary theory of the self[edit]

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

Basically, this is a random WP:COATRACK based on the work of one single group (Munevar et al), which was published in a predatory journal. This research is completely not notable, and even if the broad topic somehow was, WP:TNT applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The work has no wiki-notability, and much of the text was dumped here from the paper in the predatory journal itself. It's technically not a copyvio since their license looks to be compatible (CC BY 3.0), but it's still not behavior we should reward. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now article needs an editor to trim. Stanford, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, Further Research, Imprint Academic additional related topics exist like Evolution theory of Motivation We have to make sure this article is not WP:SYNTH. Lightburst (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: nothing in this article is salvageable. WP:TNT applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it could use an ambitious editor Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or a WP:REDLINK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was literally copy-and-pasted from an article in a predatory journal that nobody has paid attention to. It's too lazy even to be WP:SYNTH. It does not deserve to exist here. A smattering of academic books or websites with vaguely similar names does not change that. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is copyvio and the work of an SPA it should be speedy deleted. Why are we at AfD where I am asked to assess the quality of sources which WP:NEXIST? Lightburst (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is original research. It may be published original research, but having been published in a predatory journal (and yes, this is a slightly worked-over copy & paste of the entire article), it must be treated just like any other private production that has not been peer-reviewed to acceptable standards. We wouldn't retain this if it had been built in draft space, and we shouldn't retain it just because the draft space happens to be a pay-for-publication journal outlet. - Further, being in classic essay argumentation style isn't necessarily a delete reason in itself, but it certainly doesn't do it any favours. Lazy copy of material from a non-peer-reviewed article that would require a complete workover just to look acceptable? Nope. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, hat tip to Headbomb. This is a sloppy mix of original research and an op-ed. I'm sure the creator and editors who wrote this meant well, but this is not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 25 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 keep. No point in wasting time. Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 03:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhower Fellowships[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. PR spam and all that; non-notable fellowship ∯WBG^converse 16:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be a quite notable fellowship which has a recipient list that reads like a who is who in politics. US. Secretary of Defense, Senator John McCain, Also covered in RS New York Times Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second source self-describes to be a Press-release and CVs are always bloated. Better efforts, please ..... ∯WBG^converse 10:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A press release describing a notable recipient of a notable award. There is SIGCOV WP:NEXIST but I honestly do not have time to do the WP:BEFORE that the nominator should have done. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are [personal attack removed, Paul August ☎ 18:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)] and are now arguing that press-releases contribute to WP:SIGCOV. Sigh. ∯WBG^converse 15:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand why WBG nominated it for AfD - as it sits, the article cites no independent RS, and is heavily dependent on its own SPS which is a no-no. I found this NYTimes article which helps to establish WP:N on a historic level. It also has a global academic scholarship reach that can be cited and numerous academic articles about recipients, so yes, it easily passes GNG. Lightburst, perhaps it would help if you improved the article by citing the many RS that support the article content? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Atsme, makes sense. Sometimes I do not have time so I just do an RS check to see if WP:NEXIST. So if I get to it, I will add to the article. It is a good practice! Lightburst (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue what WorldScholarshipForum is but I am sure that's not a RS.
The Yahoo piece is published from a feed of PRNewsWire. Press-releases never ever qualify as a source, except for WP:V. Also, academic article, wot?!
Anybody who has got anything to do with academia, knows universities typically publish congratulatory pieces for any and all awards, won by their faculties/students/staff. Also, independent sources are needed. ∯WBG^converse 16:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was on the fence after seeing that NYT article, but some additional digging returns coverage in several countries, including pieces about recipients, e.g. in La Vanguardia (Spain), about group projects/events (e.g. in the Irish Times or New York Times), and events like the one in Rwanda, covered by the New Times ([18] [19] [20]). And I don't feel like I've exhausted the searches -- just got to enough to satisfy me. All of this said, the article definitely needs work. It has a ton of detail based on scant secondary sources. It should be seriously cut back/reworked. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as notable can be and still be named after Eisenhower. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atsme — Ched (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Rhododendrites would have seemed better to me, but given your ¡vote, can you tell me about which part of my rebut to Atsme, you do not agree with? ∯WBG^converse 20:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 1984 New York Times article that Lightburst and Atsme found plus the variety of articles that Rhododendrites found are adequate to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Atsme. WBG, that's specifically per Atsme, for they added the NYT article which is as usual for an NYT full article, is proof of notability. But you are right that the university material is also PR. The fact that an article has a PR link is does not make it non-notable , if it has good references also. It does need to be cut back a little--the lists of fellows don't seem appropriate, as they none of them seem notable yet. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 23 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. czar 17:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Stephanie Boyce[edit]

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

No actual assertion of encyclopedic notability. Basically a well-written CV of a solicitor. The biggest claim is "will be president of the Law Society in 2022" - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And even then, being president of the British Law Society does not automatically confer notability (the current president, for example, does not have an article). Excepting that, the next claim is being Deputy Vice President of the Law Society of England and Wales and an "Inspirational Speaker". References a mix of non-existent and passing mentions. Fish+Karate 15:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to object to the proposed deletion of the I. Stephanie Boyce page.

There are numerous references throughout the internet to this individual’s achievement and one that should readily sit in Wikipedia.

To delete this article would remove an important part of the legal profession’s history and this individual’a accomplishment.

Further the nominee has missed the point of the individual’s accomplishment, it is agreed that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball however the accomplishment to date is that in its 195 year history there has never been a black deputy vice president of the Law Society as reported in various publications.

The basis for reaching a notability threshold is subjective. What is the standard that merits Wiki recognition? A casual review of some early Wiki bios would not surely qualify on the 'notability' criterion today. Arguably, standards have been raised over time - to the betterment of the Wiki as a resource. Social media developments such as Twitter tweet count might now be a relevant consideration to some, but not others.

The Times article is probably the most significant evidence to support merit of this biography. The recognition of a 'first' (the first black president-to-be) in a prominent field of life - the Law Society of England & Wales since its formation in 1825. This appointment has obvious implications for societal change in a traditionally conservative profession; the law. The implications for this bio is surely enough to be 'notable'

What evidence is there that the bio has been drafted for pecuniary advantage? Wiki has a strong bedrock of contributors who do so for purely altruistic reasons for the benefit of all. Agreed, a more neutral and dispassionate tone would help.

Delete This is completed a promotional bio. Its SEOed to the max and is written like a resume ("In her most recent roles, as General Counsel and Company Secretary Boyce delivered strategic change in complex environments, bringing clarity to strategic planning and delivering improved legal services in challenging financial circumstances."- Really? You don't think that's not promotional?). I also have serious WP:SOCK concerns, the only Keep arguments on this AfD are the creator of the article and an account with no edits outside of the AfD. Both written in a similar style and both are unsigned. A third SPA left a similar, unsigned comment on the AfD's talk page. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:32, 27 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. czar 17:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Senthil[edit]

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

Insufficient in-depth coverage in multiple RS. There is one sentence in timesofindia.com that says he is "a popular director". That is not enough for WP:GNG. MB 14:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MB 14:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MB 14:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per rationale given by MB , furthermore he fails WP:42 | Celestina007 (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination; subject is "too soon" re: notability.TH1980 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because coverage on him is so shallow. I would agree to see if, after a few more days, this film, and its director, gets more coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the subject fails WP:NCREATIVE, as well as WP:GNG. The article was created by an SPA; who also added himself as notable director six years ago, in the article of film director. Possibly COI or UPE. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:23, 28 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. czar 17:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xecced ventures[edit]

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

Article about a Non-notable company that fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - highly promotional, and entirely sourced to primary sources or dodgy press releases. No evidence of notability. For info, the page was also deleted under a capitalization variant in July (Xecced Ventures), and there's some possible sketchiness about the two users involved, which I have flagged for investigation here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamerutl. Hug^syrup 14:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as per WP:NOTHERE WP:PROMO articles written like a WP:RESUME shouldn’t be in the encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - article was created by a banned or blocked user and appears to be the only substantial contributor (potentially WP:G5 if article was created in violation of block somehow), and appears promotional to a large degree (WP:G11). Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. Generally, venture capital firms are so ordinary and common that we tend to delete them unless that's very good coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 25 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. Sadly, this discussion went mostly along predictable lines. Editors might want to explore whether a merger to List of Israeli attacks on Palestine#Gaza Strip, as proposed several times, might have consensus. Sandstein 09:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass civilian casualties of Israeli bombing, shelling and rocket attacks on the Gaza Strip[edit]

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

1. First of all, 6-10, in one case 17 casualties, is not yet "mass casualties". When I read "mass casualties" I think of thousands at least. This is clearly a tendentious article name. 2. This article is not about any thing or phenomenon, rather a list of essentially unrelated incidents. This is indicated in the title of the article as well, which groups "bombing, shelling and rocket attacks" together on a rather flimsy and indiscriminate basis. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:OR essay i.e there is no sources that discuss those events together as part of some pattern . --Shrike (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with merge at is seems as WP:POVFORK of List of Israeli attacks on Palestine#Gaza Strip--Shrike (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, editors have problems with the suggestion that it is technically feasible to merge an article with a list composed of 16 articles. How is it done? Can you clarify what on earth a merge means here, because if you cannot show how it is done, your suggestion is pointless. There are no sources anywhere on the several hundred wiki lists which 'discuss those events together'. That silly argument is a frivolous excuse, with no policy basis, to elide just one list. There is no book or article that incorporates the details we have compiled, from numerous RS, to form the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates. The only people who have done that, so far, definitive, impeccably sourced list, are wikipedians.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WHO definition of "mass casualty incident" [21]

For the purposes of these guidelines, a mass casualty incident is defined as an event which generates more patients at one time than locally available resources can manage using routine procedures. It requires exceptional emergency arrangements and additional or extraordinary assistance.It can also be defined as any event resulting in a number of victims large enough to disrupt the normal course of emergency and health care services

.

In view of very poor healthcare system, Gaza easily meets this definition. As for trying to argue that attacks on Gaza are not a thing, I cannot agree, it is a regular thing and is discussed at virtually every UNSC Palestine meeting.(Isn't Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel the flipside?) Perhaps "bombardment" could be used as a short form for "bombing, shelling and rocket attacks". Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the poor choices of Gazan authorities, 6-10 people surely can not be enough to disrupt medical services. Not to mention that this definition is not what most people would call "mass casualties". Debresser (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Israeli attacks on Palestine#Gaza Strip. The article title is ridiculously cumbersome, so no redirect. It's WP:OR to classify most of these incidents as "mass casualty", and there's no need for two lists covering the basically the same subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How do you 'merge' an article to a list of articles? (b) 'mass' is explained in the definition given by Selfstudier above, but if you prefer 'massacre' (five or over by usual wiki conventions) that might be possible. It would mean only one of the several dozen incidents I can list would go out, but only by ignoring the wounded, who are also casualties (c) If the title upsets you, then try 'Multiple civilian casualties of Israeli bombardments of the Gaza Strip'. We have 16 articles detailing year by year what the main article Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel writes. Why do you think there is something unfair about having one page dealing with the obverse, not least to avoid Wikipedia:Systemic bias? The norm here is, after all, a dozen wiki articles on terrorist incidents perpetrated by Palestinians, for every article that might document similar behavior by Israeli forces. Why? because editors like myself think it inappropriate to mirror the practice, preferring a single focused overview to endless stand alone Wikipedia:Notability single incident reportage.Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. This article is essentially a list of incidents, so there's no problem merging two lists. Second, while "mass casualty" is defined for specific World Health Organization guidelines, none of the references for the entries mention that term even once as far as I can tell, so it's OR. Finally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:SOAPBOX apply to the rest of your arguments. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respond. Arguments must have cogency and clarity to be taken seriously.

(a)You made an error in proposing a merge of this article with a list that itself has 23 articles. So which of those articles do you propose it to be merged with? It makes no sense, indeed it is technically impossible to, as you suggest, merge an article with a List of Israeli attacks on Palestine#Gaza Strip.

(b)Many references use the word 'massacre' for each incident, not 'mass casualties'.

(c) By your premise, all lists are WP:OR. We have a vast abundance of them, and therefore your exception to this one is incoherent.

(d) Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is an essay, not a policy, and, if one reads it, it states that arguments based on such an objection can be valid or invalid. Just citing an essayistic opinion carries no weight.

(e) WP:SOAPBOX. Citing pages like that are a lazy mental shortcut for not addressing the gravamen of an argument, the essence of which is obvious. There are a substantial number of Israeli victim articles thronging Wikipedia, and no one, least of whom, myself, holds any objection to their existence - they correlate for the reader a notable number of devastating incidents for rapid information on a topic, an encyclopedic topic. On the rare occasions one thinks the weight of material warrants one or two articles on corresponding victim incidents affecting the other side, Palestinians, one gets this hackneyed refrain, that Israelis are one thing, Palestinians are just 'other stuff(ed)/stiffed stuff' for whom there's no space. Any editor who takes to heart WP:NPOV must deal with this tendentious systemic bias in our judgements. This incongruency of approach, large tolerance vs fastidious rejectionism, stands out like dogs' balls.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why are some civilian deaths "worth" more than others? I just found the articles: Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Al-Aqsa Intifada...both basically about the same thing (while Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second/Al-Aqsa Intifada have exactly zero coverage). These, and many other lists, are "lists of essentially unrelated incidents", shall they be deleted, too? (I have proposed that they should be merged into one. If I was acting like Debresser, I would have AFDed them) And "6-10, in one case 17 casualties" wrt Palestinians is apparently un-noteworthy, while single Israeli civilian casualties is noteworthy?

This is a long, long overdue article, and should be expanded. (alas: better, and shorter article name should be looked for, IMO), (or perhaps we should only make a lot of redirs to the article?), Huldra (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ot os not a matter of who is "worth" mor ethan others. It is a matter of naming an article. The two articles you mentioned don't use the misleading and POV word "mass casualties", not do they read "bombing, shelling and rocket attacks". If this article were called "Civilian casualties of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip", it might come over less POV. That is using an understatement, actually. Debresser (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rrrrrrrrright; you wanted to nominate this article for WP:MOVE, and by....accident(?) nominated it for WP:AfD instead? Huldra (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for what I wanted to nominate it for, for the reasons I explained above. However, if the result of this discussion would be to keep this article, it would need a serious rename. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the reasons you have given for nominating this article for deletion, can also be used for AfD of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and the List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Are you going to vote "delete" for those articles if I put them up for AfD? Huldra (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It will be expanded. That is all I could manage in a day or two, and my offline duties mean the large volume of documented incidents that fall under this definition must bide their time until I wrest some leisure in the following weeks to transfer them, only after checking the sourcing for each, here.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Huldra. Also note that a poor article title on its own is NEVER a reason for deletion (but, please, don't change the article title before this AfD has concluded). --NSH001 (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This kind of article has a huge number of precedents on Wikipedia: it is a standard practice to make overview articles listing events coming under a single topic definition as here. It mirrors perfectly Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, which no one objects to, let alone the 16 articles that accompany it. The objections (so far) appear spurious. If the title is long, it can be reduced. There is no synthesis involved - lists compile items so the question of WP:OR is fatuous. It is no use claiming WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because the other stuff works out to deal with Israeli victims, and only begs the question: why do editors, in violation of NPOV, think only one side of a story can be documented in this manner? It cannot be merged, because you can't merge an overview article into a list which itself registers 16 articles, none dealing with an overview. Distaste is not a valid objection. Finally, there is a massive amount of high quality RS dealing with this issue, and to object to our representation of the topic is to argue that, well, it's an intensely documented reality, but we don't want it on an encyclopedia, for what reason, no one can explain.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Delete to List of Israeli attacks on Palestine#Gaza Strip, as this seems to cover the same topic, and much of it is just a list on incidents. It also has a whiff of OR (what sources say this is mass killing?) and a POV fork.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To make sense, a merge proposal, as I keep repeating, must explain technically how you merge an article into a list of other articles. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I think I said, much of this is already little more then a list. So...the material already list like needs no change.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per User:Clarityfiend, or Merge to List of Israeli attacks on Palestine#Gaza Strip. This is a blatant WP:POVFORK from List of Israeli attacks on Palestine, which uses WP:OR to describe as "mass casualty" events which the sources do not describe as such. Anyone wondering about the motivations of the editors creating this article or supporting keeping it, will find this instructive- [22] Here come the Suns (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To make sense, a merge proposal, as I keep repeating, must explain technically how you merge an article into a list of other articles. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use "ahh but this user is biased" arguments. It makes me wonder which side is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could editors please actually respond specifically to the technical issues raised. The merge proposal looks technically impossible. A main article can no more be merged into a sub-article, as in set theory, if x ∈ A, you cannot propose that the masterset (A) be merged into the elements of the subset x, which are part of the constituents of A. Are those proposing merge familiar with elementary logic? To make the usual analogy.

The corresponding article this mirrors,Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel (A), has 14 sections devoted to the year by year listing of such rocket attacks. So it is an overview of the following list of 16 articles (x):

How would it, were parity of logic used, be possible, as suggested by analogy here, for the the contents of A to be merged into 16 articles. The proposal is suggesting, in sum, that there should be, in the Palestinian instance, no main article, just a fragmentary set of sub articles, a procedure which is erratically unwikipedic. I might suggest to passing eyes, by the way, that almost none of the above articles bears a neutral title. 99% of them cover rocket attacks by ethnicity, whereas the reality is that ethnicity has nothing to do with it- The rocket attacks are overwhelmingly Gazan rocket attacks against Israel, by specific militant groups Hamas or Islamic Jihad. You cannot per NPOV define an attack on a state (Israel) per ethnicity (Palestinians). To make this absolutely clear it is as intolerable as would be renaming Israeli (state) attacks on the Gaza Strip as 'Jewish'.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, each section would be added to he year in question.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me. Please focus.There are no year by year lists of Israeli bombings of Gazan civilians. The above are year by year lists of Gazan militant attacks on Israelis. The Israeli POV does this. Editors like myself deplore that kind of practice, of making a huge number of articles (down to every single person killed by terrorists) and concentrate on a general overview type of article.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So nominate the rocket attacks on Israel lists for deletion too. (I'm an equal-opportunity deletionist.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. I am an inclusionist, if with somewhat severe criteria for RS. And I certainly wouldn't work on Wikipedia to wipe out information that I think has some encyclopedic value, whatever the POV. Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No real reason for deletion has been provided. This is a very notable topic with a vast supply of reliable sources to draw from. As for the lengthy title, AfD is not the right place to discuss that; think of a better title and start a move discussion on the talk page. Zero^talk 00:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like you read the discussion so far, as multiple reasons have been provided, by multiple editors, including WP:POVFORK and WP:OR Here come the Suns (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that most of the objectors haven't read the discussion so far, and are not familiar with the policies cited. This is not an example of WP:OR, for example, except for those assuming WP:OR means no article that lists all elements of category A (here all Israeli bombing incidents where three or more Gazan civilians have been killed) can be permitted to do so unless there is a source which has defined all the constitutive elements of A (z+z+z..), which would fail a thousand wiki articles dealing with lists, like List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, List of terrorist incidents, List of massacres of Indigenous Australians, List of Palestinian suicide attacks or List of Islamist terrorist attacks No synthesis is made to draw a conclusion not in the sources. The title, by the emerging consensus here, will be changed_ I suggest Multiple civilian casualties of Israeli bombardments of the Gaza Strip. Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, and precisely zero (0000) of these sources use the word "mass casualties". And what does that say about this article...? Debresser (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory.. "In the wake of mass casualties during protests and demonstrations in the context of the “Great March of Return” in the Gaza Strip..." Admittedly not a result of bombardment but that would create a worse situation in most cases. If all you want is an RS using the term then Mass casualties as Gaza market area bombed (Shujayea 2014)or "People are suffering and dying because of shortages of medical equipment," said Dr. Mahmoud el-Khazndar, who works at Gaza City's Shifa Hospital. "The hospital is not accustomed to accept mass casualties like this."Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We go with what RS say, not how we things pan out (that is what is meant by wp:or). No material can be kept without an RS saying it was a incident of mass casualties, if we start to remove them how many are left?Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:OR is, if read, being misread, (and the error is common). 'Mass casualties' is a provisory title. A title never means that every source in a list article must contain the words of that title. You are mounting an objection to the content of a list on the basis of a phrasing which all agree should be phrased, throwing the baby out with the barfwater. Innumerable sources use, for the distinct incidents, words like 'massacre' (Levy), 'carnage' (see the Human Rights Watch article). If you go into the philology of the use of 'mass casualties' in I/P reportage, the term is almost exclusively restricted to incidents where Israelis have been the victims of suicide attacks. The term is, in customary usage, under an ethnic restriction. I note things like that, and don't worry about the bias I observe. I am, as always concerned with the obligation of Wikipedia to cover all sides, and not allow to one POV a dominance of the field.

Despite the waves of mass casualties with multi-injured patients...re Zeitoun Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This in no way contradicts the idea that material not about (what the RS) calls mass casualties should be removed. Policy does not dictate we have to have articles on anything mentioned by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of the worst mass-casualty incidents of the three-week war (al Fakhura)

It was the third mass casualty attack at a UN school

Great, so remove all those not sources to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we are only discussing delete/keep; if the article should end up being kept then we would likely argue about the title/content. I am only showing that it is not that difficult to back up each incident with suitable RS due to the existence of defined terms like mass casualty(ies)/event/incident used by different organizations.Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the best way to demonstrate that is to source every incident we have in the article. Nor does this "prove" we need yet another article on Palestinian deaths due to Israeli action.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus. Every incident in this article is sourced, and the antic idea that every such entry requires, to validate it, a key term like 'mass casualties' or 'multiple casualties' is a radically silly interpretation of WP:OR. Lastly, what on earth do you mean by the giveaway assertion someone is pressing for 'yet another article on Palestinian deaths due to Israeli action.' Anyone familiar with this wiki area can verify that a large restraint has been exercised by most editors here in not mimicking the 'pro-Israel' practice of registering for article inclusion every civilian death incident (44 Israeli victim articles vs 8 Palestinian individuals here), not to speak of the huge disparity above regarding year by year articles on Gazan rocket attacks (16), with no parallel article, other than this, for the Palestinian side. The historic kill rate in this area is 1:8. Our article coverage is something like 6:1, i.e. systemic bias.Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply saying we're not there yet as the title may change and the article creator did say he has not finished with the sourcing as yet.(Use cn?) As for "proof" that is just a policy argument and we are having that at the moment.Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, since the title is a contentious issue, resolve that by offering solutions. I suggested Multiple civilian casualties of Israeli bombardments of the Gaza Strip. If one reports upwards of 3 deaths, everyone with a reasonable grasp of English should know that the descriptor 'multiple' covers that, and you do not, as per above, need a source to validate a descriptor, which is self-explanatory, and instinct in any account of several people being killed in a single strike. Commonsense please.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Civilian casualties of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip would be better as 1. it places no limit on the number 2. "attacks" is broader than "bombardments". Debresser (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be impractical, not specifying we deal with strikes leading to multiple civilian victims. After all, in the last 19 years, 104,799 Palestinians have been killed or injured by Israeli forces, almost a tenth of those died in conflict engagements. The general scholarly consensus recognizes that at least two thirds of those are civilians One doesn't want to open the endless can of worms of registering every notice of a civilian death from situations of conflict, What is noteworthy is determined by principles of military and international law: the concept of proportionality. Israel can justify the killing of any targeted person, if the targeted person's death does not incur disproportionate 'collateral damage'. The list here aspires to register only those instances (a hundred or so I know of) where substantial civilian deaths occurred with either no 'terrorist' present, or just one or two.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well now you're moving the goalposts and adding an additional criterion (0-2 terrorists) that isn't in the article, implied by the title or (probably) cited by any source. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon! I did no such thing. I clarified why mass or perhaps multiple is, or should be, in the title. I'm utterly bewildered by the quality of response in this thread. A serious dialogue aims to elicit assumptions, premises etc., not overtly clear. When I do that, it is lambasted with the usual 'shifting the goalposts'. When in the Meno, Meno scrabbles about to find a definition of excellence, only to be shown their inadequacy, and his Socratic interlocutor draws out the underlying principle that must be adequate to all definitions, no doubt Meno could reply:'Oh, you're shifting the goalposts'. That would be a dodge, a refusal to accept the elenchic pursuit of a proper definition, that is intrinsic to the argument he himself raised. Dear me. I guess the next move will be to say that my illustrative analogy discloses a hidden presumption on my part that I am Socrates. Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the article does it mention or even hint at the number of terrorists present as a condition for inclusion. This is entirely something you made up yourself. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consult the dictionary on pettifogging or caviling. The lead reads:

The reason for such operations is purportedly to carry out targeted assassinations of militants from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups seen to be a threat to Israel, whose Shin Bet data banks monitor thousands of Palestinians for targeting.[1] Israel regards such cases as either unfortunate 'errors',[b] the consequence of civilians being used to shield militants or as acceptable collateral damage.

I don't make up things. I have read the relevant literature since 2007, for 12 years, and much of the legal commentary, one of which I mention, is focused on the doctrine of proportionality, i.e., how many civilians die as a collateral effect of targeting one or two or more people classified by Israel as terrorists. Nishidani (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Huldra and NSH001 nableezy - 13:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:POVFORK - casualties of conflict are properly addressed as part of the article(s) about the conflict and the purpose of creating a separate article and the hodgepodge of WP:SYNTH in this instance seems only to be to serve the purpose of pushing a particular angle of one side of the conflict; secondly WP:POVPUSH - a priori excludes Israeli casualties of Palestinian bombing, shelling and rocket attacks; furthermore "mass civilian casualties" are undefined WP:OR. --PopularMax (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So then you would want to also delete both, say, Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and the List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Al-Aqsa Intifada? Besides the fact that they both are about the same deaths, they "also "'a priori excludes Palestinian casualties of Israeli belligerence? Huldra (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apart form other stuff not being much a=of an argument [[23]] seems to me to already cover this in term of equivalency.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You evidently haven't analysed it. That article, which by the way radically underlists the relevant incidents, deals with a 5 year period ending 2005 selecting 70 odd incidents, predominantly in the West Bank, not the Gaza Strip, of which only 3 deal with bombardments of civilians. I.e. it excludes generally what this article, if permitted to reach its natural length of a few dozen incidents of significant collateral damage from missile strikes in Gaza. is focused on. The Gaza related incidents, mainly shootings, number 17 out of 70. Historically, the 'carnage' as sources call it, on the Gaza Strip began in earnest after the end date of that article's brief, i.e. after 2007. So the article, while forming a precedent in its presentation, has a different focus from this one.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, an article (list or whatever) which is about the Second Intifada is not coveingr the same period or conflict as another whose title says it is about the second Intifada?Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is incomprehensible. Please don't stir huge threads. The information given is suffioient to grasp the point.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point you made was we have to keep this article for parity with other articles. But we already have an article that parallels those articles you cite as reasons to keep this one. So your point is not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no, and I apologize for having to say this. You are not reading closely. I wrote this article because there is a mass of information in high RS sources dealing with it, yet no wiki article. My point about parallels was not the justification for it. I made it to respond to objections that assumed, through unfamiliarity with the topic area, that what I was doing was unusual, or anomalous, by pointing out that if one objects to this, why is that objection never raised for AfDing or radically excising material from numerous articles on Israeli casualties which have long exhibited the features I adopted for this new matter. Please don't persist in not grasping the obvious, or confusing several distinct levels of discourse.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I pointed out it was invalid as no one has suggest that comparable article to those you cited should be deleted. Whataboutism only works when there is a clear lack of comparability, and even then is not a valid argument at AFD's.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per PopularMax. Another Nishidani POV-pushing gem. Unfortunately, this pulled me out of retirement. Kamel Tebaast 22:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Kamel Tebaast 18:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Now three inactive accounts suddenly take on life.Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You yourself have risen from self-imposed retirement upon many occasions, so this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

either way, this particular account appears to be banned from this topic [24].Dan Murphy (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If, as it appears, he is banned from this area, then either that 'vote' should be struck out or the closing admin/editor should not take it into account.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their talk (and user) page says they still are.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the inveterate ad hominem enmity and focus on the logical/policy-based reasonings for and against. Or rather, this all discourages independent outside hands from commenting. We have had our say. Let others express their opinions Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So then why not strike you ad hominem about people coming out of retirement?Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an ad hominem at all, but rather drawing attention to the likelihood that some meatpuppettry is going on. --NSH001 (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it an ad hominem to point out the accuser has done this themselves, and thus there may well be innocent explanations (such as why they have done it). Many users retire and then come back when their pet subjects start to get (for example) vandalized, or if they see POV pushing they find unacceptable. What is not acceptable is thinly veiled nudge nudge accusations. If people think meat puppetry is going on say so, do not however complain about actions the accuser has themselves engaged in. Now is there an accusation of meat puppetry or not?Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also which accounts have been "reactivated"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now thats a different matter altogether, and needs to be reported as it does appear to be a violation of a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with reluctance I disagree with many of the comments made above on both sides of the argument. I don’t think either side’s attacks on the other should be in separate articles. Many of the articles in Template:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel are one-sided. This one is too, but the other way round. We would do a much better service to readers if we organized our Gaza–Israel conflict sub-articles only by time period and not by who the attacker was. In the meantime, this article should be kept. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to something a little more concise. The article itself lists a number of references from reliable sources (note that it’s messy right now; the sources should be inline supporting statements in the actual article to avoid original research and unsourced statements in the article) and the topic itself is notable, so it easily passes WP:GNG. Samboy (talk) 06:39, 30 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 Doctor Strange#Artifacts and technology. ST47 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cloak of Levitation[edit]

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

Fancruft about a single, non-notable item that fails WP:GNG. Even if it's worn by the notable character Doctor Strange, notability is not inherited. The name is also quite generic, I was WP:SURPRISEd to see this was a Marvel item and not just a fantasy trope. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per the previous AfD. No real sources were ever presented. The most coverage you'll see is A. Commentary directly related to Strange and B. Trivial coverage from MCU news articles. Neither are enough. The topic is basically part of Strange. TTN (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as a notable item that passes WP:GNG due to existence of real published and nontrivial sources sufficient for justifying the article. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC) striking sock vote. Praxidicae (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? Of the ones in the article, only one is not primary, and that does not provide enough in depth coverage to pass WP:GNG--Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments in the previous AFD, or at worst merge into Doctor Strange#Artifacts and technology. BOZ (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Strange#Artifacts and technology. Doesn't pass WP:GNG by itself, but a reasonable search term. I'm not convinced it's a generic term, but that seems more of a TVtropes idea than for here anyway. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Strange#Artifacts and technology - Plenty of hits come up with searching for it, especially due to its role as a "character" in the movie, but none of them are actually in-depth. Outside of the ones that are pure plot summary or contained in official Marvel/MCU publications, most things talking about it are more or less brief snippets. I also find this to be a rather unnecessary WP:SPLIT from Dr. Strange's article. The cloak is part of his normal costume, its role in fiction is intrinsically linked to him, and there really is not a whole lot to say about it that is separate from Dr. Strange himself. It should certainly be covered on Dr. Strange's article, but none of the reliably sourced information is notable or lengthy enough to need to have it split off into an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Strange#Artifacts and technology Dream Focus 17:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A merge is ridicules idea, the article is fairly big and would make Dr Strange article huge! Govvy (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the content on this page would not need to be merged, which is why size would not be an issue. A brief description of the cloak as one of Strange's prominent pieces of equipment and part of his costume - yes. The entire fictional history of the cloak and every appearance of it in "alternate universes" sourced only to the comics themselves, which is what the bulk of this article is, - no. Rorshacma (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Doctor Strange#Artifacts and technology. Doesn't transcend its wearer. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Sgeureka Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if there's anything worth keeping, otherwise delete. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 29 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) 14:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Airlines Flight 113[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Engine fires are not uncommon occurrences. Aviation safety network archives are full of them. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only is it WP:NOTNEWS it's not even a notable incident. SportingFlyer T·C 12:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unlike United Airlines Flight 627, there appears to be little to no impact on other flights. If Wikipedia covered every engine fire, we’d never finish that task. It kind of reminds me of a Cracked.com Photoplasty image where a social media user posts every breath in and breath out: I cannot remember what page it was in, though. --Minoa (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really noteworthy for a mention in wikipedia never mind a full article, just a bad day at the office that ended well. MilborneOne (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there any way we can vet these ridiculous articles before they reach main space?--Petebutt (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Compressor stalls are quite common and trivial (Just 2 months ago there's a CCA flight also getting a compressor stall). Unless the flight has something notable, the incident itself is not notable enough.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not important enough for an encyclopedia article. - Samf4u (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, relativity common aviation occurrence, no injuries and no damage outside the engine itself. Just not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:DOGBITESMAN, insignificant event; here's another from the same month: Engine Fire Prompts Air India Airbus A321 Diversion zmm (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a Mabuhay Miles member, I can tell you from firsthand experience that this is a run of the mill incident. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per WP:SNOW, with full respect to its creator, it is clear that this article does not pass above WP:NOTNEWS and that there is a clear consensus to delete. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:16, 28 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. ST47 (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Dolcefino[edit]

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

There are a fair number of local sources, but really none that seem to cover him. He's been a news anchor who has won a lot of awards (but I can't source any details on that from an independent source and I suspect they are all local awards?). He got in a accident and sued. I'm not seeing much else. Hobit (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:13, 22 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 Stranger in a Strange Land. Tone 11:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jubal Harshaw[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG/WP:PLOT. AfD from 10 years was focused on arguments 'he appears in a notable book'. WP:NOTINHERITED. At best can be redirected to said book, but is not a likely search term anyway. But maybe someone can find a source to show notability? My BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a mention in passing (a sentence or two of plot summary about him). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 22 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} 11:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. More analysis found at Pandeism: Literary critic Dan Schneider wrote of Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land that Jubal Harshaw's belief in his own free will, was one "which Mike, Jill, and the Fosterites misinterpret as a pandeistic urge, 'Thou art God!'", citation: Dan Schneider, Review of Stranger In A Strange Land (The Uncut Version), by Robert A. Heinlein (7/29/05). More discussion of Harshaw in that piece. Appears in multiple Heinlein books. Have added this very negative Medium review too. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- One sentence is pretty much a definition of coverage in passing, GNG requires in-depth. It's a nice reference, and I suggest you merge it to the article about the notable book, which should discuss the characters. But the extent of the analysis, i.e. a single sentence, does not warrant a stand alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus:: Would you consider the following from the Medium article to constitute more than one sentence?:

But the real star is Jubal Harshaw, Heinlein’s crude wish-fulfillment stand-in for himself. Jubal is an aging popular writer who lives with a harem of three beautiful, brilliant young women who take turns keeping house, splashing around in the pool and serving as his personal secretaries. He’s also an unbelievable Renaissance man, displaying categorical knowledge of everything from law to philosophy to sculpture to herpetology:
It was the handsomest specimen of Boidae he had ever seen — longer, he estimated, than any other boa constrictor in captivity.

We are treated to Jubal’s wisdom partly through bizarre non sequiturs like that one, and partly through monologues in which he serves as a mouthpiece for Heinlein’s political and social views — which are at best charmingly muddled, and at worst a complete chore to read. Jubal fancies himself a sort of curmudgeonly Hunter Thompson-ish libertarian, but first and foremost he’s a pedant. There’s nothing another character can say to him that won’t produce a lecture in reply, and even the faintly interesting ones tend to slide back into tired sexist stereotypes by the time he’s done. For example, here’s his response when someone compliments one of his sculptural replicas:

Anybody can look at a pretty girl and see a pretty girl. An artist can look at a pretty girl and see the old woman she will become. A better artist can look at an old woman and see the pretty girl that she used to be. But a great artist — a master — and that is what Auguste Rodin was — can look at an old woman, portray her exactly as she is… and force the viewer to see the pretty girl she used to be…. and more than that, he can make anyone with the sensitivity of an armadillo, or even you, see that this lovely young girl is still alive, not old and ugly at all, but simply prisoned inside her ruined body. He can make you feel the quiet, endless tragedy that there was never a girl born who ever grew older than eighteen in her heart…. no matter what the merciless hours have done to her. Look at her, Ben. Growing old doesn’t matter to you and me; we were never meant to be admired — but it does to them.

Hyperbolick (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperbolick: Right, that's about two sentences worth of analysis. Stuff that is not just plot summary: "Heinlein’s crude wish-fulfillment stand-in for himself... he serves as a mouthpiece for Heinlein’s political and social views". That's the extent of analysis I see here. I am not saying its useless, it is a good find and I'd encourage adding it to the article with a reference. But it is not an in-depth treatment, and I don't think this is enough to merit a stand-alone article. Good content to merge to the book article which can discuss him in a subsection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a reasonable compromise, yes. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stranger in a Strange Land, where the character seems adequately covered. The above sources are limited to that main appearance. The rest of the character's appearances seem to be extremely minor, two of the plot summaries not even currently mentioning him once. TTN (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stranger in a Strange Land. No reason for a WP:SPINOUT at this point, the character can be covered just fine in the article of her main appearance. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Not opposed to redirect. Kacper IV (talk) 09:42, 26 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 11:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tinida[edit]

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

Non-notable. Singer who has released 4 singles (on her husband's label) none of which has charted. Emeraude (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as it seems WP:TOOSOON for an article at this stage with no charting songs, no albums released and a lack of coverage such as no bio at AllMusic. No objection to recreation if she has future success such as charting singles and album etc, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this is too soon, it actually seems as though her career (such as it was) has been and gone... those four singles mentioned in the article appear to have been the only ones of her career. It takes some doing to be so obscure as to not have any entries on Discogs, but this artist has managed it. Clearly written as a promotional effort, by a SPA who by sheer coincidence just happens to have the same nickname as her husband/manager/record label boss. And the record label is also defunct now – I'm guessing it was only created to put out his wife's records. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 26 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 11:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vampets[edit]

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

Deleted through PROD and recreated. Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG/WP:PLOT, I don't think we will have much discussion here... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 22 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} 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor fictional element that has no reliable sources. Looking for more only comes up with the Cirque du Freak books themselves, and summaries & fansites of those books. Note that there are a number of results for a line of toys with the same name, but they appear to be completely unrelated to the topic of this article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 09:41, 26 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 The Cats of Ulthar. Tone 11:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ulthar[edit]

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

Fictional location that fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with "significant location in Lovecraft's work". Sigh. What location isn't significant for a fan? But we need something more than that. Sources, anyone? Not WP:PRIMARY, of course... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 22 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} 10:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most significant cities in the Dreamlands works of Lovecraft and his followers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Dream Cycle. The article fails to assert notability. "One of the most significant cities" needs to be backed up by sources to be a relevant keep !vote. TTN (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Dream Cycle. Goustien (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The significance of the place in Lovecraft's works depends on which story you're reading. It is, however, significant enough as a concept existing outside Lovecraft's works that this can be easily sourced and added (I've done so). As the article has already started noting, Ulthar is relevant because it doesn't just belong to Lovecraft, but has taken a life of its own. The article previously mentioned Kij Johnson; I've added the Swedish graphic novel Mara från Ulthar (important enough to be reviewed in the newspapers, at least; the source I added specifically noting the literary borrowing) and there are others as well. /Julle (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need non-plot info for it to be relevant. Simply being used by other authors is not notability. TTN (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "The Cats of Ulthar" There appears to be no significant scholarly or journalistic coverage of the fictional city of Ulthar. Furthermore, when someone searches for it, it is likely that they are searching for "The Cats of Ulthar". ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Necrothesp does not advance a valid AfD argument. Kacper IV (talk) 09:41, 26 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 The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath. Tone 11:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dylath-Leen[edit]

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

Fictional location that fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with "significant location in Lovecraft's work". Seriously? Care to find sources to back this up for this sub-stub? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 22 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} 10:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most significant cities in the Dreamlands works of Lovecraft and his followers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to try a bit more than just to say WP:ITSIMPORTANT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath, its initial and, really, only notable appearance, where its role in the plot is covered. Searching for sources does not bring up anything reliable. Outside of the above mentioned story itself, its mentioned in other pieces of fiction, and in regards to the death metal band named after it, but that is it. There is no non-fictional works that actually discuss the location in any meaningful way that I can find. I'm not sure how likely a search term this actually is, but Redirects are cheap, and it may be helpful for people searching for information on the story to avoid being confused by being directed to the article on the band instead. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The band's article has had a notability tag for nearly eleven years at this point. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Dream Cycle. Goustien (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath I cannot find any substantial discussions of Dylath-Leen that are not plot summaries. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Necrothesp does not advance a valid AfD argument. Kacper IV (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Overall importance is subjective. TTN (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this location is not notable. The article on the band seems destined for deletion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 29 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 Celephaïs. Tone 11:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kuranes[edit]

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

Fictional character that fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with "significant figure in Lovecraft's work". Sigh. So what? That's not a sufficient criteria to keep a stand-alone article. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 22 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} 10:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said, significant character in the works of a major author and his followers. Sigh! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a great argument. Can you try better? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Celephaïs. There is very little in the way of reliable sources discussing the character. He is mentioned very briefly in a few scholarly articles about Lovecraft's work, but the content about him in those tends to fall to one-sentence summaries describing the story he originated form. I don't know how likely of a search term it is, but since redirects are cheap, redirecting this to the story that is his origin and of which he is the focus of makes sense. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Celephaïs" While An H.P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia has a section on Kuranes, it is merely a summary of "Celephaïs" and of Kuranes's appearance in The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath.^[1] ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ Joshi, S. T.; Schultz, David E. (2001). An H.P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-31578-7.

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Necrothesp does not advance a valid AfD argument. Kacper IV (talk) 09:40, 26 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 Warg#J. R. R. Tolkien's wargs. Tone 11:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warg (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

No indication this fictional animal passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to show anything that's not a mention in passing/fictional bio summary. Deproded by User:Necrothesp with "significant race in Tolkien's work". Really? More so than spiders? (We can talk about eagles later...). Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 22 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} 10:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Warg. As I said, significant creature in the works of one of the most notable authors in the English language. You really do like deleting stuff, don't you? Pity the "rules" mean that discussion is required if anyone demurs. Must be very frustrating. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warg#J. R. R. Tolkien's wargs, with Rcats to section and with history on the Warg (Middle-earth) redirect page, per Necrothesp because of it's kind of crufty for a standalone article, its article length is very short, and it's not likely to have significant, reliable, independent source coverage for standalone notability. Doug Mehus T·C 16:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warg#J. R. R. Tolkien's wargs. The wargs are significant creatures in a significant work of fiction. PROD is only for instances where deletion would be non-controversial, and I don't think the PROD was appropriate here. Hog Farm (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warg#J. R. R. Tolkien's wargs - The sourced content is not really sufficient to sustain an independent article, but being included in the main article on the mythological creature as a notable example of its appearance in fiction seems like a good idea. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warg#J. R. R. Tolkien's wargs — We don't need two articles on wargs.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Upland, Well and nicely said. Concise, and to the point. : ) Doug Mehus T·C 00:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Necrothesp does not advance a valid AfD argument. Kacper IV (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the general article on Wargs. I was expecting sourcing to something that was a scholarly analysis of the changes of the wargs in Tolkien's writing. In his 1920s work are they active allies. This is worth mentioning in the larger scope, but does not rise enough to be worth mentioning on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 26 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 Vala (Middle-earth)#Manwë. Tone 11:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manwë[edit]

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

Fails GNG/NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. Suggest soft delete by redirecting to Vala_(Middle-earth)#Manwë. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with "the Valar are significant in Tolkien's work" which would be an invalid argument even if we were AfDing Valars, which we are not. This is about an individual one, which like all the others, is not likely to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 22 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} 10:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Vala_(Middle-earth)#Manwë. One of the more significant Valar, which are notable in the works of one of the major authors in the English language -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He and Varda are major characters in Tolkien's work. --GwydionM (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Vala (Middle-earth). I thought this would be an easy keep, as Manwë is a major character, but I cannot locate any significant coverage in reliable sources that indicate notability.--Darth Mike^(talk) 19:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Mike: There's been plenty published on Manwë, as you suspected, but it's not necessarily accessible without access to the right academic databases. I've added a couple of references. /Julle (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vala_(Middle-earth)#Manwë.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Vala_(Middle-earth)#Manwë. Goustien (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Manwë is significantly discussed in academic works outside of the fictional world, due to his central role in Tolkien's works – it deserves a place to properly explain this, more than what makes sense in a long article about the valar. Manwë is, as Paul Kocher writes in 1980 book on The Silmarillion, a representation of divine will in Tolkien's world. I've added a couple of sources, so that the article can build on academic publishing and not just the fictional work and a wiki. /Julle (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Julle: I checked and that character doesn't even have a dedicated enty in the Tolkien Encyclopedia. A few mentions in passing are not enough to warrant a separate article. Can you quote a paragraph of analysis about this character (not a paragraph of fictional plot summary with one sentence or so that goes beyond)? He is the last of the two Valar lords not merged, per Template:Ainur. What makes him more notable than the others? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a paragraph including any sort of analysis? Sure, I don't have access to my JSTOR login right now that I used yesterday, but here's Rudolf Simek writing about Manwë in "Tolkiens Verwendung der germanischen Mythologie" (2011):

Ebenfalls erst ausserhalb des LOTR findet sich eine weitere Parallele zu Odin im Silmarillion in der Figur des Manwë. Manwë Súlimo ist der höchste und heiligste der Valarî (S 39), der also am ehesten den Asen der nordischen Religion entsprechenden Götterfamilie, wobei Odin häufig als „der höchste und älteste der Asen“ bezeichnet wird (Snorri Sturluson: Edda. Gylfaginning Kap. 19). Manwë ist also schon von seiner Position her mit der Odins zu vergleichen, wobei diese Identifikation von Tolkien in The Book of Lost Tales 2 bestätigt wurde: „Eriol told the fairies of Wôden [Odin], and they identified [him] with Manweg [Manwë].“ (L 2, 295). Daneben haben Odin und Manwë noch die Weisheit gemeinsam, beide besitzen auch als Attribute zwei Vögel, die ihnen Informationen zu-tragen, und beide sind auch Götter der Dichtung, wobei jedoch Tolkien bei Manwë mehr Gewicht auf die Musik legt, während er die Dichtung fast nur nebenbei erwähnt: The Vanyar he loved best of all the Elves, and of him they received song and poetry; for poetry is the delight of Manwë, and the song of words is his music. (S 40) Auch die Verwendung eines Hochsitzes, der den Blick über die ganze Welt erlaubt, und weiters den Bezug zu den Vögeln als Informationsbeschaffer haben die beiden ge-meinsam („For Manwë to whom all birds are dear, and to whom they bring news upon Taniquetil from Middle-earth, had sent forth the race of Eagles, commanding them to dwell in the crags of the North, and to keep watch upon Morgoth”: S 129).

My understanding is that Manwë stands out because of the role he plays in the mythology ("Manwë Súlimo ist der höchste und heiligste der Valarî", the highest and most holy of the valar, related to what Kocher writes about Manwë as the representation of divine will), and makes me, personally, think we're better off with a separate article. /Julle (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Necrothesp does not advance a valid AfD argument. Kacper IV (talk) 09:39, 26 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 Beleriand#Nargothrond. Tone 11:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nargothrond[edit]

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

No indication this fictional location passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to show anything that's not a mention in passing/fictional bio summary. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no helpful rationale. Not even going to try to argue "this is a significant location"? I am disappointed... yet another example why deprods should require a rationale, no exceptions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 22 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} 10:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said, significant location in the works of one of the most notable authors in the English language. Prodding doesn't require a rationale, and in any case I gave one. But why should it need one? Could it be because you'd like it to be easier to delete anything you don't like without discussion? Prodding is for pointless rubbish. This isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- You'd think a significat location would merit an entry in Tolkien Encyclopedia. But that work doesn't have an entry on Nargothrond. Can you show a single source that discusses this in depth, outside plot summaries, to back up your argument? Saying WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Many literary critics would disagree that Tolkien was "one of the most notable authors in the English language". He is certainly one of the most popular in recent decades. His popularity rests on The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. The Silmarillion never received general critical or popular acclaim. It has to be considered one of Tolkien's minor works. I see no evidence this is a "significant location". Our article on The Silmarillion doesn't even mention it.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Tolkien being a popular author does not mean that every topic related to him is necessary to cover. This does not currently establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beleriand#Nargothrond. Goustien (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I sort of plodded through the Simirilian, it is a famously unreadable book, but I have no recollection of Nargothrond. Nothing shows that this place is truly notable even within the context of that minor and never completed as a reable story, work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Necrothesp does not advance a valid AfD argument. Kacper IV (talk) 09:39, 26 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 Ent. Tone 11:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huorn[edit]

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

No indication this fictional race passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to show anything that's not a mention in passing/fictional bio summary. Possible redirect target is Ent. Prod removed by User:Necrothesp with "significant race in Tolkien's work". Seriously? Ents might be argued to be significant. Who heard of Huorns? Even most Tolkien fans would draw blanks... it's just a name for pre-Ents. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 22 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} 10:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Ent. Would most Tolkien fans draw blanks? They obviously don't know his works very well then! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ent. Relatively minor fictional creatures without much, if anything, in the way of coverage in reliable, secondary sources. They're already covered in the main article on Ents, so a simple redirect there should suffice. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ent The most prominent aspect of the Hurons is that they are related to the Ents. They are rarely discussed in any other context. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ent — I have read The Lord of the Rings many times and I draw a blank on Huorn.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

well, you need to reread The Two Towers ... a little more carefully

Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i am shocked at the apparent lack of wikieditor knowledge about the association of huorns with the history of fantasy miniature wargaming/figures, in 1972 Miniature Figurines Ltd, at the time, one of the largest figures manufacturers (for time period, size range, and actual numbers made) (another shock for coola that this company doesn't have a wikiarticle!), brought out a range of 25mm figures called "Mythical Earth" complete range here, and deemed huorns important enough to include a large and small huorn (also, here is a mention (p. 681) about the range from Airfix Magazine). "Yes coola, very interesting, but does it contribute to huorn wikinotability?", probably not, but thought editors may like to know:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am tired of the radical inclusionist attacking those of us who do not agree with their attempts to turn Wikipedia into the LoTR wikia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Necrothesp does not advance a valid AfD argument. Kacper IV (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Ent. Only covered briefly in the Ent article, and I think a short paragraph should be transferred over to form a subsection. Hog Farm (talk) 18:04, 28 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 11:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Háma (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

No indication this very minor supporting character passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. Prod removed by User:Necrothesp with no helpful rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 22 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} 10:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree. Hama is a very minor supporting character. Additional citations have been requested since 2011.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or possibly merge a one-sentence description and redirect to List of Middle-earth characters#H. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because the character appears as a role in a major film does not mean they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Necrothesp does not even try to produce an arguement. Kacper IV (talk) 09:38, 26 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 Denethor. Tone 11:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finduilas of Dol Amroth[edit]

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

No indication this character passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to show anything that's not a mention in passing/fictional bio summary. Prod removed by User:Necrothesp with unhelpful rationale, probably because nobody can even argue that this minor character is "significant" in any imaginable dimension. Pure inclusionism again results in time waste exercise at AfD... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 22 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} 10:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Denethor. If you think your time is being wasted by starting AfDs then don't do it. Prodding is for pointless rubbish. This is not that. And anyone has the right to remove a prod for any reason or none. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denethor, I suppose? She is pretty minor, in the grand scheme of things, as she does not even appear in the main text of the books, having been dead for some time before the LotR begins. Her only real importance is her role in Denethor's backstory, which is evidenced by the fact that most sources that actually discuss her are essentially brief mentions of her relationship with the steward, and how her death in the past affected his current outlook. As that information is currently already included in Denethor's article, a redirect there may be prudent, though it seems unlikely of a search term. Rorshacma (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This character does not appear in The Lord of the Rings. She is simply mentioned as Denethor's deceased wife. No reason to have an article. I agree that it's unlikely as a search term.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is all primary to the work. She is not even a character in the work, but a deceased person in the work who is very, very briefly mentioned. Nothing to at all rise to a level to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Necrothesp does not advance a valid AfD argument, waste of time. Kacper IV (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor character and not a likely search term. Fails WP:GNG Hog Farm (talk) 18:00, 28 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 Middle-earth#Geography#The Second, Third and Fourth Ages. Tone 11:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eriador[edit]

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

No indication this fictional location passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to show anything that's not a mention in passing/fictional bio summary. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with "significant location in Tolkien's work". Is this enough to keep this? I think not, per policies linked above. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 22 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} 10:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I repeat, significant location in the works of one of the most significant authors in the English language. Clearly notable. We have many thousands of articles based purely on fictional elements. Where will this end, I wonder? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to The Shire. I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources to show that this passes WP:GNG. --Darth Mike^(talk) 19:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fictional elements do not get a free pass because of the work. They need to prove their own notability. This currently fails to do that. TTN (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Middle-earth. Goustien (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The references for the article show that this name is mentioned in the appendices of Lord of the Rings. It is not mentioned in the narrative. It is part of the backstory of novel; the earlier history of Middle-earth. I see no reason to keep it.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mention in appendices to a novel does not make a place, thing, or person notable. It is pretty much a sign that they are in fact not notable at all. I have read all the appendices, so people need to stop the bashing on those of us who are willing to put in the work to stop Wikipedia from being turned into a fan site. We had to do that fight against Star Wars, now we wage it on the LoTR front.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just had reason to refer to this article and was surprised to see it up for deletion. It contains a lot of useful encyclopaedic information which should not be denigrated as fan-site. I am not a fan of Tolkien—the opposite—but I appreciate having the information available. I agree with the comment above that a very large number of articles is threatened if this one goes. We are not short of space or paper on Wikipedia: potentially useful articles should be given the benefit of the doubt. Spicemix (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Articles need to meet WP:N. Useful is completely relative to the user. Someone else could claim that a list of monsters from Final Fantasy VII would be encyclopedic. You'd have no objective argument to refute them with that logic. TTN (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL, and you can refer just as well or even better to https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Eriador --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Necrothesp does not advance a valid AfD argument. Kacper IV (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle-earth#Geography#The Second, Third and Fourth Ages. There's a decent description about Eriador there. Hog Farm (talk) 17:57, 28 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 Man (Middle-earth)#Edain. Tone 11:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edain[edit]

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

No indication this fictional race passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to show anything that's not a mention in passing/fictional bio summary. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp because "significant race in Tolkien's works". Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:29, 22 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} 10:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I repeat, major race in the works of one of the most significant authors in the English language. Clearly notable. Sigh! We have many thousands of articles based purely on fictional elements. Where will this end, I wonder? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - How notable they are within the works of fiction themselves (and I'd say even that is debatable) is meaningless if there are no reliable secondary sources discussing them. And, as far as I can see, there are not any. And as the content in the article is entirely in-universe plot summary sourced only to a single piece of fiction, there is nothing worth preserving here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Man (Middle-earth)#Edain. Goustien (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Man (Middle-earth)#Edain. The Silmarillion is a minor work that never gained general critical or popular acclaim.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Simirilian is not a major work, so we need to stop claiming that things that only gain notability from indepth analysis of that work are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Man (Middle-earth)#Edain. We don't need two pages on this subject. Hog Farm (talk) 17:54, 28 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 Misty Mountains. Tone 11:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caradhras[edit]

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

No indication this fictional location passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to show anything that's not a mention in passing/fictional bio summary. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with "significant location in Tolkien's work". That's not enough, I am afraid. Any better arguments, anyone? (And yes, obvious redirect location are the Misty Mountains, but that's just delaying the issue until the AfD for that article...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 22 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} 10:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Misty Mountains. I repeat, major location in the works of one of the most significant authors in the English language. Clearly notable. The comment about the Misty Mountains suggest the nominator would like to get rid of anything to do with Tolkien's work, given they're even more significant. Yet we have many thousands of articles based purely on fictional elements. Where will this end, I wonder? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Misty Mountains. Cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources to show that this needs its own article. --Darth Mike^(talk) 19:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Misty Mountains.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Merging to Misty Mountains is delaying the inevitable. Kacper IV (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Misty Mountains. Not independently notable, but the Misty Mountains are. I disagree with the conclusion that the Misty Mountains should be culled also. Hog Farm (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The fate of the misty mountains article will wait for another day. With the number of times I heard my father sing "far over the he misty mountains deep" it might be hard for me to accept that they might not be notable. If The Lord of the Rings (TV series) was for sure going to start in Hollin as the elven smith gazed at the mountains as he forged a ring of power I would be sure the mountains can survive. In reality though it will be af least 2 years before an episode of that show is released so I am not thinking we will see much change related to the notability of the mountains.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to have an article on a mountain that appears briefly in one work of fiction. Hopefully this will not end before we delete all articles on characters known only from recitations of rulers or uniformed statements about their cats. I am not exaggerating about the cats line. I am close to saying if we have 6 articles kn Simirilian characters we have too many.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 29 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 11:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaylon Reed[edit]

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

College player who does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only see incidental statistical-type reports in the news and no feature articles. There is a Jaylon Redd who played for the Oregon Ducks that is encroaching on traditional searches, but I see nothing standing out. Would reconsider if good sources were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable amateur player. Sources are mostly routine stat and recruiting coverage. Ostealthy (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this person quite clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#American_football/Arena_football/Canadian_football as he has not yet played any major tournaments. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nom ignores the fact that WP:NGRIDIRON is an inclusive standard and WP:GNG must also be considered. Here, however, the only coverage cited from reliable, independent sources consists of a short piece by Annie Costabile, announcing that Reed signed with Miss. St. The piece is cited twice in the article, once as it originally appeared in the Clarion Ledger and then as it was picked up by USA Today. Despite being picked up elsewhere, it remains one piece. Not enough presented here to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:42, 28 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 10:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bëor[edit]

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

No indication this fictional character passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to show anything that's not a mention in passing/fictional bio summary. Deproded by User:Necrothesp with no helpful rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 22 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} 09:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The editors have only dredged up two paragraphs about Beor. He is mentioned in the books that were published after Tolkien's death. These are minor works which have never gained much popularity.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redicrect to Edain. Goustien (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to stop pretending that the Simirillion is such that most of its characters are notable, it is such that virtually none of its characters are notable enough to justify articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Johnpacklambert. Some of these characters are hardly characters at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 09:34, 26 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 Morgoth. Tone 10:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angband[edit]

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

No indication this fictional location passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to show anything that's not a mention in passing/fictional bio summary. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with "significant location in Tolkien's work", which is sadly not a valid AfD argument, you'll have to try a bit better here. TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 22 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} 09:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it is indeed a valid argument. A very significant location in the works of one of the most famous authors in the English language. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are not present to establish notability. Who cares about in-universe relevance? That has never had to do with Notability as defined on Wikipedia. That's a complete Wikia-like attitude. If sources are not present, then this is not notable. If sources are present, it's notable. If it's notable, provide sources. TTN (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this gets deleted, replace it with a disambig page as both Angband (video game) and Angband (band) exist. JIP | Talk 15:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep due to the existence of sources that establishes notability. Who cares if anyone doesn't like this material? --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)struck sock vote Praxidicae (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Morgoth. I can find no independant, reliable source to show that this article is notable. --Darth Mike^(talk) 19:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Morgoth. Goustien (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Mentioned in The Silmarillion, which is a minor work which never got critical or popular acclaim.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is key. Stuff in the Silmarillion should not be granted de facto notability based on the importance of LoTR.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in theory the location is significant, but it does not have importance to the plot of Tolkien's actual developed literary works. We also lack the indepth level of sourcing to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure plot. Necrothesp did not present a valid AfD argument. Kacper IV (talk) 09:33, 26 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 10:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Rock Laager[edit]

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

Seems like a minor Estonian rock and metal festival. I don't see any media notice (in English). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a advertisement sign post for a non-notable event. Graywalls (talk) 02:04, 29 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. ST47 (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar Network News[edit]

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

I am getting Spoo (food) vibes here: A well-sourced article from the B5 franchise about a fictional item of minor importance (i.e. it's not even mentioned in the Babylon 5 main article) relying on WP:PRIMARY. Spoo (a former featured article) was eventually found to not be WP-article-worthy (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoo (3rd nomination)). Civilizations in Babylon 5 is a possible merge target, but this topic doesn't really fit there either. Opinions? – sgeureka ^t•c 08:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was thinking about this for a while (wow, missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoo (3rd nomination) - it was even a former FA... how our standards are changing). Anyway, this is a PLOT with some minor analysis. The problem is that references for that analysis are problematic. The Babylon File (which might be notable on its own as a book) is not a scholarly work, just an unofficial omnibus/analysis by Andy Lane. [25] is a mention in passing, as is everything else. This kind of an entry belongs at https://babylon5.fandom.com/wiki/Interstellar_Network_News not on Wikipedia, since the real world significance of this fictional organization is very debatable. I am open to revising this if someone can point out at least a paragraph of analysis (not plot summary) in any decent source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete fictional universe-cruft and Wikia-grade material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still meets WP:GNG, just like after it was improved last time. WP:ATD were proposed in that discussion, which have not been done. So why is this nominated, again? Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as the owner of every single one of the references here, none are WP:PRIMARY; all are independent secondary sources. That is, unless 'primary' now means 'any secondray source which only focuses on analysis of one major topic'... Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - PRIMARY (to me) means it is either a retelling of the plot (i.e you might just as well source it to the work of fiction, regardless of if you also found the info in a secondary source), or it's the creator talking about his invention. The latter is more about WP:N concerns (which I also have), the former about WP:NOT#PLOT, which says "Wikipedia treats creative works [...] in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." There is hardly anything in this article that satisfies either point to justify a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I don't even know why I bother. The cast of deletionists here hasn't changed, nor have the arguments: "it's too trivial, it's not analytical enough, it's cruftycruftycruft..." And again, nary a finger lifted to actually edit things--just delete, or if that doesn't work, redirect to a list, then trim, then nominate for deletion... By all means, continue deleting fictional elements notable enough to appear in multiple dead tree books, because that is how to best improve Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - With a bunch of GAs and FAs on fiction(al elements) under my belt, I like to believe that I have a fairly good understanding of what's trivial when WP:Writing about fiction. This article topic, sadly, appears to fall into this category. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current sourcing is trivial. TTN (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am uncertain if the topic has enough coverage for stand-alone notability. Given the more limited coverage available, I could understand a redirect or merge as a valid suggestion rather deletion per WP:ATD, but I am uncertain on what the redirect or merge target would be for this case? As the nominator already mentions, this really does not fit in Civilizations in Babylon 5 so is there an alternative? Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything, only the last paragraph of Interstellar Network News seems merge-worthy. I could see it getting merged to Babylon 5#War and peace, but that article is already a GA, and I don't want to pollute it with unnecessary stuff. Then there is Civilizations in Babylon 5#Humans and Babylon 5 (fictional space station), but these articles have problems themselves and will probably get up-merged to List of Babylon 5 characters and List of starships in Babylon 5 someday, where the INN wouldn't fit either. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the response, and I agree. This would seem to minor for the main Babylon 5 article and since there is not a good redirect/merge target, I would lean more toward delete. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 28 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. czar 07:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caïssa Britannia[edit]

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

Unsourced and likely not notable (at least I can not find reliable sourcing). Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. The only reliable source seems to be this article in a local magazine or weekly newspaper, which isn't sufficient. Fram (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable Celestina007 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain I believe many chess variants can have encyclopedic articles Itswikisam (talk) 11:27, 23 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. czar 07:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GSV Sleeper Service[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional spaceship that fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. Subject to two old AfDs. How our standards have changed, eh? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 22 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} 07:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — pure fancruft.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Our standards are higher people. Kacper IV (talk) 09:30, 26 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. No prejudice against subsequent redirection. czar 07:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special Circumstances[edit]

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

Fictional organization that fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. Prod removed by a new WP:SPA GCUgreyarea (talk · contribs). So, time for a discussion here. Not proposing a redirect since I don't think it is a plausible search term. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 22 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} 07:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — unnecessary plot summary and worthless fancruft.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure plot. Kacper IV (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but create redirect to special circumstances (And the entry should probably be removed from the dab page). Josh Milburn (talk) 08:03, 28 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. czar 07:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Idiran–Culture War[edit]

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

Fictional event that fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. Prod removed by a new WP:SPA GCUgreyarea (talk · contribs). So, time for a discussion here. Not proposing a redirect to the relevant book as I don't think it is a plausible search term. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 22 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} 07:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — ridiculous fancruft.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Heilman reference seems solid enough but there isn't anything else, and as such this fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's other material beyond Heilman, though. Simone Caroti spends a large part of the chapter "The Culture Militant" (The Culture Series of Ian M. Banks: A Critical Introduction, McFarland, 2015) digging into the Idrian–Culture war and its significance and how it relates to space opera in general. I have started (but more needs to be done, of course) adding a analytical section, to bring it into the wider perspective of relevant cultural impact rather than an in-world description of events. /Julle (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. The current "Analysis" section seems too trivial as of now. TTN (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur, but said analysis should be merged to the relevant book (CP), ping User:Julle. Would be a shame if it was deleted (oc I mean the analysis two-sentence paragraph, not the entire article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure plot, fails NFICTION/GNG. Kacper IV (talk) 09:29, 26 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. czar 07:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GCU Grey Area[edit]

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

Fictional spaceship that fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. Prod removed by a new WP:SPA GCUgreyarea (talk · contribs). So, time for a discussion here. Not proposing a redirect to the novel this ship/character appears in as I don't think it is a plausible search term. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 22 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} 07:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fancruft, plot summary etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Upland (talk • contribs) 17:28, November 22, 2019 (UTC)
Delete - Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator and have nothing to add. Reyk _YO! 18:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure plot. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Kacper IV (talk) 09:25, 26 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. ST47 (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tofiq Musayev[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO notability for he has not fought in any top tier promotion. Subject needs to have at least 3 fights to pass the notability guidelines. None of his fights are under top tier promoters. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters since he has no top tier fights. The article gives no indication that he has any significant indpendent coverage to meet the WP:GNG and my search found only non-independent sources or routine sports reporting giving results. Papaursa (talk) 01:10, 30 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). You can request the article's undeletion. czar 08:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dysart Sail In Film Festival[edit]

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

Local film festival that attracted local press coverage when it happened in 2010. Article says it ‘looks set to become an annual occurrence’ but apparently never did. No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 22 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence J. Hansen[edit]

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

I'm not sure Hansen meets WP:NSOLDIER / WP:GNG. He was medalled, but was never awarded the Medal of Honor. His rank is insufficient for automatic notability, and as far as I can tell he doesn't meet any of the other more esoteric bullet points in NSOLDIER.

As for GNG, the only substantive independent source I found about him was this book. Find-A-Grave is unreliable per WP:RSP, and the book cited in the article is an autobiography, so it's not independent.

As always, if there are substantial sources I've missed I'm happy to withdraw. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be produced. It's very possible that Eisenhower's personal pilot during WWII could pass GNG, but I'm not finding anything to indicate he does. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being Ike's personal pilot could be a claim to fame, but he doesn't seem to have played a role in anything. That the article is an orphan is another bad sign. Find-A-Grave has nothing on him. Contrast with Dusty Rhoades, General MacArthur's pilot (who doesn't have an article) is striking: Rhoades has a lot more references. An acceptable quality article could be created from the memoir, but the sources cited in the article are pretty much it, so that leaves GNG up in the air so to speak. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 27 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 10:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Shannon (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only just barely. He has had a career in film and there are sources. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically eligible for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists; they have to show evidence of noteworthy accomplishments to pass WP:CREATIVE, and they have to show some evidence of reliable source coverage in real media to verify it with. But this states nothing that counts as an article-clinching achievement; the only claims here are that he exists, that he won a non-notable award from a minor local-interest organization, and that he was named once in a listicle. And of the eight footnotes, seven are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the only one that's real media is a dead link from the website of a local radio station covering him in the context of winning that non-notable award. That's not enough coverage to get him over GNG in lieu of actually having to achieve anything significant. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unclaimed (2016 film) per WP:CHEAP. He's not notable as a producer, who are, for the most part Run of the mill. His only claim to fame is connection with the Unclaimed, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that he appeared in that film as an actor is not verified by any of our article about the film, the film's IMDb entry (he's not the same person as either Patrick Gallagher or Patrick Sabongui), or even his IMDb profile as a person (which lists zero acting roles for him at all). So redirecting it to a film that he wasn't verifiably involved in at all is not the appropriate outcome. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:41, 22 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 10:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rampran Gupta[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO quite comprehensively.

Coming to the used references:-

Ref 1:- The Early life section fails WP:INTEGRITY contrary to the appearance. The source may be accessed over here.

4 lines in total. One lists the magazines that published his work and another mentions the name of his works. Of the remaining two, one line mentions that he used to write essays in a local magazine from his school days and another line consists of two words:- renowned historian.

That the level of coverage has been described, it is now prudential to mention that each volume contains 3500 snippet-biographies.

Ref 2 :- A trivial name-drop among a list of authors who produced hagiographies.
Ref 3 and Ref 4 :- Two Google Books links of book authored by Rampran.
Ref 5:- Another more trivial mention which name-drops an award, named after Rampran.

Coming to potential English references:-

I have searched all major scholarly databases (UniversityPressScholarship, JSTOR, Sage, Taylor&francis, Springer, DeGruyter, Bloomsbury et al); nil results.
Across Gbooks, there's trivial namedrops, at most.
Across GNews, nothing.
Across Shodhganga, which is a huge repository of million-plus Indian PhD theses spanning across a century, there's not a single hit.

Coming to potential vernacular references:-

No significant coverage for রামপ্রাণ গুপ্ত (Bengali term), either.

I searched digitized collections of contemporary but now-defunct newspapers Jugantar and Amrita Bajar Patrika; nothing.
Nothing over rare-books-and-periodical collection archives maintained by West Bengal govt., either.
Some absolute nobody from Bongiyo Sahityo Parishad had written a mini-biography on Rampran; the work is precisely held at one public library in the state and that tells volumes.

There's a mini-entry in a tertiary source but pursuant to previous INB consensus, it is not reliable courtesy numerous discrepancies that have been consistently observed in the project, coupled with a near-complete absence of referencing.

Summary:- We have precious nothing to write apart from a couple of mundane lines and a list of his works. Let us wait for decent secondary coverage of his activities and we can always turn a red link, blue. ∯WBG^converse 15:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to keep -- If true, the BIO is of a historian who produced 9 books and an unspecified number of articles in the late 19th/early 20th century, though I do not know if the works are substantial volumes or mere pamphlets. Choosing his name for a prize (unless he endowed it) means some one thought him notable. As he died over 90 years ago, since which much more has been written about history, it is not too surprising that mentions of him should be scarce, particularly since he (apparently) did not write in English (or even Latin script), which measn there are liable to be transliteration issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I am a native speaker .... ∯WBG^converse 09:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article should be there - Rampran Gupta is a notable Bengali scholar whose name is in Banglapedia, a Bengali encyclopedia of Bangladesh. (http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Gupta,_Rampran). Further it may be noted that different pages exist in Bengali Wikisource (https://bn.wikisource.org/wiki/লেখক:রামপ্রাণ_গুপ্ত). There are number of web references of Govt. where his books and works are recorded. Pinakpani (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NAUTHOR and WP:CIRCULAR. Also, WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 09:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator clearly didn't read the sources carefully in Google Books. This source say the most prestigious prize in Bengali language literature is named for him. This source was listing his biography on Muhammad as a seminal work in Indian literature. Both of these sources are coming from authorities on Indian literature and major reference works. While he may be only briefly mentioned in these places, context is everything.4meter4 (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are outright fabricating the details in the sources.
The first source mentions Bangiya Sahitya Parishad as an old literary institution in Bengal, which confers a lot many prizes and among whom, Rampran Gupta Prize is most notable. You have somehow managed to conflate BSP with the entire literary establishment w/o being aware of the fact that the most renowned and prestigious prize in Bengali language literature is Rabindra Puraskar (Bankim Puraskar comes in at a close second). BSP is pretty much a non-descript institute, which publishes an oft-shoddy journal. And, I was unable to find a single source in media (over the last two decades) that mentioned the Rampran Gupta Prize; ain't it a bit strange for all vernacular media to royally ignore the most prestigious prize in Bengali language literature?
The second source nowhere does state Rampran's work to be seminal. It name-drops the work to be one among popular hagiographies of religious figures along with 8 others. ∯WBG^converse 09:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies if I misunderstood the significance of the prize, but I stand by my assessment of what the source says on the biography which is a list of "important" (ie seminal) not "popular" works. Either way, popular or important still makes him notable.4meter4 (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pray point me to the exact line that deems the work to be 'important'. Since you are consistently mis-alluding stuff to sources, let me quote the passage:-
Biographies of religious figures, most of them eulogies of their characters and uncritical acceptance of all myths and miracles associated with their lives, were as popular as ever. Among these works the most notable are ...... Rampran Gupta's Bengali biography of the prophet hazrat Mahmood (1904) ..... and ....
∯WBG^converse 14:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep sourcing is getting better, but still challenged; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is useful to keep articles on people such as this as a record that their work is not a reliable source. The Christian equivalent is sometimes called hagiography. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Apparently an exhaustive search in his native language has failed to turn up sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The sources do not justify notability, nobody has added better through multiple relists of this AfD, and I didn't find anything worthwhile in my own searches. I'm sensitive to the fact that there might be a language barrier here, but we can't assume the existence of sources out of airy nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trust the WP:BEFORE of a native speaker in establishing the unfortunate paucity of sources, particularly as this particular field of scholarship has seen a resurgence of (English language and indigenous) activity over recent decades. ——SN 54129 11:44, 28 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 and redirect to Tom O'Carroll. ST47 (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. This book does not meet the basic requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (books). Same information about this book available on its author's page Tom O'Carroll#Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons. There are also no reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, that backs the content of this book. Thus delete. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author page. Apparently no legitimate publications dared to review this book given its revolting author. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia will you be changing your vote per Crossroads rational below?TruthGuardians (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The book has been reviewed in the academic journals Archives of Sexual Behavior and Sexualities, which are reliable sources and satisfy WP:NBOOK. MarkZusab (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One source still doesn't make it notable. An academic journal doesn't neccesarily speak for the book's legitimacy. WP:NBOOK clearly speaks to this. There shouldn't be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to this book. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

um, sorry, "one source"? MarkZusab lists two above, reviews by Archives of Sexual Behavior, and Sexualities, so with these, technically (ie. "multiple") it meets WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There is no reason to have an article about this. Odd they didn't sue them for slander/libel to stop it from being published. Dream Focus 18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus will you be changing your vote per Crossroads rational below?TruthGuardians (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, in addition to the two reviews listed above, there is: Coventry Telegraph - "Former Coventry teacher jailed for child porn writes book on Michael Jackson's love of boys", Sexuality & Culture - "The Missing Mechanism of Harm in Consensual Sexually Expressed Boyhood Relationships with Older Males: Further Thoughts Associated with O’Carroll (2018)" (subscription required), Los Angeles Review of Books - "The Michael Jackson Songbook" (discusses the book and the reaction from Jackson fans), The Independent Publishing Magazine - "Troubador Withdraw Matador’s ‘Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons’ Book". Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coventry Telegraph just mentions the guy was in jail and he wrote the book. Doesn't talk about the book. The Independent Publishing Magazine gives significant coverage, but I don't see any evidence they are a reliable source. Los Angeles Review of Books doesn't mention anything about this specific book other than talk about the writer and a brief sentence about what he things about Jackson. Dream Focus 03:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources" provided hardly gives the book any legitimacy or credibility. The Telegraph mentions the book in passing when describing when the author was in jail. Other links expoits the author opinion on Jackson, and none of the links give any notability or speaks on the author's credntials to write such a book. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the book's notability, not about its legitimacy or credibility or the author's credentials. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator seems to misunderstand the purpose of citations in Wikipedia. They are not needed to support anything that is said in the book, but to support what is said in our article about the book. This is a discussion about whether we should have a Wikipedia article, not about whether the book can be believed. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NBook """A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article. This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."""""

Finally, Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and address topic, not user.TruthGuardians (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that your comment, "there are also no reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, that backs the content of this book", is irrelevant to this discussion is not bludgeoning any process or addressing anything other than the topic of this discussion. Once again, reliable sources need to be about this book, not supporting any statement made within the book. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and address topic, not the user or speak directly to the user. Anyway, the size of the article is far too short and the fact that the content is sufficiently covered in its author's page. No need to have a seperate small article for something already covered thoroughly in another. Thus still delete. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is better covered in another article then redirection would be needed, not deletion, as this is certainly a title that a reader may look for. Only one person is doing any bludgeoning here, and it's not me. I don't think that anyone is claiming that this book is in any way reliable, but that's a completely different issue from notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is what I am changing my vote to as it is covered on the author's page and does not need a standalone article.TruthGuardians (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~.Although this subject has been covered by two academic journals. I don't think it has been covered in sufficient detail that it requires its own article. It's too short and sufficiently covered on its author's page Tom O'Carroll#Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons. See WP:OVERLAP: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity (and can be merged there).- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akhiljaxxn will you be changing your vote per Crossroads?TruthGuardians (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin. Delete per Crossroad and Timericon reasoning. After this discussion, I want to make clear that the above was just commentary and this is what I’m changing my vote to.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The subject is sufficiently covered on the author's page.castorbailey (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimcastor will you be changing your vote per Crossroads below?TruthGuardians (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is what I will be changing my vote to per Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. After reviewing guidelines for rule, I agree.castorbailey (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with redirect per WP:NOPAGE - the subject is sufficiently covered at Tom O'Carroll. I say delete the present article because the previous versions contained puffery put there by the article's creator, PeioR, indeffed by ArbCom in 2014, and who near exclusively edited pedophilia articles (and much of whose work has since been deleted). [26] -Crossroads- (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote back to Delete from redirect, per what you have mentioned here. However, is it necessary to redirect it? It is not a plausible search term. There are not enough search results via search engines for this at all.TruthGuardians (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I vote for deletion per WP:NOPAGE and WP:OVERLAP. The article is very short and already covered on the author's page. I also fail to see the relevance of such pro-paedophilia material. Israell (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Crossroads. This page created by wikipedia empowers a pedophile advocate, which has been blocked in 6 languages, including English. No need to redirect this page since it's not a plausible search term.

--Timericon (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning this. I have no idea why PeioR has not been globally locked. On some of the wikis where he is not blocked he has thousands of edits (although apparently none since April 2016 [27]). Some of these are very small wikis in obscure languages. He has indeed run wild and wrote bad content about pedophilia which in some places stands to this day. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to sancation him globally? This is alarming behavior and should be blocked and removed in all places his edits were made. I’m still learning the ropes here, so I’m not too certain on what is possible and what isn’t. Timericon (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no particular need for the present article since the article on the author has all the information contained here. But the book very plainly does meet WP:NBOOK so if someone wants to break this out as a more extensive article it would be hard to object. Haukur (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 7 years since the page was created. There were not any attempts to expand this page further. Besides, the creator of the article has been blocked by arbcom for an indefinite period and is also blocked by 6 other Wikipedia branches for exclusively promoting pedophilia. There is no chance in near future for article expansion, thus delete TruthGuardians (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

De-bolded, cannot vote twice. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviewed in two academic periodicals, I think that passes the bare minimum to have its own page (per WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG in general). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the author's page Tom O'Carroll#Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons and WP:OVERLAP, WP:NOPAGE.There is much hear that screams delete. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I argued for replacing with a redirect after deletion - it makes it akin to a merge, but in this case the content was already at the target. Yes it technically passes NBOOK, but given that it only barely does so and that it is by a notable pedophile and is not really that distinct from him, and the article has puffery from a pro-pedophilia editor in its history, NOPAGE favors deletion and replacement with a redirect as I said. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the history of this article is deleted because of its provenance we should certainly have a redirect. This book is covered in its author's article and there is no reason why a reader looking for information about it shouldn't be taken to the right place. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have struck out my above "keep" after reviewing/reflecting on above editors' input to this afd, and the author article, a redirect is the sensible course. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect deleting history, as per the above discussion. Samboy (talk) 04:48, 30 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) 07:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Ludhiana, Punjab[edit]

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

The list is composed entirely of multiple buildings in several development units, all of those in each unit the same height, with the tallest group 120 metres, I do not see how this is encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly sourced and does not provide useful encyclopedic content. If properly sourced, all of this could be mentioned in one sentence at the article on the city. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a directory of unremarkable buildings none of which deserve an article on their own merits or as the complex they belong to. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Hekerui (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. These two similar lists should have been bundled here. Dee 03 21:02, 26 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) 07:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11 11 Taobao Shopping festival[edit]

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

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

This is pretty incoherent, non-encyclopedic writing, about a minor event, and seems to also be spam. DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 01:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 01:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotionalism--but I removed a speedy tag for nonsense--it isn't bad enough for that. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article looks like it's trying to be about the overcommercialization of Singles' Day (which could be a logical subject of discussion at the article about the day itself), but the somewhat promotional tone of some parts and lack of clarity in the others makes this seem like synthesis. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment below, my !vote also applies to the duplicate article mentioned below. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm bundling in 11 11 Taobao Shopping festival 6marketing methods as well. It looks like the 2nd article is written along the same lines as the first nominated article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That article looks like a copy-paste duplicate of the one nominated here, so it likely qualifies for deletion under WP:CSD#A10. Since I have !voted above, I will leave that determination to another administrator. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note Kinu. I was going to tag it as A10 however I thought it would be better just to bundle it all in one place. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promo and spam. Hog Farm (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article is purely promotion, and Redirect to Singles' Day as a valid search term. -Zanhe (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious corporate PR advertisement. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 04:55, 24 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. ST47 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Stinkers Bad Movie Awards[edit]

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

Deprodded. Very minor award, zero reason to have any of their years with a separate article. Utterly fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for sources yielded only tangential coverage.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 29 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) 07:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Toledano[edit]

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

Non-notable politician who was a losing U.S. Senate candidate. Sources:

1/13 are not independent
2 is routinely expected of candidates
3/5/6/8 are not SIGCOV (some of them brief mentions)
4 is WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL
7 is about someone winning an award, but no mention whatsoever of Toledano.
10 is directory
11/12 are news articles written by him
9 is probably the only one that can count towards GNG, but we need two or more for GNG to give it an article.

Meanwhile, I don't see much sufficient evidence that WP:AUTHOR and WP:JOURNALIST are satisfied enough for to confer independent notability outside of the 1972 United States Senate election in Louisiana.

Most importantly, the page was created by a serial copyright violater whose pages are being presumptively deleted as we speak. And that doesn't even count the fact that this was recreated after it was deleted at AFD under a sightly different name. While 1972 United States Senate election in Louisiana could make a good redirect target, I'd argue against keeping the history due to WP:PCC. ミラ P 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Marquardtika (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NPOL and isn't notable outside of the senate campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people are not automatically eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — but this does not make any credible claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons, and is not referenced well enough to demonstrate a reason why his candidacies could be claimed as more special than other people's candidacies. Most of the footnotes are either unreliable sources or glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not sources that are substantively about him for the purposes of making him notable — and the only source that is about him in any non-trivial way is an article in the real estate section "covering" him only in the context of owning a home, not a news article about him accomplishing anything encyclopedically significant. GNG does not just count up the number of sources and keep anything that happens to surpass an arbitrary number — it also takes into account the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and owning a house is not an "inherently" noteworthy context. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 22 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) 07:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darussalam Islamic Academy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable and fails WP:GNG - Jay (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a lack of scouces showing notability. We really need to come up with a better inclusions criteria for secondary schools. The notion that all indepdently accredited secondary schools (at least that cover the equivalent of about grades 9-12 in the US) are notable is not quite justifiable. I think that what was workable is that all currently operational public schools that are only 9-12 in the US, and most similarly sitauted private schools, indepdently accredited are notable, at least that is the basic working proposition.

This does not translate well to the situation in some other countries, and I would question its applicability to some charter schools in the US. The reason I question such applicability is because some charter schools are set up so they are closer to rural k-12 schools, which generally are not notable. While many past schools will be notable, not every school that ever offered instuction at the high school level is going to be notable. This plan is largely based on eductional and social realities in the US, and is not going to apply easily to all other countries. One caution, in systems where there are 7-9 and 10-12 schools, only the 10-12 schools are notable, not the 7-9 schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Darul Huda Islamic University. Otherwise delete. There are no co-ordinates or sources, some guys are working on the site I mentioned which does mention some regional colleges.

Notability is causing a problem. We must remember that the wikipedia use of the word notable in very specific and relates to whether there any sources available, in the UK the governments information arm, and the governments inspection arm both write long screeds about every school, and for USCED 2 secondary local authorities are obliged to publish descriptions for school transfer purposes, so every school is wikinotable. Notable does not mean that the school differs from the norm- or is standard speech notable. Some AfD proposers miss this distinction. ClemRutter (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete the subject fails WP:NORG, and WP:GNG. The academy was established in sept 2012, and the article was created in Nov 2012. High chances of promotional intentions. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:34, 28 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 Teddy Duckworth. ST47 (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Duckworth (football manager)[edit]

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

Non-existing person Oalexander (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was based on two references. The references to RSSSF have since become obsolete. Thus, we are left wit a reference to Biographie de William DUCKWORTH, ASSE-Live.com, per 21 November 2019 , which in turn is contradicted by RSSSF (Erik Garin: France - Trainers of First and Second Division Clubs, RSSSF, per 26 September 2019). I assert, that the ASSE website uses an incorrect first name. Oalexander (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Teddy Duckworth - the nominator is correct in saying that the RSSSF source no longer mentions a 'William Duckworth' (though it once did); they have confirmed his identity as Teddy Duckworth. This name confusion is fairly common for British managers in Europe in the early twentieth century. Saying he does not exist, however, is simply incorrect, as he clearly did, it just happens that once source calls him by one name and another source by another. There was no need for an AFD, this could have been discussed and sorted at the article talk page. Giant Snowman 09:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agree entirely with GiantSnowman - this is a clear merge, though I'm not sure how much there is to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close Discussion: The issue is settled, The article "William" will be removed as by my suggestion in the article's discussion two years ago. If the meagre contents will be united with the meager Teddy Duckworth article, hardly matters. As the author addressed me personally, I will take the time to reply:

- "name confusion is fairly common for British managers": Therefore due dilligence should be exercised when one is advised on the talk page - rather precisely two years ago - of the article; research could have drawn on the WP:DE and WP:FR articles. There is never an excuse for laziness or incompetence.

- " this could have been discussed and sorted at the article talk page": It could have. The author suggested there, I provide "evidence". The author should nevertheless respect, that I am wholly disinclined to discuss "evidence" with him after my experiences with him in the editing of the article Seth Burkett (see also talk page there) where he only admitted necessary substantial content corrections after intervention via the Administrators Noticeboard, and then only most reluctantly. He put me through a most humiliating process and acted to my personal feelings thoroughly in a way a bully would behave. I certainly would not have liked to undergo a similar, to boot lengthy process in tis case.

- I instigated the change at the RSSSF website, as it is substantially easier than "discussing" things with aforemetioned author. RSSSF resepects people, even more so if they are knowledgeable.

- I hope, probably against reality, that the "merged" article will be better than the sum of the components, and maybe even a "real" article, not just another stub. If I were a 24/7 Wikipedian I'd have no problems providing 5,000 valid stubs in utterly leisurely - no hard pressure - 220 eight hour days. Probably far less, as I am capeable of automatisation.

Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what prompted this, but if RSSSF made the change after you presented them with the info - I'm curious as to what source(s) you presented to them? Also GiantSnowman is correct, this would have been more easily performed as a merge request on the talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 12:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the other article for this person. Nomination appears to be false, with claim that the person doesn't exist. Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and this needs to be considered before closing. @Oalexander: as SportingFlyer asked four days ago, what sources did you present to RSSSF to get them to change their article? Giant Snowman 16:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have presented to RSSSF a wad of 1930s-40s local newsprint that clearly identified Thomas/Tommy Duckworth, known for the miracle deeds he has done in Switzerland, as entraîneur of AS Saint-Etienne and LOU, plus the Club sportif des Terreaux. Come to think of it, if you look at a map, that's all relatively close together. And of-course, you can ask the question, why supermarket millionaire Guichard would hire a person with no past and future when he can hire star-coaches like Zoltan Vago, and Teddy Duckworth, who did not have any other jobs. That my story also proves sufficiently that "Ducky", as he was also called, did not return to his home country during the war, as some other historian claims, is a different issue. A minor error. It does not diminish his great book in any way.

As I said, I am not inclined to discuss evidence with you after my experiences which I have pointed out above. I might also point to the case of Reinhard Fabisch where you wiped facts notwithstanding of bona fide evidence (edits 20-22 Sept). I wonder, if you have got it in you, to add the titles Teddy Duckworth (who was called Thomas, Tommy, Ducky and Papa in France) has won with Servette? Or include the involvements of Hogan and Kürschener with Switzerland 1924. Those are kind of basic issues. For a person with always high demands on others you deliver poorly. If you can take more pride in your work, you probably wil depend less on diminishing others. Wikipedia is all about delivering content to users. Stubs which omit substantial facts about its subjects are a disservice to users. Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 16:05, 28 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.

[1] Joshi, S. T.; Schultz, David E. (2001). An H.P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-31578-7.

[1]