Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 November	24 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Warner (artist)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST.I tried several different searches with his name and I can't find anything without searching alongside an author name, and then it's an illustration credit at most. I found several articles about a Bob Warner who compiled art by Ray Johnson, but all are primarily focused on Johnson's work and mention Warner only as the curator of the collection. I'm not sure if it's even the same Warner. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even more serious than failing the GNG or a subject-specific guideline like NARTIST, the article fails WP:V, which is policy, not merely a guideline. All I could find is an archived version of his website at https://web.archive.org/web/20120731133617/http://bobwarnerdesign.com/?page_id=213# which says "Bob Warner is an Illustrator and Musician living in Fife in Scotland.
He has Illustrated hundreds of books since 1994. His Specialities being Science Fiction, Horror and Fantasy." Vexations (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming he has illustrated 100s of books, this is a notable achievement. However we can do nothing about that here, as we depend on SICCOV- of which there is none.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:SNOW. I tried another search and found nada. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Subject does not meet WP:GNG , WP:ARTIST or WP:V , Alex-h (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, article does not meet WP:BLP or WP:ARTIST, but I have looked up about him on the internet and he has some sources mentioned but I am not clear if he can have an article or not. But someone should try to add those sources in the article to see if it meets the requirements. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Assassin!, If you have found sources, could you please let us know what they are? I made an effort, but found nothing at all. Vexations (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was "Robert Warner", I was mistaken. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything about the artist. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has sat over 12 years with the only source being the subjects own website. This is an example of why some look upon Wikipedia as unreliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC) I didn't notice I had already voted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sinobball (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Qiang (curler)[edit]

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

He was the alternate player of the gold-medal winning team and did not play in any game. [1] His teammates are notable, but not him. Sinobball (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mawsua[edit]

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

Nominating the article for deletion, as the article subject seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The topic has not accrued the level of in-depth, independent coverage in WP:RS to be considered as meeting WP:GNG, and has failed to meet any of the criteria laid down by WP:NMUSICIAN. Most of the coverage about the subject comes from blogs, listing sites, or is based around WP:PRIMARY information like interviews. Several sources cited in the current article ([2],[3] for example) make no mention of the article subject at all. In short, not enough coverage has been accrued by the subject to establish their notability. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Comment - In addition to my nomination above, I will note this topic was involved in WP:AFC by way of Draft:Mauricio Gutierrez and Draft:Mawsua. Pinging @EggOfReason:@Liance:@CptViraj:@Bkissin: all previously-involved AfC participants should they wish to comment. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have merged the histories of both of those drafts into the final article, since they were "moved" by copy and paste. ST47 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is notable. – BelMerick, 10:44, 23 November 2019 (GMT-3) — BelMerick (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of MatthewLanez (talk • contribs).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough sources that gives the subject enough credibility, subject is even related to a very well known record label – MatthewLanez (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2019 (EST) MatthewLanez is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate..
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After reviewing references in the article, I agreed with the nominator. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC - Jay (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus this is TOOSOON. If elected please leave a message on my talk page and I will happily WP:REFUND. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Finucane (Sinn Féin politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL having not been elected to anything more than a local council position. Bondegezou (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the Lord Mayor of a nation's capital city and there seem to be a sufficient number of news articles independent of the subject to warrant a separate article. SVUKnight (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Mayor is a ceremonial post that rotates among the city's councillors. It's not something we'd generally take as proving notability. WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Bondegezou (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is also a GAA goalkeeper and captain. He is also standing for MP for Westminster Parliament in the Belfast North constituency and welcomed Prince Charles to Belfast in May 2019. SVUKnight (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also: List of mayors of Belfast -- most other Lord Mayors of Belfast have biographies on wikipedia. SVUKnight (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sought input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Are_Lord_Mayors_notable? on whether being a Lord Mayor is in and of itself sufficient to establish notability. Standing for election does not imbue notability: see WP:NPOL. His GAA achievements are not listed in the article: please say more and we can look at relevant sportspeople notability criteria. Welcoming Prince Charles seems like WP:ROUTINE, not something that in itself is of much encyclopaedic note, but do share any reliable sources on the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for taking the initiative. I agree that the matter could use some clarification and guidance. Cheers. SVUKnight (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NGAELIC would be the appropriate notability guideline for his sporting activities. I am afraid I am too ignorant of Gaelic sport to work out whether he qualifies under that or not. Happy to withdraw the AfD proposal if he clearly succeeds under that criterion. Bondegezou (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lord Mayor is a ceremonial position. Only executive mayors qualify for articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to note that SVUKnight has greatly improved the article. WP:NGAELIC requires an individual "played at senior inter-county level" and, as far as I can tell, Finucane has not done that, only playing at intra-county level. The WikiProject discussion initiated and prior discussion linked to can be summarised that Lord Mayors are not inherently notable because of that role (except the very different Lord Mayor of London), but that being a Lord Mayor of a major city, like Belfast, is of some note. This looks to me like WP:TOOSOON: he has some indicators of notability as a politician and some as a sportsperson, but meets neither NPOL or NGAELIC, nor indeed GNG. But the decision is closer than when I made the initial nomination! Bondegezou (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 23:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Subject in question has not (yet) been elected to any notable position of government. --RaviC (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Fincuane has received more than average coverage for a local politician (according to this, he was even interviewed by a Japanese newspaper) and I'd say it's a borderline case. This discussion should wait until after the election, because if he's elected (in less than a month) he will be automatically notable, so there's no need to waste time on it until then. b uidhe 04:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If he is elected, then the page can be restored after the election as has been the case in other MP candidate pages. --RaviC (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Interviewed by X" is not a notability criterion. People are notable if they're the subject of coverage, not if they're the giver of soundbite in an article about some other subject besides themselves. And, as noted, we have the ability to restore deleted articles if circumstances change, so the fact that he might win the election is not a valid reason to suspend AFD consideration in the interim — if we were to declare a moratorium on deleting candidate articles X days before the election, then every candidate in every election could just bumrush Wikipedia with their campaign brochures on Day X. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a standalone interview is published by a reliable source, I would say it's some indication of notability. That said, it seems it is yet to be published. b uidhe 02:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's not. A person has to be the subject of a source before it assists in establishing notability, not a speaker in coverage of some other subject. Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 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 redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#The Undead. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undead (Warhammer)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#The Undead While I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this subject, it is a valid search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Susmuffin.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, Per above I agree better redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#The Undead, Alex-h (talk) 20:55, 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) 22:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Harper[edit]

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

Other than a mention by the Oregonian, which is not available online, there is no significant independent coverage of this person that I can find, despite the article's assertion to the contrary. The claimed awards are mostly from small organizations that advocate alternative birth methods. The Moose 21:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a large and significant amount of coverage as you would expect from an internationally recognised expert on child birth. scope_creep^Talk 10:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I conducted several different searches and found only a Pinterest page, other social media such as videos, her own websites, Amazon/Barnes & Noble/Good Reads, and citations to her books. There's a few articles by her at Midwifery Today, but nothing about her except a one-sentence blurb, the same one that appears in many mirrors. The only actual quantitative research she's done was a single survey. if she were "internationally known" then we'd see more than two hits at the Sigma Theta Tau International Nursing Society website. I found exactly one major newspaper article that quotes her. I conclude that there's not significant coverage about her in reliable sources. Please ping me if you find anything else. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: all I can find is a review of Gentle Birth Choices in Library Journal vol 119 in 1994. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, following similar reasoning to Bearian. I found also an NPR piece that quotes her, but the notability case for her still looks thin to me. There might be a better case for her book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no GNG-worthy independent sourcing. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:08, 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 keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ensuring Integrity Bill[edit]

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

Lack of secondary sources. If this proposed legislation hasn't attracted mainstream media attention, just how notable is it? Australian bills don't generally have their own articles. Suggest waiting until this thing becomes law, when it will be a valid piece of legislation along with others. Perhaps a mention in Turnbull Government, if it raises any public interest. --Pete (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG. Just a few sources that are easily found with a Google search: Policy Forum, The Guardian, The Conversation, Sydney Morning Herald, Financial Review, etc. b uidhe 21:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This bill has received extensive media coverage for months. Nick-D (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per buidhe, and a gnews search returns a lot more, even. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - there are actually two bills with this name (one in 2017 and one in 2019) (I've fixed the article to explain this). The legislation has been one of the most contentious pieces of legislation in the current and previous Parliaments and have received extensive coverage. Bookscale (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up lots and lots and lots "okay coola, thats enough" (and lots...) of useable sources (including mainstream media:)) that cover this, a bit of WP:BEFORE ie. "Ensuring Integrity legislation" under gnewssearch by the nominator would have uncovered lots and lots "coola, stop it! (and lots...) of articles dissussing it, of course, all is forgiven as i see that the nominator listens to Miles. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No longer relevant, as the bill has been defeated in the Senate. Just another Bill that never became an Act, and we don't seem to have articles on these. Perhaps there's a list of defeated legislation this might go on? --Pete (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This piece of legislation has been around since 2017, don't think it will just go away now. The fact it came out of the Trade Union Royal Commission makes it more notable than most bills. Bookscale (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's your opinion, and thank you for it, but my objection, and the reason I put this article up for deletion, goes to policy. We only have three articles on Australian Bills and the other two are failed referendums for constitutional amendment, both of which were put to the people with publicly-funded YES and NO campaigns and a compulsory vote. This particular article, if we retained it, would be the only article on unsuccessful Australian legislation in Wikipedia, apart from the highly visible and expensive attempts to amend the Constitution. I don't think this bill comes close to that sort of notability and importance.
  - So I ask why should we set a whole new benchmark on Wikipedia? What makes this bill notable when there must be thousands of others having the same status - or higher, being the subject of intense national debate - but we never bothered to make them into Wikipedia articles? --Pete (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOTPAPER seems relevant here - we do not face any space constraints, and are guided simply by the notability policies. I'd suggest that we should have a lot more articles on legislation, and especially high profile legislation which failed to make it though parliament. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with this. Bookscale (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pete, perhaps you should read the news (e.g. this article). The bill hasn't finished yet (and it has hung around for 2 years and been one of the most contentious pieces of legislation for a while, so if you think this is some non-notable bill you don't know what you are talking about). Bookscale (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article didn't make the case for notability - and still doesn't - but that's not my point. It's failed legislation and we just don't have many articles on failed legislation. If a Bill gets passed, it becomes an Act, and we have lots of articles on actual legislation. Maybe this thing will come up again, maybe not, but I'm still not convinced we should have an entire article on it. I suggested a list of Bills above. Why not something like that? Possibly something we could link to (say) the First Rudd Government or Fourth Morrison Government. Legislative program hiccups of Prime Ministers. Not that I particularly care about this bill in particular. What attracted my attention was the ratshit sourcing. It's still pretty dismal. --Pete (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        We don't have many articles on failed legislation because most of it isn't notable (hell, a lot of legislation isn't necessarily notable). This bill alone has far more coverage in reliable sources, far more public awareness, and far more controversy than hundreds of actual acts of parliament combined, so even if we apply a high bar to unsuccessful bill articles, it passes very easily. A list of bills would be completely pointless: we'd lose any information about this notable one and wind up with a lot of administratrivia about non-notable bills. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's objectively the most controversial (attempted) industrial relations legislation in Australia since WorkChoices more than a decade ago and the biggest development in issues around union deregistration since before I was born. Just like the nastier half of the 2014 budget, its failure to pass parliament doesn't make it any less notable (five years later, that's still referenced all the time). There's also no sign that it's going to go away anytime soon. It's already notable no matter what happens in the future. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Genuine question; was WP:BEFORE done? One of the most regressive pieces of industrial legislation attempted to be passed by a rich world government since the Second World War which included significant infringements of international standards (ie treaties) to which Australia is party. Drew international attention. Easily meets GNG. FWIW, on civil liberties grounds and its criminalisation of trade unionism, I'd venture that historically this will be held in importance on par with the Communist Party Dissolution Act.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:47, 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) 22:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike for Kids[edit]

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

Unnotable one-off video, like so many other Machinima videos. Of the sources used, three are primary sources from the production company, while the other two are unrelated and do not mention the video in question once. The Video games custom search engine only has one hit, where the video is mentioned in the comment section. The topic fails WP:SIGCOV. Lordtobi (✉) 20:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 20:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 20:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merge/delete - potential for a brief mention at machinima, inc, but otherwise delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Little to be merged realistically. Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of any sort of external notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage, not notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from RSs thus non-notable (WP:GNG). Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:39, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manlikeclix[edit]

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

non-notable and promotional . He lists one award: he nominated himself. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non notable person who’s page is written as an advertisement/promo per WP:NOTHERE this article should be deleted as soon as can be. Celestina007 (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person in the fashion industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 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) 22:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Berry Stephenson[edit]

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

no evidence of encyclopedic notability , no evidence of paintings in a permanent collection. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One obituary does not make a notable individual. b uidhe 21:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry to say that Dallas Morning News obituary is a paid announcement; it's substantially the same text as the other one. I find another painter named George Stephenson in New York State who has left more of a trace. I'll be happy if more can be found about the Texas gentleman, as an artist or otherwise, but I'm not seeing anything. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NARTIST and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If he were a famous artist, he'd have exhibited in major art galleries or museums outside of his hometown. Dallas does have an internationally-known art scene, but he never exhibited in LA, or NYC, or Venice, Santa Fe, or even Marfa, Texas, from what I can see. A single work of art in one church and "other venues in the Dallas area" (where? a coffee shop? an AA meeting? a school library?) are not enough. His day job appears to have been a counselor for Alcoholics Anonymous, and he no doubt did fine work with persons in recovery, but so does my brother and thousands of other people. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of available sources other than an obituary suggests that WP:GNG is not met. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting the threshold for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 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 speedy delete G5, created by a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing (2020 film)[edit]

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

Other than a listing on IMDB, there is no mention anywhere of this movie, so it's not notable. It has not begun production so fails WP:NFF. Article was previously speedy-deleted for G3. Another editor flagged this re-created article for prod, which the creator removed without commenting on the Talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s completely fake. A 2020 release would’ve been announced for production a while ago. There’s no way they wouldn’t have announced this already if it was real, considering the Mario movie by Illumination was announced in development a while ago and is set for a later release than 2020. Not everything can be Teen Titans Go to the Movies--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure (although I find the cast list utterly unbelievable), so I took this route. Another editor just tagged it for CSD so this won't matter. Schazjmd (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No press release for reference, no plot blurb, too much was missing for me to be unsure--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just declined the speedy deletion. An IMDB page is quite enough to bar something from the blatant hoax CSD. It is not enough for an article, however. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the IMDB https://www.crunchyroll.com/library/Animal_Crossing_-_Movie exists, so this is not a blatant hoax suitble for speedy deletion. But it fails WP:CRYSTAL, which requires celar evidence of notability for future events, and I find no such evidence. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, I think crunchyroll is referring to an earlier movie, which we already have an article for: Dōbutsu no Mori (film). Schazjmd (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so, but the IMDB page alone is enough for me to decline the spewedy deletion. Those must be clear-cut. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If and when a real one is announced, its notability will be clear and apparent, but the FilmMaker version never will be--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was just deleted G5. Schazjmd (talk) 21:33, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth plants[edit]

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

Another LOTR list devoid of mainstream notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — list of trivia.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to being just a trivia list. Mental snack food that belongs on a LOTR Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Another frivolous nomination. In this case, it appears that no effort has been made to even read the article, never mind searching for sources as required by WP:BEFORE. When one reads the article, one soon sees that the sources include a respectable book published by a university press which is all about the topic: Flora of Middle-Earth. It's easy to find more books about this and related topics including The Plants of Middle-Earth; Ents, Elves, and Eriador: The Environmental Vision of J.R.R. Tolkien; A Tolkien Bestiary; The Ecology of Middle Earth; The Science of Middle Earth; Representations of Nature in Middle-earth; &c. This nomination seems so careless that the appropriate admin action is to impose a topic ban. Andrew D. (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/Userfy I... actually somewhat agree with Andrew D.? Has hell frozen over? Ignoring the uncalled-for ad-hominem WP:NOTHERE attacks, there are clearly independent secondary sources about the plants and animals of Middle-Earth. The only problem is that the article doesn't actually use them, and is unencyclopedic in its current state. I don't think it should be summarily kept, but it should be draftified and improved._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, delete all unexceptional plants and animals.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify If properly sourced, the article could pass WP:GNG based on Andrews D.'s sources. Delete the insignificant plants and animals and keep the ones with actual secondary source references (basically delete if only referenced in LOTR/Hobbit/etc.). Maybe move page to List of notable Middle-earth plants? Hog Farm (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION, GNG, LISTN and TRIVIA. No prejudice to anyone who wants to write a non-list article that tackles the issues of environmental issues and Middle-Earth or such, with analytical sources. But a list like this belongs on fandom site like https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Middle-earth_plants . Feel free to transwiki anything missing from our article there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:TNT reasons. Yes, an article could be written on this topic, but it would have to focus on (sourced) analysis and not be a crufty in-universe list. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these as they exist are and will always be non-notable lists amounting to the merger of trivia. Other proposals seem to move too much towards essays, which have a place, but that place is not a Wikipedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know why we're so keen on lists as the first go-to for content like this. If there are sources discussing the flora and fauna of the series, there is no need to list every plant and animal. Summary style discussion should be attempted first thing. Should another well-sourced, mostly out of universe list be formed from that, then that would be fine. There's currently nothing like that for this current incarnation. TTN (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. All WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - many of these list articles were created as mergers of stubs a long time ago. The redirects pointing to the list article may require that the list is turned into a redirect to preserve the attribution for the edits. Some of the old AfDs on articles relating to Tolkien's works may help as well. As best I can remember, referencing the works of Tolkien's son (Christopher) was considered a secondary source, rather than a primary (in-universe) reference. As an aside, the best fan wiki out there on this topic is actually Tolkien Gateway. Carcharoth (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, redirects from an article such as this will be deleted, so there would be no particular reason for anything to be retained. TTN (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not redirects from, redirects to this page. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete: "Pages that have been merged to other articles should almost never be deleted, since our copyright requires all authors to be publicly credited". There are currently 41 pages that redirect to Middle-earth plants. It may be that there is a reason that deletion is OK, and still satisfies the licensing requirements, but if anyone wanted to merge some of this content to other articles, it would be necessary to preserve the edit history in some way to satisfy the attribution requirements of Wikipedia's licensing. Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant. The article and all associated redirects will be terminated if it's deleted. Even if the redirects are retained, there is no issue deleting this page. If anything from this page has been merged, then there is likely no way of telling unless someone has documented it, so the point is moot. TTN (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Middle-earth objects. Goustien (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Faolin42 (talk) 18:33, 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 and redirect to Middle-earth#Geography. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Middle-earth rivers[edit]

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

Another in the neverending plethora of lists of fictional background things. (At least, it's a step up from Middle-earth roads.) If you can name more than two or three off the top of your head, you need to get out more. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — trivia.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, due to being just a trivia list better suited for a LOTR Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike the plants/animals, this is clearly just a trivial list and Wikia material. The vast majority of rivers in Middle-Earth aren't notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle-earth#Geography There's a pretty good summary of Middle-earth's geography on that page. The rivers of Middle-earth aren't notable enough to get their own page. Hog Farm (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Soft delete and redirect per Hog Farm. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact this article was kept back in 2008 shows how dark and illogical those days were, when Wikipedia was being forced into being a fancruft site.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle-earth#Geography. Goustien (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Faolin42 (talk) 19:08, 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) 22:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Beeman[edit]

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

Non-notable poet. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. b uidhe 21:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a gsearch under various permatations (ie. "poet(ry)", "awards", "reviews") reveals that she appears/reads at a lot of festivals ie. "Purdyfest", and is also an ambassador for the Canada Cuba Literary Alliance but have been unable to find the all wiki-important reviews and/or awards, so doesnt look good. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been drawn to my attention that Prism magazine is an RS.scope_creep^Talk 10:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Prism International is a reliable source but the reference there is a review by her with a brief bio at the end, rather than a review of her work which I somehow assumed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes WP:AUTHOR, and the references are not reliable or notability-supporting sources for the purposes of establishing that she would pass GNG. Prism would be a reliable source in theory — but the source being cited is not a review of her work, but a review of somebody else's work which has Beeman as its bylined author, which means it isn't about Beeman. Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable. Also see https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Chuang726 Graywalls (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the article may fail to meet guidelines set by WP:AUTHOR, WP:N and/or WP:GNG, she is a published poet (see this Amazon link of a 1993 book that is apparently out-of-print). Dr42 (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every literary critic who dabbles in poetry, and gets involved in low level activism is notable. She has nothing else going for her. When the closest we get to a reliable source is a review she wrote, of someone else's work, we have gone far past the threshold of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myrtle Beach Convention Center[edit]

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

Non-notable local convention/center. Most of the news coverage is related to somebody trespassing on top of the building in 2017. The article has no sources, makes no claim to notability, and the first sentence of the article is literally "The following is a commercial for Myrtle Beach convention center." I thought about proposed deletion, but decided that an AfD discussion is probably a better method in case somebody can find something useful about this. Even if kept, the article is going to require WP:TNT based on its present state. Hog Farm (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article, about a convention center with an 8,000 seat arena, just needed a bit of cleanup. Previous version was heavily promotional. It's easily notable with press clippings from all over the state dating back to the 1960s. I've gone through and added enough sources which should more than get it over the notability line. SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG Djflem (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per WP:HEY. The article has been completely rewritten and easily meets the standards now. Hog Farm (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Myrtle Beach draws many regional conferences - I went to ERCBEC there. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't like to see AFDs _forcing_ improvements. Just because one or a few persons don't see a lot of merit in an article, how does that give them the right to run a drill forcing many others to respond, or else the article is lost. Nothing in particular about this deletion nominator, but shouldn't there be some limit or impact back upon deletion nominators. --Doncram (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one's bad judgment on my part. When I came across the article, it was literally an advertisement. So I rushed my WP:BEFORE when I shouldn't have. I withdrew my nom so I didn't waste everybody's time, but I didn't close the discussion because I'm not 100% sure how to do that and I don't want to break the AfD log (I'm accident-prone, my limit to break things has no bounds). I ran into some issues with a previous Afd because my search engine puts a strong emphasis on USA-domained sites, and most of the RS were registered in Canada. I've learned my lesson about AfD'ing non-United States topics from that. Sorry. Hog Farm (talk) 04:06, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Trimboli[edit]

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

Non-notable individual that has been unsourced for more than 12 years. Reads like a mini-CV of the subject. Searches only bring back mirrors of this article. There is a Spanish version of this article, but that was created by the same user at about the same time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and nothing found to contribute to wikinotability. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has been an unsourced article for 4 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 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) 22:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enos Foord[edit]

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

No evidence of notability--minor county officeholder, and two centuries too late to be notable as an early settler . WP is not the US Census DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I dispute the characterization of him a as "minor" officeholder. Additionally, several of the sources (Kolodny, for example) have longer discussions of him that go well beyond trivial mentions. I chose not to include many of them in an effort to get a stub up, but in light of this AFD nomination will. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:42 significant coverage in reliable source is required to establish notability hence I’m upholding DGG’s rationale for nomination. Celestina007 (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete: Registrar of deeds is indeed a minor office with no inherent importance. Even if coverage is available, importance (and thus notability) is lacking. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the Kolodny cite is the shining example of indepth discussion here, this is a slam dunk for deletion; it consists of less than a full paragraph, half of which is entirely speculative on the part of the author, and which I'd consider an unreliable reference -- it states "it is likely Lydia's family learned about the normal school movement through her Uncle Enos' connections with Horace Mann," before going on to state that Mann and the subject were both justices of the peace in Dedham in 1829. As may be, but being justices of the peace at the same time does not presuppose they worked together, and 1829 is nearly a decade before Mann began his educational reforms. Every other citation is indeed a trivial mention, except for a publication of the town's historical society, which lists the subject's CV. This does not constitute significant coverage, even if New England county registrars weren't minor posts usually held as sinecures by aging pols (which they are). Ravenswing 01:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Registrar of deeds" is not an inherently notable office, and the depth of sourcing is not solid enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — a strong majority of the sources here are primary, not notability-making or reliable, and the most substantive source on offer features less than a paragraph's worth of content about him strictly in the context of his affiliations with other people than in the context of him having done anything noteworthy in his own right. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that meets or exceeds two"; it also tests for the depth of how substantively any source is or isn't about the subject, the geographic range of how widely the subject is getting covered, and the context of what the person is getting covered for, so a person is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because his name happens to appear on one page of a local history book. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very important to note that this AFD is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Foord. ミラ P 04:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The office holds no inherent notability. The sources are very minor, extremely localized coverage.--Kbabej (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable office to pass WP:NPOL nor the sourcing is good enough to pass WP:GNG. Snow delete. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it your highest rank was register of deeds you are default non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 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) 22:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Traverse City Patriot Game[edit]

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

annual football game between two high school teams in a town of 14,000 population. local refs only, as would be expected. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a blog post on the state sanctioning body website on the article is the only place outside of TC I found anything. (And that wouldn't be a very reliable source.) With US high school football rivalries that are over 100 years old and in big cities with lots of coverage, I cannot see this. If some secondary coverage outside TC were available I could, as an ATD, support a very partial merge to the school district's article. John from Idegon (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles on youth sports generally aren't notable per WP:YOUNGATH, and this particular rivalry fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete not finding any third party coverage on this game, fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG per above. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 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 merge to List of amateur radio transceivers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of QRP Transceivers[edit]

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

The list is for very specific type of amateur radio stuff. My primary concern is that many of them are very low volume products citing e-commerce portals and it seems to serve the purpose of hosting a "product catalog" as a doorway for customer traffic for commercial purposes. Graywalls (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, none of these are notable and sources are primary only without passing LISTN. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ for now. --mikeu ^talk 02:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of amateur radio transceivers is a bit of a mess, however merge and redirect there seems like the best outcome. --mikeu ^talk 16:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or simply Redirect to List of amateur radio transceivers, merging any useful content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would seem the way to go, but how to show notability of a piece of kit? No comment on the CEO mumbo jumbo. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment What we use around here is general notability. An instructor could be notable within an institution, a custom tool notable within a niche community, so on without being generally notable. When there is lack of general notability, there is no notability to "show". Wikipedia isn't the right place for hosting a list of vanity kits put together by some guy who is selling them out of his garage. Graywalls (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into List of amateur radio transceivers, there is information of this page that is notable enough to be listed on that page. The whole amateur radio transceiver category of WP is being worked on currently (by me), so deletion of content that should be at least partly merged should not happen. Initramfs (talk) 13:02, 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, without prejudice to restoring to draft if any editor would like to continue documenting the subject towards establishing notability. BD2412 T 05:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vion Konger[edit]

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

The article currently contains no references to sources at all - just a bunch of links to the subject's social media accounts and to sites selling his work. I searched for sources, and can find nothing giving him significant coverage that is independent and reliable. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a tough one, like all articles about DJ/producers. Started DJing and making remixes at 13, won a competition for remixing a major DJ's track at 17, has played around the world and released tracks on major dance record labels... and he's still only 20 years old. But as ever, there are no reliable online sources about him, if they exist they are probably all in print versions of Mixmag and DJ Mag. I can't make a case for keeping the article seeing as I can't find online sources, but given how young he was when he came to prominence, I can't believe that it wouldn't have attracted some attention from dance music magazines. Richard3120 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable Disc Jockey. Celestina007 (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NKVDemon[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep According to WP:Fiction specialized guidelines for fictional characters have not been created. NKVDemon is a notable comic book character. He has appeared several times in Batman and Aquaman comic books. Although he is not a reoccurring villain, he is certainly on the same level as the other D-list villains that have WP pages. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is not an argument. Articles must abide by WP:N. Fictional articles also must abide by WP:WAF and WP:NOTPLOT. This article fails all three. TTN (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be fixed to meet the criteria for all three of those. So instead of deleting it, why not fix it? The character itself is not unrecognizable in DC comics. And the reason I brought up other D-list character pages on WP is because those articles have established notability, despite their characters having a rather small role in the comics. This article could be brought up to snuff as well. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’d need to provide sources to make such an argument. I typically disagree with most sources presented in these AfDs, but I’d gladly withdraw anything I truly believe properly sourced. TTN (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to provide you with sources that prove that NKVDemon has been prominently featured in DC Comics? -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can be fixed to abide by the above sources and guidelines, that inherently means you need to provide real world sources about the character, more than simply appearing in comics. If you don't actually understand them, I'd recommend reading them. They are non-negotiable when dealing with fictional topics. TTN (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appearing several times in comic books does not make a character notable. No real world notability, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a list which sums up my thinking. No WP:RS of an 'obscure batman rogue'. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the rest that the article fails WP:GNG. Secondly, I couldnt find anything about "NKVDemon" in all 3 links in reference section.

NKVDemon I at the Unofficial Guide to the DC Universe

NKVDemon II at the Unofficial Guide to the DC Universe

NKVDemon III at the Unoffiial Guide to the DC Universe

- Jay (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Iran–United States relations. Seems like we have a pretty clear consensus to get rid of this article, but not so clear consensus about whether a merge or deletion are the appropriate way - there are sound arguments on both sides regarding the presence or lack of coverage. Thus this is a redirect, so that people can work out in additional discussions what to merge if so, and list the redirect at WP:RFD if consensus leans towards no merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's 2018 prisoner swap proposal to the United States[edit]

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

Does not appear to be of any kind of lasting notability. All the sources provided are from within a few days in late April 2019. ~~Recommend merge whatever is appropriate into Iran–United States relations or elsewhere.~~ Delete per arguments put forward by Clarityfiend and Bearian. Loksmythe (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's simply a proposal to which the US hasn't even bothered to respond. Move along. Nothing to see here. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - diplomatic entreaty that never went nowhere, nohow. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The prisoner swap proposal elaborates the relationship between the two nations and should be merged into Iran–United States relations AssadFin (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - received enough media attention and seems like something we can use. Barca (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - received quite a bit of media attention and is still widely searched. TruthGuardians (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iran–United States relations; there are enough good references here to show that this, at a time, was considered important (i.e. don't delete), however there is not enough for a standalone article. Smerge into the main US-Iran relations article which is not that big. Britishfinance (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is clearer consensus on whether this should be merged or deleted outright
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a political bluff to mislead the public and is not deserve to create an independent article. - MA Javadi (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Political motivations are not a reason for deletion at AfD. The proposal was covered by major worldwide RS and the article has WP:SIGCOV on the topic from several WP:RS/P such as Reuters, Time and the New York Times (and there is much more online), and it therefore notable enough to be chronicled; however, as per my !vote above, I think it should be merged into the main Iran–United States relations article as another noteworthy event. Britishfinance (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't think there's enough to go into the relations article. At most one line if you insist on merging (although this 'proposal' came after the Ayatollah banned direct talks?) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was just a proposed plan (unrealized proposed plan). I disagree to merge but simply have a one liner of this event with a reference link on Iran–United States relations article. - Jay (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I would make a soft merge, preserving this article’s history. The subject looks to probably be notable enough for a stand alone article (Nytimes, etc. references where this is the primary topic), but the case for merging this with a more broad subject which may have an article that is too short is good. Samboy (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth, per WP:CSD#G5 (non-admin closure) bonadea contributions talk 12:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tina akhoondtabar[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Andrew Base (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Given The article creator's edit history I'd say it's likely the work of another User:Tenaciouss sock account. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has magically dissapeared. I close this. scope_creep^Talk 10:34, 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Air Lines Flight 421[edit]

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

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:21, 23 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? 13:21, 23 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? 13:21, 23 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? 13:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incident has no lasting significance. Fails Wikipedia:Notability guidelines for a stand alone article. - Samf4u (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in sources to indicate notability and I can't find anything which would suggest otherwise. Also, the majority of the prose was a copyvio of this source, which I have removed. WJ94 (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not particularly noteworthy for a stand alone article, existing paragraph in List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8 is sufficient for a non-notable accident. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a notable flight. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 03:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per milborne--Petebutt (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mabuhay Miles member here. This was a run of the mill incident. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 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 keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan C. Gianneschi[edit]

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

None notable scientist, was pointed out when article was in draft space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilxFish (talk • contribs) 12:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the Jacob & Rosaline Cohn Professor of Chemistry, Materials Science & Engineering, and Biomedical Engineering at Northwestern University, the subject meets notability criteria established at WP:PROF. ("5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.") -- Edgar181 (Edgar181) 13:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the C5 case pointed out by Ed, he also looks like a likely pass of WP:NPROF C1 based on citations. I note that the page originator should've declared a COI as a grad student of the article subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per edgar — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment WP:PROF does appear to be satisfied. But I think that WP:PROF is giving a free ride for a lot of articles without any satisfaction of WP:GNG. I would expect that some other people should have written about the subject or their work. Currently none of the references here show notability in the WP:GNG sense. So WP:PROF should be rewritten, and thousands of articles on academics should then be deleted because they have had no impact. That opinion however has not been checked against this subject. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as a keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Graeme Bartlett, NPROF exists exactly to write about people who are influential/have impact in the world of ideas. The current subject's articles have been cited over 4000 times. That's 4000 people writing about this work, though of course many of those mentions may be glancing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So then the article should be including some of those citations that include substantial coverage. My comment is not keep or delete. However I will say when I edited the article I did not feel the urge to tag it for lack of notability or deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Passes WP:PROF#C5 for holding a named chair, and probably passes on other points as well since people don't get named chairs unless they've done something. XOR'easter (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a wiki article, this is an advert. It tells us next to nothing about his life or work, there is no biography, all we're informed of is his possition, titles and awards.--Project Osprey (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This BLP is commendably short. I wish others were the same. But if you wish to expand it please do. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I wish to delete it, and we don't normally commend articles for being 3 lines long.--Project Osprey (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on my reading of hundreds of such stubs, this almost certainly this was written by a grad student of his. That having been said, it's not terrible, brevity being its saving grace, and as a named chair in major research university and 4,000 cites, he passes PROF. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, grad students shouldn't write about their advisors, but he passes WP:PROF. I forget whether FRSC is one of the selective ones enough for #C3 but it doesn't matter when we also have C1 and C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prof Snow. Lightburst (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep named chairs are very selective. While they are becoming more common now, they have historically been limited and still are very limited. The professor guidelines exist because professors make major impacts without getting the type of gishing press athletes get. I think it is a much worse problem that playing a few minutes in certain soccer games gives notability than that all holders of named academic chairs get notability. Actually, not all named chairs will default give notability, they have to be given selectively to top ranked professors. However at a place like Northwestern they do clearly confer notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ecco Group[edit]

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

This article began as a rough translation using the content translation tool and may be technically eligible for CSD X2. It has subsequently been fixed up into plausible English but in the meantime, as far as I can tell, the original version which was in Spanish appears to have been deleted? The sources do not appear to meet Wikipedia's normal inclusion standards and I'm unclear what's reliable about any of them. —S Marshall T/C 12:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 12:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't look to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The provided references are primary, including a restaurant menu, indicating the subject company going about its business but routine coverage insufficient for WP:NCORP. My searches are not finding better than routine listings and social media entries, nothing which meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 15:41, 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, without objection. BD2412 T 04:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Burbage[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as only an elected councillor. Citations overly rely on WP:PRIMARY. Bondegezou (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A borough council leader who had an MBE for services to local government and appeared in the Telegraph's right-wing politician list, both something a local councillor of his level can only dream of. ミラ P 17:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The MBE is the lowest ranked award and has never, as far as I know, been taken as proving automatic notability. The Telegraph pieces is one paragraph, so I question whether it meets WP:GNG's "significant coverage", but if we accept that, show us the other two pieces to qualify under WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: It's a mixed bag but leans keep. 52-17-48 as of today. ミラ P 22:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, an MBE does not impart automatic notability. Bondegezou (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, those numbers are misleading. The vast majority of people with MBEs never even get articles created for them. Having an MBE is not an automatic path to Wikipedia article: only a tiny minority of those with MBEs have Wikipedia articles. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: Thanks, I made a huge mistake overestimating how much get MBEs. Switching to Delete. ミラ P 17:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note the article appears to have been created by Mr Burbage himself. Bondegezou (talk) 20:53, 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, without objection. BD2412 T 04:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur de Rhé-Philipe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as having been only an elected councillor. Citations are largely local media and WP:ROUTINE. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ An elected councillor who had a MBE in 2019 but that's about it. Her father had a Who's Who entry and had a CBE so I'd say he's technically more notable than her. ミラ P 17:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MBE is the lowest ranked award and doesn't bestow Wikipedia notability. If you agree that "that's about it" (and WP:NOTINHERITED on her father), then how does this article qualify? Bondegezou (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: The MBE thing is a mixed bag but leans keep. 52-17-48 as of today. ミラ P 23:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, an MBE does not impart automatic notability. Bondegezou (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: Thanks, I made a huge mistake overestimating how much get MBEs. Switching to Delete, though I am open to the possibility of creating a page on her father that mentions that she is a Wiltshire Councillor. ミラ P 17:03, 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. Consensus clearly leans towards keeping, with later !votes in the discussion trending strongly in that direction. This close does not decide whether either leading a city council for a well-populated region, or being awarded a CBE (as opposed to an MBE or OBE), are sufficient to confer encyclopedic notability, but it is a permissible basis of finding notability to find that both factors contribute substantially to reach such a conclusion in combination. BD2412 T 04:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Judith Blake[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL having only been a local councillor. Citations are mostly local newspapers with WP:ROUTINE coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep: not just a councillor but the leader of Leeds City Council, a major metropolitan district in the UK. PamD 13:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL doesn't say council leaders get in. Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD and Bondegezou: ~~It also doesn't say council leaders don't get in. ミラ P 17:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)~~ Why did I say that? ミラ P 20:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does say that. "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" are notable. "Just being an elected local official [...] does not guarantee notability". Leader of Leeds council is not a province or state-wide office. Bondegezou (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This role is notable because NPOL doesn't explicitly say it isn't" is not how NPOL works. If NPOL does not affirmatively say that a political role is "inherently" notable, then it automatically is not. Specifically, it's always been held at AFD that leaders of city councils are not inherently more notable than other city councillors are: council leader or not, a local councillor's notability still depends on showing a depth and range of coverage that constitutes credible evidence of nationalized significance. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - several of the refs are dead-links and one appears to relate to a different person altogether......but being the leader of a major metropolitan council and being the first female leader of the City seems to strongly imply notability. I would suggest another trawl through the search engines for better refs. If we have a good BBC ref then there must be others of equal merit Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been up for over two years (that was after it was previously deleted in 2008) and we ain't seen further references yet. Bondegezou (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC piece in question is 4 sentences long. The other 3 media citations are local newspapers. Bondegezou (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Keep for a different reason than PamD and Velella. While being a leader of a city council is not notable, she holds a CBE which establishes notability. ミラ P 17:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of an accepted notability guideline saying that. Can you point to one? Bondegezou (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: Probably not but these discussions on the CBE should help. ミラ P 23:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So... there would appear to be no consensus on the suggestion that a CBE confers automatic notability. Bondegezou (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: There are some discussions that generated a general consensus in favor of "CBE=WP-notable", but the most recent one should help. ミラ P 00:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've read the discussion. I see some editors arguing that a CBE should constitute automatic notability, but others argue against that. I don't see a consensus. No such rule has entered guidelines. Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: I trust it is because WP:ANYBIO#1 doesn't say which awards explicitly - it's just deliberately vague and its interpretation left to the discretion of communities of WP editors. ミラ P 01:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: Actually, I don't see anyone arguing against it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards and honors) sees argument against automatic notability for CBEs. Bondegezou (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which wasn't mentioned above. You will, however, note that almost everyone who actually knows what they're talking about agrees that CBEs and above are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has a CBE. scope_creep^Talk 10:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honours are awarded twice a year. The most recent list had 109 CBEs awarded. Looking at the most recent list, I see no articles for Morris Angel, Elizabeth Barnes (she's not this Elizabeth Barnes), Michael Barton, Paul Bates, Graeme Biggar, Stephen Billingham, Simon Blanchflower, Catherine Bradley or Philip Brook. That's the first page: there are 10 names, and only one has an article (Bryan Appleyard). Wikipedia does not have articles for the vast majority of people with CBEs. We do have notability criteria for politicians like Blake, WP:NPOL, and she fails them. Bondegezou (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes an honour a notability-granter does not depend on how many possessors of that honour already have Wikipedia articles today, but rather how exclusive it is compared to the potential pool - in this case the entire population of the United Kingdom. CBE is one of only three capped levels in the Order of the British Empire, the others being KBE and DBE.

If you sum the three caps - 8,960 CBEs, 845 K/DCs, 300 K/DGCs - and divide it by the current population of the UK (66.44 mil), then you'll see there will always be one CBE/KC/KGC for more than 6,575 people at a time. Compare that to one BLP for every 8,060 people on Earth, and that's not even taking into account the ones who are technically WP-notable but still have no WP-articles. And please, take a closer look at the evidence I just presented that says CBEs are notable. ミラ P 01:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: Forgive me, but this seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. It's a work in progress. Just because someone does not have an article yet in no way means they're not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, WP:WIP, but if the vast majority of people with CBEs (90% on a small sample) don't have articles, that does rather suggest that most people with CBEs cannot support articles. Do you really think at some future date all those people will have articles created? Bondegezou (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even Jimmy Wales agrees with me: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Orders,_decorations,_and_medals/Archive_6#2000_New_Year_Honours! Bondegezou (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: That discussion is from 2010. The six discussions I pointed out are from 2014 and afterwards. ミラ P 19:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales is neither British nor necessarily knowledgeable about the British honours system. And yes, I do really think that one day all (or most) of these people will have articles created about them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local politician with nothing in the article shows anything noteworthy and with really no national exposure. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne: nothing in the article shows anything noteworthy Except the CBE. I'll refer you to the evidence below that shows that CBEs are notable. ミラ P 01:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leeds is not a global city for the purposes of handing its city councillors an "inherent" notability pass under NPOL #2, so the notability test she would have to fulfill is being the subject of enough substantive reliable source coverage to make her significantly more notable than the norm for city councillors. That's not what this article is showing, however; the strongest source (BBC) is just a short blurb, and none of the other sources are adding anything out of the ordinary for what every city councillor could always show. And furthermore, we do not have an established consensus that the CBE is a notability-guaranteeing honour in and of itself — it, again, can be enough if the article can be very well-sourced, but is not a guaranteed inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to show more substantive and detailed and wide-ranging sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: These evidences prove that this is the pretty much most likely the case: ミラ P 01:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2014#The_person_has_received_a_well-known_and_significant_award_or_honor,_or_has_been_nominated_for_one_several_times.: It has generally been held in AfDs that the CBE or higher qualifies for this criterion (i.e. any knighthood, baronetage or peerage, or the CBE, CVO, CIE, CMG, CSI, CB, CH or OM). Plus gallantry awards as per WP:SOLDIER (i.e. one first-level or two second-level awards)
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2016#MBE: [T]he MBE (or OBE) does not confer inherent notability. Consensus is, however, that the CBE (and above) does. Any honours do, of course, contribute to notability.
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2017#Notability_in_Knight's_Cross_Holder_Articles: The CBE is invariably considered to be notable. Few awards are given automatically, with the exception of some very senior posts that invariably carry (or, more often, carried) knighthoods.
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2018#BBC_100_Women: We consider the CBE to meet WP:ANYBIO #1, and that's technically about the UK's twentieth highest award! It's all about context.
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2018#Notability_of_British_knights: We have always considered that, as far as the British honours system goes, WP:ANYBIO #1 covers anyone with a CBE or above. That has been established over the course of many AfDs and clearly includes all knights. If they're notable enough to have received an honour this high then they're notable enough for Wikipedia. They're not given out with the rations. and in response to a counter-argument, [A]n honour is never "routinely awarded". Many lieutenant-colonels, commanders and wing commanders do not have an MBE; many colonels etc do not have a CBE.
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2019#ANYBIO#1_-_"significant_award_or_honor": An MBE or OBE generally doesn't, but a CBE or KBE (or CB, CMG, CVO, etc) almost certainly does.

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ミラ P 01:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a bit to the article. Clearly notable.

CBE in 2017
Yorkshire post
Serves on the board of the Northern Ballet Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have always held that the CBE or above (but not the MBE or OBE) meets the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1. These are not common awards given the population of the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has held many different positions on the council and is currently the leader, and is a CBE. Also, she is the first woman to hold the position. - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As has been pointed out above, historically CBE's have been kept as inherently notable. Aside from that she is the leader of the city council, not just simply a member. While Leeds also has a mayor, according to Leeds City Council#Lord Mayor of Leeds, and the next section in the article, the mayor is a ceremonial position, and the true political leader of the city is the Council Leader. Historically, the leaders of cities with a population over 700,000 are considered inherently notable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL establishes notability for "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office". Leader of Leeds city council does not meet that. I see no reference to 700,000 in the current WP:NPOL. Leeds is only just bigger than a 700,000 population and the leader of a city council in the UK has much less power than similar roles in other countries. The UK has relatively weak local government powers. We don't generally consider council leaders notable in UK politics AfDs. Bondegezou (talk) 20:21, 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. Tone 16:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Cebu[edit]

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

Hoax. See this discussion for more information. hueman1 (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a bit confused. Seems it's in a relation with Metro Cebu, but is that the same thing? I have found [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG may tell us more as an AfC reviewer who accepted it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as the article says ". Mega Cebu is used in general references to the relationship of Cebu City and Metro Cebu to the surrounding provinces and Metropolitan Areas in the Visayas." DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/TNT Here is the one the article references as a very broad development coordination strategy for all of Cebu province as well as Visayas Region, which is somewhat inconsistent with the links discussing it as an organization promoting coordination across cities just within Metro Cebu. I suppose if the HB11 mentioned passes in the Philippine Congress an article on Mega Cebu Development Authority would be notable, but certainly not anything in this one that merely claims "Mega Cebu" is its own geographic entity listing cities and transportation across the area redundant to my first three links. Reywas92^Talk 19:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nobody except perhaps Cebu Pacific Airlines that is boosting Cebu City as a megalopolis. There seems to be a consensus in the relevant WikiProject that it does not exist. It's just a city, not a megalopolis as normally defined. That being said, I'm interested in the city, hope to make it there on my bucket list, and created two articles about its culture (Carbon Market and Sambong). Bearian (talk) 02:55, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ShopX[edit]

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

Just another run-of-the-mill start up. Securing funding is no big deal these days. All the sources are routine business press mentions, most of them interviews. Article ostensibly written by an undeclared paid editor. Even if one argues that with the sources it scrapes through GNG, it's still advertising. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Majavah ^(t/c) 14:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO article for non notable firm that fails WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Maryland College of Computer, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences. Sandstein 11:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science[edit]

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

University departments do not qualify for stand-alone pages. Delete, without prejudice to blanking, merging the content to University of Maryland, College Park and leaving a redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge. Merge to University of Maryland, College Park. A department of a university is not notable enough to merit a stand alone page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to University of Maryland, College Park where any content on this department should be. Alexbrn (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many articles on university departments (54 by my count in the US alone), see Category:University departments by country. InverseHypercube (talk)
The relevant guidance is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field". Has this department made such a contribution? Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it has, see for example the review by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research which notes its research especially in data assimilation, air chemistry, and earth system science and that "[f]aculty scholarship is impressive" and that it is "amongst the few institutions in the very top tier in the U.S."; the Simple Ocean Data Assimilation; or the other developments in data assimilation, such as the local ensemble transform Kalman filter developed there, which is widely used in operational weather forecasting. InverseHypercube (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not convincing. If the department was really exceptional there would be well-published secondary sources saying so. This looks just like (no doubt admirable) run-of-the-mill activity. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it clearly demonstrates "significant contributions to their field". I would challenge you to find statements according to your standard for any other departments of atmospheric sciences, except maybe MIT and UCLA, since they had an early role in the development of this field. By that standard those would be among the only notable departments (which is fine, but not consistent with other existing pages for departments, such as McGill Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, or the many other department pages). InverseHypercube (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What we need in this case is some source showing the exceptional contribution of this dept. I'm not seeing one. Alexbrn (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom/alexbrn. There are indeed articles on individual schools/departments, but we need considerable sources about it to justify separating it from the main university page. I'm not seeing that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to University of Maryland College of Computer, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences. It's a bit much to have articles for every college at a university but ridiculous to do so for the 100+ individual departments. Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Thomas (author)[edit]

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

This page has an inordinate number of footnotes, but they are almost all vague (the name of a regional newspaper with the year of publication) and they appear to be nothing more than minor mentions. Aside from these, there is mention of a couple of minor written works which appear to be self-published or (in the case of the Doctor Who story) part of a self-published anthology; an award (the Peter Kemeny Achievement Award) which only seems to be mentioned in mirrors of this site; and his unsuccessful attempt to run for mayor in South Perth. In addition, the page was created and has mainly been edited by an editor with few other edits and a string of deleted WP pages, which makes me wonder if there's a COI going on here. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was on my watchlist so I'd assumed he'd be notable, but wow, there's really not much there. So many of the references are to suburban Perth weekly papers, and some of the framing is a bit hopeful ("he's received acting awards! we won't mention they're in Mandurah". The most notable thing here is that the Kalgoorlie Miner liked his short story. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recognition is generally limited to his local area, almost all sources are suburban or community newspapers. WWGB (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Doing a ProQuest database search on Australian and New Zealand newspaper articles (considerably more thorough than a google online search) I could only find 1 article mentioning Thomas, and although it was in The Weekend Australian (a national broadsheet) it was not substantial coverage and barely more than name listing ("Australian actor Chris Thomas, however, was well-versed, launching an aggressive campaign for an audition. Thomas claimed he was capable of "the enigmatic, eccentric approach"").

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Omnifest[edit]

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

I recently PRODed this because it has had only a couple of primary sources since 2006 and nothing that looks like demonstrating notability.it was deprodded by another editor but two months on the sourcing hasn’t improved and the same problems are there. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly. I have a soft spot for these services, but the only thing resembling significant coverage I can find is this in the Journal Times. Not enough. Would happily change my !vote if people find more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:37, 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 redirect to C.D. Guadalajara. Redirected to main without deletion, since it's a straight copy as far as we know. Content available in the history for comparison and copyover if anyone wants to do that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of C.D. Guadalajara[edit]

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

In 2010 an editor was working to attain featured article status for C.D. Guadalajara. They decided the history section was too long so they copied it out into this article, intending to trim it in the other article. For some reason the work on C.D. Guadalajara doesn’t seem to have taken place, so for nine years this article has survived as a straight copy of the history section of the other. I put it up for PROD yesterday but a good faith editor has deprodded it and suggested merger back into C.D. Guadalajara. It can’t be merged back as it is a copy of it, so I’m bringing it to AfD. Mccapra (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I swear I'm not being stupid intentionally, but the proper, technical result here is to merge this article back into the other article, resulting in its deletion. The fact there's nothing to merge (I haven't compared but I'm assuming) makes this a bit strange, but if someone were to come improve the article in the next week I would stick to the merge vote unless something substantial occurred. SportingFlyer T·C 12:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to parent article. Giant Snowman 14:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - this kind of stuff doesn't have to come to AFD, as the topic of the history of this famous team, surely unquestionably meets notability standards. Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apologies if I've brought this to the wrong place. Perhaps I don't properly understand what 'merge' means as I don't understand how you can merge articles when one is a copy of the other. Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: No worries, it's pretty technical/pedantic/bureaucratic at this point since the result isn't necessarily obvious. In my mind, delete means to get rid of the article completely, whereas here we just have a failed fork - there's nothing wrong with the notability or the content, it's just unnecessarily duplicated. A merge and redirect will end up just being a redirect, but my (again relatively pedantic) reading of merge means whoever closes this will have to confirm the content on both pages is equivalent before this gets redirected, and merge any differences that are on the History page but not the main article, whereas someone deleting the page would just nuke it into wiki-oblivion. SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A key point, is changing an article to a redirect can be done boldly by any editor. Though I suppose we might end up here if there are those who object to that, and this does make it more official. Nfitz (talk) 14:27, 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 keep. Seems like late in the discussion compelling WP:GEOLAND-based arguments for keeping came in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alchesay Flat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND, no sources describing this natural feature beyond being a name on a map. Reywas92^Talk 04:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm almost certainly a delete, but there are at least a couple sources out there describing it as the place where Chief Alchesay is buried. This falls under WP:GEOLAND #2 so we have to meet GNG. Will look a little more tomorrow. SportingFlyer T·C 12:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be named after him (although not listed in the article, but isn't Chief William Alchesay buried at Whiteriver, Arizona, about 5 miles south (see here)? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See [10], find a grave isn't necessarily reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP is also a gazetteer, and this would fall under that aspect. It's included in The National gazetteer of the United States of America, Flyfisher's Guide to Arizona, Annual Report on the Archeological Programs of the Western Region, National Park Service (1977), as well as many atlases. It's also discussed in local newspaper articles, such as in the Arizona Republic in September 1987 and July 2003.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you going to provide what these newspapers "discuss" for us or not? WP:5P says WP "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" not that it is a gazetteer and needs separate, completely content-free articles for every one of the millions of named places in this country/planet regardless of notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"not that it is a gazetteer", although WP:NGEO states "Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer (my emphasis);". Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:GEOLAND bullet 4, a feature must have "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article" and otherwise can be "included in a more general article". I have gone ahead and updated Navajo County with an entry for this location. MB 17:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:GEOLAND. Nothing to redirect it to as no other article seems to mention it (and redirecting to a region with an article that doesn't mention it is just confusing). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

have added it to Fort Apache Indian Reservation#Communities (or if editors prefer, we can have a "Localities" subsection?) as the article doesnt have many links pointing to it. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to Navajo County#Other places specifically as a target for a redirect; there certainly is a place to redirect it to (wasn't that clear above?) I added a couple of sentences there, more that just the name in a list as Coolabahapple did in Fort Apache Indian Reservation#Communities which could also work. MB 06:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, do these help?: - the United States Geological Survey has a named map - "USGS 1:24,000: Alchesay Flat, Arizona", here is a survey that describes the area - "Archaeological Survey of Two Housing Parcels Near Whiteriver and Alchesay Flat", this obit from the White Mountain Independent mentions that it is a settlement - "Chief Alchesay received Medal of Honor for his service in the Apache Wars" - "His granddaughter, Yvonna Redsteer, and her husband, Guy, live on the site of Chief Alchesay’s former home. She said, “All of us in Alchesay Flats are from him..."", this obit states it is a settlement - "..the family residence, 9651 N. Chief Ave, Alchesay Flats, Arizona.". Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com gives only five articles, including an obituary and comments on a fire which caused people in the Alchesay Flat area to evacuate. The Tucson Citizen lists it as a "community unsafe for occupation" in this fire story. [11] SportingFlyer T·C 06:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a populated place that exists. BD2412 T 04:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep, as per WP:NGEO, which states “named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable”, and the references mentioned in this discussion which unambigiously provide “verifiable information beyond simple statistics” Samboy (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Beck[edit]

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

Résumé-toned BLP of an actor and public relations agent, completely unreferenced for the purposes of establishing his notability in either occupation. As always, actors are not automatically handed a free exemption from actually having to have any sources just because the article says that acting roles have been had -- the notability test for an actor is the degree to which the article can or cannot be referenced to reliable source media coverage about him and his performances. But this has literally been flagged for referencing since 2008 without ever having even one proper reference actually added. And further, there's another Andrew Beck with a disambiguated title, even though he has a significantly stronger notability claim — so even if the actor's article were somehow salvageable, there's no credible reason why he would get to hold WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights over the football player. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and likely a WP:NOTLINKEDIN situation. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:20, 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 delete. ST47 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horn light[edit]

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

This article is nothing more than a dictionary entry of a term that I'm not sure if it even exists. There are no sources, and a GNG template has been in place for more than 2 years with no progress. If "Horn light" is an actual term, then it should be redirected to fire alarm notification appliance. I do not see any significant information that would prompt a merge. William2001^(talk) 03:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some web pages use terms such as "sound and light fire alarm" or "fire alarm horn strobe", so the concept exists. It doesn't seem to be notable independent of Fire alarm system, though. Nor is it obviously "the term used... to describe the annunciators", as the page currently asserts. No objections to merging to Fire alarm system, but the content scarcely seems worth the trouble. Cnilep (talk) 03:48, 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 keep. ST47 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Religio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nova Religio

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

Unreferenced, no reliable independent primary or secondary sources, original research, non-notability, WP:NOPAGE : current article does not meet requirements for dedicated standalone page. There are two links in the indexing section, one is a link to the publisher and the other seems to be a database of journals, and both links could not be accessed. Indexing databases like Worldcat contains indexing of many non-notable books, therefore indexing databases for books or journals are not indicator of notability. Riley0O0O0O (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Total failure of WP:BEFORE. Journal is not only in ATLA, but also in the highly selective AHCI and Scopus. Very clear meet of WP:NJournals. Nom should familiarize themselves with acceptable content for journal articles (see WP:JWG before going on another spree of deleting content and nominating articles for AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for fixing this Page. Please no personal attack. This is my first AfD. I am still skeptical about indexing databases. Indexing databases like worldcat don't prove notability for books I have learned. The Scopus database you mention covers nearly 36,377 titles [...] of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals" This is a very large number. Are you saying that there are at least 34,346 journals that should have wikipedia articles? You said in another discussion: "Scopus is a bit less restricitve" but here you changed your mind and call it "highly" selective. You also said, "Given the latter's relatively lax criteria (and coverage of absolutely every academic field, be it science or humanities), it never has been easier for a journal to meet our inclusion criteria." You also said that one option is to "Apply GNG rigorously and only include articles on journals that are covered in depth by multiple independent reliable sources." In the current article, there are no reliable sources showing it is covered in depth by multiple independent reliable sources, and no indicator of high impact factor. --Riley0O0O0O (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Worldcat is not selective. Scopus is, and it indexes about 22,000 journals not 35,000. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riley0O0O0O

What personal attack? pointing out that someone made a mistake or apparently is not familiar with some of our guidelines or procedures is not a personal attack. As fo Scopus, yes, I am from time to time a bit sceptical about it, but consensus up till now is that inclusion in it indicates notability. And even if you completely ignore Scopus, this journal is in the highly selective Arts and Humanities Citation Index. --Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable and fully inline with the expectations of our journal writing guide (i.e. clearly not a case of WP:NOPAGE), the journal indexed in Scopus and ranks in the first quartile (60th out of 465) in terms of impact. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The current article has no in-depth coverage. If the information on terms of impact is correct, please put it into the article. Whether being indexed in SCOPUS and other indices proves notability is controversial, see the debates in the talkpage archives of WP:NJOURNALS. --Riley0O0O0O (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I know you were going to make those exact comments. ~~I had my suspicions, but now I am all but certain. SPI investigation requested.~~ Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, being indexed in selective indices is a pretty uncontroversial pass, where academic journal AfD's are concerned; see the archives of the deletion-sorting page to gauge how the community has settled on this. WP:NOTCATALOG/WP:NOTDIRECTORY is irrelevant to the present matter, since this page is not merely a product listing or an indiscriminate list of a publisher's offerings. XOR'easter (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indexed in selective indices, which count as secondary sources. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia defines seondardy sources as: WP:SECONDARY It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. A simple catalogue or indexing database offers no in-depth analysis or evaluation. The current article has no in-depth coverage, and apart from the links to indexing databases, no independent references. --Riley0O0O0O (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that's where you are wrong. Scopus and JCR offers plenty of analysis and evalution. That's what the SCImago Journal Rank and impact factor are (although it's certainly not the only analysis they offer). As for the 'in depth' coverage, the article currently contains the basic information about the journal (peer review journal of religious studies), the current EIC, who publishes it, when it was established, and a history of its frequency of publication. As well as its ISO abbreviation, ISSN and other identifiers, as well as indexing information. That forms an informative, if basic, article about the subject. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:40, 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 closed, the article has been moved to Draft:Ryan Kolar. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Kolar[edit]

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

Non-notable, previously deleted, and under-sourced with no articles directly on the topic, this article is written by either the subject or someone far too close to the subject (the reasons for playing traveling sport especially.) A before search brought up little, he's been quoted in a couple articles on houses but that's about it. Fails WP:GNG and probably WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 02:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the page's creator moved the page to draftspace after I launched the AfD. Not entirely sure what to do here - I don't care if it's a draft, but based on my fairly extensive WP:BEFORE search I don't think this person could survive an AfD in mainspace at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 03:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly fails WP:GNG or needs far more reliable sources if it is ever to leave draftspace. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Draft Apparently the article creator realized the article was not ready for main space and so moved the article to draft. Draft is where the article belongs until the article is ready. The project is not harmed and the editor is encouraged. If no improvements are made it is deleted. There are no deadlines as long as you are actively improving the submission. Drafts not being improved may be deleted after six months. Lightburst (talk) 15:13, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Sobol[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for either occupation. As always, neither writers nor musicians are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test requires evidence of distinctions, such as winning or being nominated for major creative awards, and/or the provision of enough reliable source coverage about them in media to clear WP:GNG. But the only sources here are his "staff" profile on the self-published website of a directly affiliated organization and his self-written profile of himself on a public relations platform. These are not reliable or independent or notability-supporting sources, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have real third party coverage about him in real media. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find coverage in independent reliable sources. Non-notable.ABF992 (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per rationale given by @Bearcat: , Furthermore Article creator claims subject of article is a musician and poet but he fails WP:MUSICIAN & WP:CREATIVE. Celestina007 (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete per above. Also note the article creator has created 11 people related articles on November 14, 2019 over a matter of just five hours. The pattern may suggest further concerns. Special:Contributions/Chuang726 Graywalls (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that they seem to be focused entirely on creating articles about poets associated with a specific organization based in a specific city; further, they've also already had several articles deleted before this. I didn't have time to comprehensively check all of their new articles for whether they were properly referenced as clearing our inclusion standards for writers or not, but I strongly suspect that some or most of them are also AFD candidates. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective referencing. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 18:50, 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 keep. ST47 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Markdale Standard[edit]

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

Article about a smalltown community newspaper, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:NMEDIA. As always, every media outlet is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because it existed -- it still has to show some evidence of reliable source coverage about it in sources other than itself. But the only references here are a local history book self-published by the local historical society, being cited only to support the fact that one of its owners in the 1920s also owned another paper (thus not verifiable as having any substantive content about this paper), and a primary source directory of copies of the paper in a digital archive (which is not a notability-supporting source at all). And further, the creator's username suggests a direct affiliation with the digital archive project, making this most likely a conflict of interest attempt to increase their own employer's web traffic by indirectly advertising its own content. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a smalltown newspaper notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I would first say that this is a non-profit digital archive. I am not "employed", this is volunteer work. There is no profit in me directing traffic to a website for a non-profit website. Also, my name means "book archive" in Latin. The citation regarding the ownership is applicable to the information contained in the entire paragraph, not the sentence in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberArchivum (talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you're paid or a volunteer — if you're associated with the archive at all, then you're directly affiliated with it and still have a conflict of interest. The meaning of your username (which I'm not stupid enough that I didn't already know) doesn't change anything. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are established conflict of interest guidelines for GLAM workers if the edits are made in good faith. Yes, some of the references can be questioned, but I don't see any edits that suggest bad faith. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems you’re conflating my name with some kind of intent. People sometimes choose names similar to their interests. I’ll go ahead and change the external link as well then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.88.244 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LiberArchivum: Hi there. I'll leave a message for you about conflict of interest shortly. For the purpose of this discussion, what's most important is that there exist reliable sources about this subject sufficient to satisfy our notability guidelines. Books, journals, magazines, other newspapers, etc. which talk about this publication beyond just saying that it exists or citing it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am attempting. Added one book to document location of paper, and another source which cites two rather bloggy looking articles. Will require some more work and perhaps layout. Lightburst (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is sometimes old. Lots of old sources here. The paper has a long record in various Canadian Parliament records that refer to stories published in the Standard, reportage about the paper and its people in Printer & Publisher, the University of Toronto Varsity, in Gale Directory, etc. -- GreenC 16:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are the three best sources with significant coverage of The Markdale Standard in that search? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having been referred to in parliamentary records is not a notability claim for a newspaper. It has to be the subject of coverage about it in published media, not merely namechecked in Hansard. Directory entries also aren't support for notability, and neither are university student newspapers. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is we know this paper is notable - 132 years of publication is a notable achievement. I have been updating the article with refs. It is lean, however I am likely inclined to agree with GreenC. I am still actively looking and improving the article. In my opinion it can go either way, and you know how I feel about WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are your three best sources? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Each editor will decide if this meets GNG based on policy. However it is interesting that I often come across editors claiming three references are needed when WP:N has no such requirement. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the number of years that a newspaper was in operation has nothing to do with our notability standards for newspapers at all. A newspaper can be around for 100 years and yet have gotten less notability-supporting reliable source coverage in that entire time than a brand-new web startup — but the notability test is the volume of coverage that the publication does or doesn't have, not the length of operation per se. And yes, basic notability most certainly does require multiple pieces of substantive coverage in reliable sources — so when somebody asks you to identify the three best sources, what they're asking you to do is highlight which sources you think are actually contributing to getting the topic over the notability hump so that we can discuss whether they're actually doing that or not. So no, you don't get to ignore them just because the notability standards don't specifically state that the cutoff is quantified as three — a topic can be notable with less than three footnotes, if it has an "automatic must-include" notability claim like holding an inherently notable political office, and a topic can be not notable with more than three footnotes, if its footnotes fail any of the reliability and depth and geographic range and context tests. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct notability is not a precise set of hard rules where we say 150 years is notable but 130 is not. However, the essence of notability is something stands out from its peers. GNG is very flexible, it might be a single sentence in a single source - so long as the fact is significant enough to make it notable. A local paper that outlasted all of its peers (over 16), and was the oldest continuously published paper in the county by a large margin is notable. -- GreenC 20:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I posted this to the ARS because a newspaper published continuously for 130 years has a very good chance of being notable, but a lot of the sources are likely offline. Lightburst has put in some good effort in trying to find sources/improve the article. At this stage I think we're squarely in "not delete" territory because I think there's enough to justify merging into the main Markdale town page. As for whether it should be kept as a stand-alone article, it's hard to say. Sources indeed aren't great. It would be good to get in touch with a local librarian. Going to throw a hail mary here and ping Dnllnd on the off-chance they may have a connection in nearby-ish Markdale/Grey County? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rhododendrites! Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this publication, etc. I have, though, added a ref from the Globe via a subscription at my POW. I'll check some of the other databases. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I find that the Markdale Standard is notable. I will say a preponderance of the evidence exists. If the editors decide that GNG for the paper is not met, I think it serves our readers to WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. That can be accomplished with a merge to Markdale Ontario. My first choice is to Keep the article. Lightburst (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I contacted them and got this message: OurDigitalWorld We are a not for profit organization working with GLAMs around digital cultural stewardship. Community newspapers are an incredible documentary source for community history. With regard to The Markdale Standard - it contains articles about and by Agnes Macphail - the first female Member of Parliament. This situation will make a good example for our upcoming panel presentation on GLAMming in the Wikiworld (Ontario Library Association conference in January 2020). Can you send an email to [email protected] for follow-up? So the first female member of Parliament did write articles for them, and many scholars consider community newspapers "an incredible documentary source for community history". Dream Focus 23:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important community institution. References have been improved. That this edifice antedates the internet is no reason to delete it.

WP:Hey. No compliance with WP:Before (taking into account prospectively what the article could become, not what it was when the motion was made), which should have uncovered the sources NOW in the article. Q.E.D. WP:GNG and WP:Notability are established.7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to everyone who had positive suggestions and actions in regards to the article. There's much here I can use to work toward better pages in the future. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberArchivum (talk • contribs)

Hi, please sign your posts by adding 4 tilde marks at the end like this: ~~~~, thanks. -- GreenC 14:46, 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. ST47 (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aquawoman[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to DC Comics Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The name has been briefly used by several characters, but none of those usages were particularly notable - they were either not the primary name associated with the character (in the case of people like Mera), or just alternate universe versions of Aquaman (who are already covered on Aquaman's article). The only real exception is the "Earth 2" version, that is the primary version this article is about, but even then, there really aren't reliable, secondary sources discussing her. It could potentially be used as a Redirect to Earth-Two#Earth_2_in_The_New_52, the comic which this character is associated with, but I am fine with flat out deletion, as the character has very limited notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the gneral notability guidelines with no third party sourcing at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to delete, but a very selective merge to List of DC Comics characters: A wouldn't be a terrible result. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm opposed to Lightburst's suggestion, but a redirect to Aquaman or Earth-Two would be fine, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:57, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appellaxian[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find a few passing mentions of the Appellaxians in three CBR.com articles. There appear to be no other independent sources that discuss them. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. This clearly disproves the claim of some Tolkienist inclusionist extremists that we only target Tolkien characters and not DC/Marvel stuff.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tobiloba[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 00:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him in being discussed in reliable secondary sources. None of his albums or singles have been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although mentioned in passing he is not discussed with in-depth. He Fails WP:ANYBIO.Celestina007 (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Draft:List of Welsh names. Tone 16:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh names[edit]

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

The page is incomplete and is not being updated. A talk query from April asking about the incompleteness has not been answered since April. Only girl names starting with A have been included. Category lists of Welsh names already exist so the page is unnecessary. Sirfurboy (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has these categories: [12] and [13]. I recognise an editor has spent some time gathering sources for the names on this page, and would suggest moving to the editor's sandbox for completion as an alternative to deletion. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; compare List of Scottish Gaelic given names. Reliable sources do exist, and AfD is not cleanup. (Actually, should be moved to List of Welsh given names.) b uidhe 21:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. The page is in poor shape, but that can be fixed through normal editing. There is no deadline, and AfD is not for clean-up Cnilep (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being incomplete is not a valid reason to delete, nor is the fact that a category already exist, they have specific rules saying that. Dream Focus 19:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-defined inclusion criteria, and unusually well sourced for this type of list. However, move to List of Welsh given names, lest people expect to find Aberdaugleddau on here... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity. While I have no issue with the topic, the list as it stands is incomplete as we only have covered the letter A in an alphabetic list. We should uphold a high standard on Wikipedia and defer it until the creator makes enough progress it to be suitable for a list article. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'So.... we just update it? Macy Sinrich (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Too fragmentary for mainspace at the moment. Like an article about a US president that only covers his life up to age 12. Sandstein 11:27, 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.