Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 November	25 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 05:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Amir Aldaraji[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:NFOOTY HawkAussie (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't seem to find anything to meet the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable footballer that does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL nor any sourcing suggest it passes WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't quite meet WP:NFOOTY, but is close. This player seems to be on a trajectory that could see them become notable, but they aren't there yet. Plenty of time to write an article about them when/if they become notable. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 05:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

While many of Tolkien's creatures are notable, his vampires are not. Fictional topic with very little in-universe and real world significance. Hog Farm (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete super minor element of a fictional world, fails GNG/NFICTION, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werewolf (Middle-earth) did.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vampires do not have a prominent part in Tolkien's legendarium or the scholarly literature that surrounds it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:45, 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 per nom. The Scouring of the Wikipedia continues ... Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is better suited for a fan Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 03:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article merges intense text analysis of the Hobbit, with mentions of something that has no central part to the minor work, the Simirilian. Until the LoTR TV show includes vampires, this will not be an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears that Lord of the Rings (TV series) is a real planned thing. Although I have yet to see any indication of an initial release date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Faolin42 (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Walt Disney anthology television series. Sandstein 07:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I-Man[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search didn't come up with any RS covering this film. The film has a one-sentence mention in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy here and a short listing in The Wonderful World of Disney Television: A Complete History here, both of which don't add up to in-depth coverage. Kbabej (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not notable. The article includes the names of living people. Lacks reliable and independent sources. Otr500 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Redirect to Walt Disney anthology television series, preserving history. I can verify this movie exists and there are some mentions in books: [1] [2] [3], and It is listed as #37 in a list of the “The Best TV Shows that were never” made, which is a significant non-trivial mention in an independent reliable source: [4]. Considering this movie is from the mid-1980s, and was broadcast on network television, these sources establish enough notability to not make this a hard delete. Also: Currently available on Youtube to watch Samboy (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~Redirect to Walt Disney anthology television series - Yes, the movie exist although not noted, the article is lack of references requires lots of work to make it more encyclopedic. Strongly suggest to be heavily edited with more independent sources. Or else, just delete it - Jay (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is from 2006, and the original author is not an active editor any more (this is one reason I think the bar for deletion should be higher is something has been on the Wikipedia that long without getting deleted) I support making it a draft again, but who should clean up the article? Better to just make it a redirect, preserving history. Samboy (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to redirect. -Jay (talk) 06:32, 2 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019-20 Kansas City Comets season[edit]

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

The article mainly fails WP:NSEASONS as the references are primary resources and not secondary resources. HawkAussie (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - I'm not sure how this fails NSEASONS - which doesn't speak about primary or secondary resources. The team plays not only in a top professional indoor soccer league, it appears to play in THE top professional league of this sport. At most, NSEASONS says redirect not delete. Nfitz (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 10:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:59, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Nikkhah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF, their claim to fame is being on the 'editorial board' of several predatory journals and publishers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you mean by 'predatory' journals, but the person is a Chief Highly Distinguished Professor, and that, establishes his notability for WP:PROF.--Biografer (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See predatory journal. "Chief Highly Distinguished Professor" (an unsourced claim) is a near meaningless title that is simply your random university puffery. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is by no means my university puffery, but the claim is verified. All three sources claim that he is "Chief Highly Distinguished Professor". I don't know why you call it "unsourced", but the sources are there, all 3 mention it.

All 3 sources which are predatory publishers, like OMICS Publishing Group which have a reputation for lying and making things up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did my best. Adding 8 additional sources which are also probably not reliable.:( The purpose for the creation was that he is "Chief Highly Distinguished Professor" and that his h-index is 27, according to Google Scholar. Can't go wrong with GS! :)--Biografer (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, most/all of those are predatory. And GS will index these, so an H-index of 27 obtained through self-citations via predatory journals (see all the SCRIP journals for examples) is also worth nothing, so yes you can go wrong with GS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis – https://beallslist.weebly.com/

"Akbar Nikkhah". Scholarena Journal of Biotechnology. ISSN 2375-6713. - ScholArena, predatory publisher N
"Editorial Team". Sciedu Press. eISSN 1927-2685. ISSN 1927-2677. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) – Sciedu Press, predatory publisher N
"Dr. Akbar Nikkhah, PhD". Journal of Agriculture and Forest Meteorology Research. SciTech Central. ISSN 2642-0449. – SciTech Central, predatory publisher N
"Journal of Animal and Poultry Sciences". Retrieved 24 November 2019. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) – Journal of Animal and Poultry Sciences, predatory journal N
"Editorial Board". Juniper Publishers. LCCN 2017200622. – Juniper Publishers, predatory publisher N
"Journal of Nutritional Health & Food Engineering". MedCrave. eISSN 2373-4310. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) – MedCrave, predatory publisher N
"Akbar Nikkhah". Maternal and Pediatric Nutrition. Longdom Publishing. – Longdom Publishing, predatory publisher N
"Biography". Retrieved 24 November 2019. – Sponsored by Engineering Information Institute/Engii, predatory conference (see also [5]) N
"Editorial Team". Ivy Union Publishing. Retrieved 24 November 2019. – Ivy Union Publishing, predatory publisher N
"Scientific and Organizing Committee". Athens Institute for Education and Research. Retrieved 24 November 2019. - Athens Institute for Education and Research, predatory publisher N
"Dr. Akbar Nikkhah_CABMB 2018 - Engii". Engineering Information Institute, predatory publisher (see also [6]) N

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't quickly find anything that looks like a reliable source (say, from the University of Zanjan) for a "Chief Highly Distinguished" title. Perhaps someone who speaks Farsi could do better. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sad thing is that I don't speak it, and those who do, are in Iran and their Wikipedia is blocked until the protests will quiet down a bit there. :(--Biografer (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little to be found except puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The claim that his university gives him a title of distinction has failed verification, editing a predatory journal does not pass WP:PROF#C8, and he doesn't have high enough citations for C1. So what else is there? And if we kept the article we would probably have to explain issues like the predatory nature of the journals (or maybe also this withdrawn paper depending on why it was withdrawn, if that information is available), not what the subject is likely to want. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that the withdrawn paper (well spotted) increases his notability. After all, that is a rare distinction, which should be included in the BIO, if kept. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

There are two of those btw, [7] and [8]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable source for the "highly distinguished" title(s) has emerged, and the large number of editorships for predatory journals is a warning sign. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. Google Scholar is often hard to use properly, but from https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Akbar-Nikkhah/65981167 (sorted by "highly influential citations") it's easy to see a pattern of self-citation. Nemo 14:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemo bis: Wasn't even aware of self-citations. I thought that academics rely on others to cite their work?--Biografer (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Self-citation isn't necessarily nefarious, but in publish or perish cultures (most of the world currently) scholars often pursue metrics above everything else and fake citation networks are a common tactic, see for instance doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384 and https://publicationethics.org/files/COPE_DD_A4_Citation_Manipulation_Jul19_SCREEN_AW2.pdf for more information. Nemo 16:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not have the necessary notability. and no reliable source for the "highly distinguished" title has emerged. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete clearly non-notable! Brayan ocaner (talk) 10:18, 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. Sandstein 07:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shama Public High School Abbottabad[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG. Non noted and nothing significant about it at all. - Jay (talk) 06:19, 2 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. BD2412 T 02:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nedić's serbia[edit]

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

The topic is already covered by Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say "Merge & Redirect", but the appropriately-capitalized version of the title already redirects to Government of National Salvation - another article that covers the topic. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as two articles cover this entity comprehensively, Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and Government of National Salvation. The idea that this was a state is a minority view, and this is effectively a POV fork. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- This is (as Peacemaker67 says) covered by two other articles Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and Government of National Salvation. However the former seems to have a gap covering the middle years of the war and focuses on the German army and its activities. I do wonder whether Serbia (German Protectorate) might be a better title, with the first article pruned of non-military aspects and its history from the point of view of the government somewhat expanded. Government of National Salvation ought mainly to be about the puppet government itself. I can thus see the scope for a third article, but do not think this is it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, is the main page (Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia) and the official reference to the entity.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. We don't "merge" WP:POVFORKs, and this one is arguably a copyvio as it was created contrary to WP:CWW. No such user (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Number 57 has shown that the subject passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadú Iaia Djaló[edit]

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

Unelected politician who received a small fraction of the popular vote. Never held office. Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. A loose necktie (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leader of the NDP, 4th in the 2009 election, 5th in the 2014 election (and his party won a seat - can't find a list, but are you sure it's not him?) He cannot possibly count as not being a "Major local political figure". It's a bit like Jill Stein, who is also unelected , not having an article, although his party has actually won a national seat. Greenman (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
http://web.archive.org/web/20140719063922/http://www.gbissau.com/?page_id=11253 has a list (also https://github.com/everypolitician-scrapers/guinea-bissau-national-peoples-assembly/blob/master/gbissau-members.html); not sure if it's members as of that date or when elected but doesn't mention him. Peter James (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Withdrawn): While this person does lead a political party, the party is a minor one, having only gained 1 seat in a 102 seat assembly. Further, it wasn't him who held that seat, thus failing WP:NPOL. While I can find mention of him, there's no significant coverage; just listings of him. This fails WP:SIGCOV. the Jill Stein case is not comparable. As shown here, there is a very significant coverage of her. We need reliable, secondary sources that discuss the subject in detail, per WP:SIGCOV. We're not seeing that here. If such sources are found, I'm willing to reconsider but right now I'm not seeing it. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given Number 57's links below, withdrawing my delete above. Thanks Number 57! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep He was Minister of Commerce and Industry in the most recent government ([9]) and previously served as Minister of Justice ([10]) so clearly passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. Also several stories about him that would help pass GNG ([11][12]) Pinging Hammersoft for reconsideration. Number 5 7 13:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft. No consensus to delete, but not enough consensus to keep for me to choose keep, so onto the draftspace. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 02:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Clapham (actor)[edit]

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

Minor actor, recurring character in one soap but I can't find any significant sources other than namechecks, usually in the context of his former partner Jess Impiazzi. Guy (help!) 13:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was in the main cast listed four or five for about 395 episodes of Hollyoaks but doesn't seem to have done much else of note, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He played a significant role for a good length of time on a very notable show. At the very least he could be redirected to his character Freddie Roscoe but that does not require deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep agree he had a prominent role on one of the most popular UK soaps for a long time so there should be coverage offline if not online. If I can find more rs coverage will move to a full keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft because I don't see it meet WP:NACTOR enough to have an article yet, but maybe in near future. The article has only two sources and both are of same website. So, I will suggest to move it to draft for now until it meets criteria. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 09:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft per the correct rationale for this step by Captain Assassin. BD2412 T 01:53, 2 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 Gaelic Athletic Association. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galway Intermediate Football Championship[edit]

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

No indication of notability; much of the content is unsourced, and the only secondary sources are routine sports coverage of individual games, something that explicitly isn't considered "significant" for the purposes of WP:GNG. Google Books gave zero results, Google News nothing better than what's there already. For the same reasons I'm also nominating the articles on individual years, 2019 Galway Intermediate Football Championship and 2018 Galway Intermediate Football Championship. Huon (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though this is in the "football" section it's actually Gaelic. A quick WP:BEFORE search shows the league is covered by a number of local and national media, such as [13] [14]. The league clearly gets covered and I think WP:GNG is satsified. SportingFlyer T·C 01:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the routine sports coverage that explicitly does not establish notability. See Wikipedia:Notability#Events. Huon (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to leagues, I very much disagree - the fact a league gets continuous coverage in national and regional press clearly demonstrates the league is "of note," even if the coverage is just game coverage. Compare this to say a player whose name only gets mentioned in said coverage. I'm not sure what type of coverage you're specifically looking for here. SportingFlyer T·C 02:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Routine sports coverage explicitly does not establish notability', however Wikipedia:Notability#Notable_topics_have_attracted_attention_over_a_sufficiently_significant_period_of_time has mentioned that "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability". I would argue the point that as the coverage of this topic has been sustained for over 10 years through sources referenced that this would indicate the article satifies WP:GNG Keithopatches 12:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails GNG. There isn't an SNG apparently that guides us. Local press coverage of individual games doesn't strike me as the equivalent of GNG coverage of the competition itself, as a competition. Looking at the sources, I can't help but think that local media provides similar coverage of my local Little League games, and there's no way my local Little League is notable. I think it's routine local coverage, and therefore doesn't lend itself to establishing notability. – Levivich 05:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggested below is probably a good idea as it's a usable search term. – Levivich 21:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non notable, and fails WP:GNG. Strong delete or redirect to Gaelic Athletic Association - Jay (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Gaelic Athletic Association Lightburst (talk) 21:23, 3 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 Manitoba Escarpment#Asessippi Ski Area as the article has already been merged. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asessippi Ski Area[edit]

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

Business does exist, but is not notable. Searching for it turns up very little (mainly reviews), it has also not received much coverage, breaching Wikipedia:Notability. Dellwood546 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was apparently formatted incorrectly and has received zero input and no deletion sorting efforts; relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge into Asessippi Provincial Park. Can't find in-depth discussions of this ski area, but I feel ski areas are close to falling under WP:NGEO. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge [was "Keep"] Assertion of largest in a huge province of Canada establishes importance. wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION (to which i contributred). And i agree about NGEO. And reviews and good quality tourist guide coverage is fine, reliable. —-Doncram (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge option, as argued by Silktork below and mostly implemented already by BritishFinance, is okay by me. This keeps the article history intact at the redirect so if further information/sources emerge, the article can be restored. Interesting to see the merged material appears to be the entirety of the AFD-nominated article. I don't really see how this is much of an advance for human knowledge, but whatever. --Doncram (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge. WP:NGEO says both commercial developments and named nature natural features still require sig coverage. I don't see how this merits an article under any interpretation of NGEO. Newspaper searching finds mostly advertisements. I don't think Asessippi Provincial Park is a good merge candidate as this is a commercial venture located near but outside the public parks. Suggest merging into Inglis, Manitoba which like the park, is only nearby (although the mailing address is Inglis]] or probably better, Rural Municipality of Riding Mountain West, the administrative jurisdiction where the ski resort is located. MB 05:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a business/resort, not a geographical feature, and it fails WP:NCORP pretty comprehensively. SportingFlyer T·C 10:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable resort, secondly the article is a stubby. If anyone want to expand it, put it in draft. For now, it is best to be removed - Jay (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asessippi Provincial Park or Manitoba Escarpment, as below; not picky. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asessippi Provincial Park; probably leaving the history for merging anything relevant. This is a very stubby article on a business of suspect notability, in the context of a notable geographical area that itself has a rather stubby article. This is likely best dealt with by a sentence in the park's article. ~ mazca ^talk 18:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Manitoba Escarpment as that is where it is. I was going to close this, but found I could not as I didn't agree with the logical outcome. The arguments for merging to the nearest appropriate article are the most plausible and have consensus. And the consensus for the target of the merge is Asessippi Provincial Park; but, as the ski slope is not in that park but is in Manitoba Escarpment that would not be an appropriate close. And nobody can close as merge to Manitoba Escarpment as that has not been proposed, so it would be a supervote. I am putting down "merge to Manitoba Escarpment" as this allows another admin the option of closing that way if they reach the same conclusion as me. SilkTork (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Manitoba Escarpment per SilkTork. Given there is little consensus to Keep this article, I have BOLDLY merged it into Manitoba Escarpment (the geographic area that it is in; it is technically not in the actual Asessippi Provincial Park); all that remains is to Redirect this article to Manitoba Escarpment#Asessippi Ski Area. Hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Manitoba Escarpment Lightburst (talk) 21:24, 3 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. Sandstein 08:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Zeitels[edit]

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

Not notable, per WP:1E. A bright young doctor, and immediate press coverage of her sad death in an avalanche, but no lasting significance. Perhaps she and Victor Fedorov (doctor) could redirect to an article on the avalanche, or a list entry at the bottom of List of avalanches by death toll, or a section on it within the Lake Louise, Alberta article or similar, but the article writes of her as a medic (cause of death not mentioned in lead) and in terms of her career it was WP:TOO SOON which sadly here means never. PamD 08:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was this not deleted recently, doctor on pathways program, Massachusetts, non-notable, 6-9 months ago maybe. scope_creep^Talk 12:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF based on citations of her work. 4 publications are cited over 100 times according to Google Scholar. TJMSmith (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It a pretty resume that sadly wasn't finished for her but what's the deal with listing awards from high school and undergrad? None of this contributes to notability... NPROF says "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." her co-authorships don't appear to pass the bar alone. Reywas92^Talk 20:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect per nomination. Comment that her highly cited papers have an especially large number of authors, also that we've deleted medical doctors with generally comparable citation records. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic has been covered in various leading publications including BBC, New Jersey Hills Media Group, WKXW, WFXT, CBC News, The Philadelphia Inquirer and clearly meets the Wikipedia:Notability (doctors), WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV Siddhesh.gaikwad (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did well research before creating article about an American physician, who co-founded the pathways program which encourages medical residents to use scientific methodology to investigate, diagnose, and cure unexplained illiness, for which she was admired so much and regarded as "young rising star" by Massachusetts General Hospital. A detailed article about the pathways programe and how well it has been received so far can be found here(1 2).

She had specialized in tumor suppression and molecular biology. Her research on cancer has been mentioned in government and universities' websites such as 1 2 3 4 5

She co-wrote a number of books, some of which include Association of the vitamin D metabolism gene CYP27B1 with type 1 diabetes, Tumor suppression by miR-26 overrides potential oncogenic activity in intestinal tumorigenesis Precise let-7 expression levels balance organ regeneration against tumor suppression, An essential mesenchymal function for miR-143/145 in intestinal epithelial regeneration

She was one of 40 students across the country to win the Gates Cambridge Scholarship. Being a medical student myself, I know how important & difficult it is to earn their scholarship. I hope these information would help.

I think the topic is suitable for Wikipedia and meets the Wikipedia:Notability (doctors), WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddhesh.gaikwad (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above editor created the article. PamD 13:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I grieve that this promising young research physician died, but Wikipedia is not here to memorialize people who do not otherwise meet the notability requirements. We do not have articles on people just because they die in avalanches. Requirements for scientists are not met by student or early career awards or by being one of many authors on papers done while a student. Coverage of the combination of the two does not give notability. As a resident physician she was still in training. It is likely she would have made significant contributions to her field had she lived and it is sad that she did not live to do so. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with above comments. I acknowledged her contributions but her work is not only short-lived and not too significant. I am sorry she died young but Wikipedia is not an obituary - Jay (talk) 06:29, 2 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephon Dupree Warren[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Andrew Base (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They aren't any independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. Interstellarity (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to meet WP:GNG as I can find no reliable, independent secondary sources. Created by a probable undeclared CoI editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The three references appear to be the sum of his coverage, and they appear to be veiled promotional press releases (one isn't even veiled). The article claims plausible ties to one notable musician, but that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. At best, this one is WP:TOOSOON. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search online reveals zero reliable sources. I also note that we most often delete articles about managers and producers, who are after all, extremely common. Bearian (talk) 14:21, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Zucker[edit]

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

Not notable actor. Just small roles. WP:NOTINHERITED also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was the father of notable filmmakers and is credited with roles like "featured extra" on some of their films. There are some nice, somewhat interesting stories of his sons' inclusion of him in their movies, but these would be more at home in the David and Jerry Zucker articles. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arabinform[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:WEB. Deleted in Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedia (1, 2). Mitte27 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cross wiki spam: Deleted in bg.wikipedia, de.wikipedia, fr.wikipedia, es.wikipedia, pl.wikipedia, nl.wikipedia, la.wikipedia, zh.wikipedia, tr.wikipedia, ja.wikipedia --Mitte27 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources other than Wikipedia mirror sites which would establish any notability. I'm not ruling out the existence of Russian-language sources which would be harder for me to find, but nothing has been provided in the article since it was created in 2009. I also note that this page has been speedily deleted (A7) twice before; it was tagged again not long after its creation but the tag was removed the same day by a registered user with no other edits (looks like a sock. The A7 might still apply now, though I think it'd be worth letting the article go through AfD since its been unnoticed for 10 years and get a consensus to delete. WJ94 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The archived conference Официальный медиа-партнер page which is used as a reference for its claim to be first in its field appears to be just a page where each sponsoring company describes itself so fails WP:RS. I am seeing nothing better than social media postings, nothing which demonstrates notability by WP:NORG, WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sintagma[edit]

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

Non-notable band as far as I can see. One album released, another recorded and not released. No indication of notability; no links to other articles and nothing links here. At least two major contributors are, it seems, members of the band. (User:Drumssoto and User:Chambersintagma). Appears, though I may be wrong, to be no more than a self-serving PR exercise. Emeraude (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Appears to be a non-notable band (which to be honest, only just passes A7). No sources provided, nor can I find any. They are listed on last.fm and Spotify as having 170 and 71 monthly listeners, respectively - so I think its unlikely we'll uncover any sources to establish notability. WJ94 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uncovering those sources, Neodop; I'm satisfied this now meets GNG and so will change my !vote to keep. WJ94 (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of coverage in Costa Rican newspaper sources; they have been called "one of the important groups in national hard rock" (1) and "one of the most promising bands of the local scene" (2). Their debut album was ranked the 16th Best Costa Rican Album by popular vote and received multiple ACAM nominations (the Costa Rican Grammys) (3). Even though the article quality is poor and it may have a big COI issue, the notability of the band is undeniable. Neodop (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above such as Costa Rican national newspaper which show that WP:GNG is passed and there is no need for deletion, imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 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) 14:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mavshack[edit]

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

Unreferenced advertising Rathfelder (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article. No external references except its own corporate websites. Created in 2012 by a user that have been blocked for spamming. The remark for creation was clearly meant for promotional (Created page with 'Mavshack is a streaming platform providing online access to various Pinoy movies and concerts. It aims to deliver the most popular Pinoy films to Filipino) - Jay (talk) 07:29, 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. Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sajad Raad Hatem[edit]

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

The footballer never player in a fully professional league or for the national team except for junior competitions, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Under WP:A7 I say. HawkAussie (talk) 22:31, 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 as most editors feel the provides sources do not satisfy WP:PROUDCT. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PrivacyTools[edit]

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

Most sources are unreliable or non-independent. All RS give only passing mention, fails WP:SIGCOV. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded this article with more relevant information and references and removed all unreliable sources. Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 05:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK. I want to highlight the sources that the sources #2, #3, #9, and #11 are self-published by the company and fail WP:GNG. The other sources only have about three sentences describing the site: do they pass WP:SIGCOV? See WP:WEBCRIT, which states that a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site is trivial coverage, and WP:SIGCOV, which states that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Note that there are 5 sources given that don't fail the independent or reliable metrics, or obviously don't fail the significant coverage part. From UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 19:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Edit: From UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 23:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback, it is actually very helpful for me. The self-published sources were included to back up some facts in the article and not to establish notability, which I think seems acceptable (WP:PRIMARYCARE), but you are right that it isn't applicable for this discussion. #1 is a research paper on privacy tools and recommendation portals, and looks into privacytools.io in three separate sections, so while it isn't the main topic of that paper I think it meets WP:SIGCOV. #6 mentions PrivacyTools in three separate paragraphs, and in each one details the criteria the site uses to make its recommendations in different software categories (which I think is more than merely a passing mention or a brief summary). #5 I'm on the fence about, it brings up the site in 3 separate paragraphs as an authority on VPN providers, but it mostly seems to be referring to sites like PrivacyTools in general, so I don't know if it's specific enough. When I have another moment I will reevaluate the other sources to determine if they establish notability, and I'll try to find more sources that cover the website in-depth. Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 21:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if the Keeps can provide the RS needed to prove GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source #1 does not constitute significant coverage. PrivacyTools appears once in a table, alongside a long list of other websites, with a brief one-sentence summary. It appears in another table which lists the basic features of a number of similar websites. It then appears as short section (about 30 words) later on. For a 62 page paper, that does not constitute significant coverage. Source #6 is primary - the author, Jonah, describes himself as the administrator of PrivacyTools; the first paragraph contains the phrase at PrivacyTools we recommend.... Source #5 is not significant coverage: it is only mentioned three times and even here, the article is talking about what PrivacyTools recommends, rather than about the website itself. Source #4 is probably the closest to establishing notability but is still not enough. I have had a look myself but cannot find any sources with more than a namecheck. WJ94 (talk) 15:41, 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) 03:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Co[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Coverage is either in passing, or limited to primary sources (press releases) covering WP:ROUTINE business as usual activities. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. Still, 10+ refs in the article, it gets some google hits and such, prod would probably be declined with suggestion for AfD, so might as well chat about it here. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NCOMPANY. Coverage is passing or primary routine business. Kacper IV (talk) 08:50, 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 Move to draft. There is a bit too much of an assessment that this is not notable to be closed as no consensus. As move to draft was explicitly named by one participating editor, it seems like that is the our best form of consensus, while respecting applicable policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NASLite[edit]

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

Non-notable Linux Distribution. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)|[reply]

Comment: Probably a stonewall keep. Observed this edit by T. Moitie The article NASLite needs some work on it [15] ... Indeed still there in Old revision of WikiProject Linux! Hmmmmm ..... Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sourcing. The first two sources appear identical and feature only a passing mention. This leaves the brief linux.com article, which insufficient as a basis for notability. Sandstein 12:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Stand by my previous thought but its a tad complex.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. If proposed improvements can be made, that can be done in draft so that the article can be restored to mainspace as a properly cited piece. BD2412 T 01:50, 2 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 no consensus. Insufficient discussion for consensus. Sandstein 12:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

V.I.P. (1991 film)[edit]

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

one line stub with only an external link to IMDb. A google search turns up no coverage to pass GNG. NFILM doesn't seem at all satisfied here, can't find any awards or even critic reviews. Director Juliusz Machulski has a page but of course NOTINHERITED. no reason to redirect as it's a totally implausible search term. Can possibly be left at VIP dab with a link to director's page Hydromania (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a mention of this in 1991 Polish mainstream magazine Wprost [16] but it's snippet view and I can't verify right now if it is in-depth or in-passing. Searching for the main character name in books gives two more hits ([17]) that are clearly about this movie, but again due to snippet view I can't verify what they are, in depth or in passing. One appears to be a script or a book that this was based on? I cannot be certain. I see some mentions in passing in Google and Google Scholar, but I could't find anything in-depth. However, Machulski is a major Polish movie director, and and while WP:NOTINHERITED, the odds are this work has some reviews in 1991 newspapers and such. But generic title of the movie doesn't help, and a lot of 1991 papers etc. are either not digitized or I don't know how to look for them. I'd be leaning keep, honestly, becausde ITSHOULDBENOTABLE, but OI can't produce proof. PS. A bit more digging: this book has at least a paragraph and it looks more like an entire page or two about this movie (snippet view only, but I can see a page heading and some text). On the assumption that this has at least two pages in-depth treatment in said book I've changed my vote to keep. In 1991 this probably got press reviews in Poland and such, but this stuff is effectively unavailable unless one goes to a Polish library and looks at old newspapers. But I see some mentions in passing, at least, plus such content as in this book, and I am pretty sure that there is enough to write some sections on reception and significance, if only someone was willing to spend hour sand hours digging through undigitized Polish sources. In the end, this is a movie by a major Polish film director, not some random flick. This stuff generally tends to get reviews and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a talkpage request, to generate a broader consensus. Originally closed as keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 12:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnia Agu[edit]

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

Subject of article does not qualify as per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The article appears as a WP:PROMO and written like a resume & as per WP:NOTRESUME this is wrong. Furthermore article does not exactly establish notability for its subject in any which way as subject lacks WP:INDEPTH coverage in reliable press. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I believe a delete !vote Is most applicable here. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe keep because the subject has received the 2018 West African Leadership Summit Award and the Lagos State Award of Excellence, which at least qualifies her for WP:ANYBIO, given the article can be improved.Onyeuwaoma2000 (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, now please I would like you to add a reliable source to substantiate your claim on this & emphasis on the reliable source(s) only. Furthermore the page in question has received no WP:SIGCOV in reliable media. A sharp WP:Before shows she falls short of WP:GNG. A quick check on her via google search only shows links to her Twitter page. You recently deleted a undisclosed paid tag that was issued on your talk page by a diffferent editor. Also I believe you get paid to promote & create WP:BLP pages on certain non notable persons. I suspect you of suck puppetry & would report my findings to the appropriate authorities. Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment noting the nominator's WP:CANVASing, [18], for the record. ——SN 54129 10:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You aren’t wrong, I did ask Cabayi to look into this AFD as I have seen him in other AFD’s providing reasonable rationale on why an article should be kept or deleted and thought it wise to draw his attention to this one. You see certain Nigerian related articles on the encyclopedia are on non-notable persons & people who create this articles often have a vested interest & financial reward at stake which I strongly perceive is the case here as the editors edit pattern & a mere google search on this current article up for deletion proves this as the subject doesn’t pass WP:GNG or even WP:BASIC. Anyways I appreciate you Serial Number 54129 & your efforts for keeping me in check. Celestina007 (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG. Google searches of her doesn't show her being discussed in reliable secondary sources. Some of the sources in the article are broken links, while others are primary sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has undergone very minimal changes since it was nominated for deletion. It still doesn’t have significant coverage in reliable sources that show subject has significant coverage in reliable press independent of subject, hence a delete vote is most applicable. Celestina007 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG with Guardian and Leadership articles, especially. Also, it doesn't matter if the article has undergone minimal changes. It's either notable or it's not. This article has a notable subject as shown by the references. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please @Megalibrarygirl: If it isn’t too much stress do provide the reliable “articles” as you claim that establishes her notability. And please passing WP:GNG is about multiple independent secondary sources having in-depth coverage on a subject. So far I am unable to see that established in the references provided in the article. Please Don’t just !vote keeps because you can or in passing and not provide reliable sources to substantiate your claims. I don’t mean to sound rude or anything & I’m sorry I’ve sounded that way. Please do respond to this if you can. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Sorry I missed this. The articles I mentioned are listed in the article itself. I just didn't have the time to list everything out when I decided Keep. I don't just !vote keep because I can. I really only weigh in when I think it will make a difference. I do expect that people have gone through the sources in the article already when reviewing them for AfD so I didn't think I needed to be much more specific than I was. Basically, I think all of the sources help add up to GNG, which is why I didn't say specifically this article or that one. I just wanted to point out thatLeadership and Guardian sources are certainly RS and she's covered pretty significantly there. Then when you take the other articles, it all adds up to GNG to me. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Megalibrarygirl I thought you probably read it & chose to unlook. I’ve lived in Nigeria/with Nigerians for 20+ years & on face value I know notable & non-notable persons when I observe them. I’m not claiming to be all knowing but I know enough. Any Nigeria-related articles I put up for deletion it’s because they probably deserve to be there. As for subject of this article, the articles by Guardian & Leadership are definitely RS but to be honest are they enough? Are they the “multiple reliable sources” that are required in BLP’s? I’m all for articles on women to be retained on Mainspace but when I see a fraud I say it as it is. I appreciate your politeness by the way there aren’t many good ones like you left.Celestina007 (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celestina, I appreciate that. I think you and I have different approaches to articles. When I find good coverage in several RS and mentions about someone in several other sources, I find that clearly speaks to GNG. You are arguing for more coverage, which is a valid argument, too. That's why the AfD process is important. We can allow a back and forth between participants and a consensus decision, which is usually fair. I don't expect to change everyone's mind in an AfD. I just want the ability to put in my own decisions when I decide to weigh in. I respect your position, even if I don't agree with you. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:20, 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 Redirected already. to the appropriate list article. Sandstein 12:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

José Marmolejos[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fbdave (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It's the baseball offseason and it's likely some team will sign him, at which point the page can be turned back into a redirect and the information therein added to their minor league players page. I see no need to rush this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia has inclusion criteria not exclusion criteria. We create articles after people become notable, we do not create place holder articles and then delete them when the person is notable. There is a major problem that the year with the most articles of people born that year is 1989. This sort of presentist bias is created by having articles on people who are not yet notable. We need to remove this with total speed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting Instead of deleting, moving it to draft would be a better option. As independent sources are available. And when it will be notable enough, will be moved to mainspace. Rocky 734 (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to withhold my !vote until I can do more research, but Johnpacklambert's argument that somehow the fact that he was born in 1989 makes this article problematic is completely absurd and should be ignored by the closer. I don't know what his vendetta against people born in that year is, but regardless, it's inappropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is not that he is unnotable for his birth year, you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. My argument is that if 1989 is the leading birth year for people with biographies, our whole process of creating, monitoring and preserving articles is flawed. This article should be deleted because the subject lacks the neccesary coverage in secondary sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is birth year in any way relevant to notability? Some year has to be the most common. Why shouldn't it be 1989? Smartyllama (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll also note that the subject of this article was born in 1993, suggesting JPL has not even bothered to read the article. Smartyllama (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct Just signed a minor league deal with the Mariners. Notable enough for that page-- Yankees10 18:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is the standard and appropriate outcome in cases such as this one. Lepricavark (talk) 03:08, 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. Arguments were made that the possible merge target Zodiac (comics), where the character is already covered, likely doesn't pass the WP:GNG either. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional characters TTN (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable comic book cruft. Not to mention the confusing nature of the title._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Clearly just more non-notable comic book junk.Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Zodiac (comics); can be moved to Cancer (Marvel Comics) if necessary. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Zodiac (comics). The rest of the Zodiac can possibly me merged there too. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree, seeing as A) there is nothing to merge that is notable and B) the "Zodiac" group themselves isn't notable either._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Zodiac. Though the side-effect of the latter is that we would have to include the full history of the Zodiac members under the membership section. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as above) if there's anything worth keeping, otherwise delete. No evidence of independent notability provided. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This individual character fails to pass the WP:GNG due to a complete lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The group that has been proposed as a redirect/merge target appears to fail the WP:GNG as well for the same reason. Rorshacma (talk) 07:34, 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 Party lists in the 2017 New Zealand general election#ACT Party. Clear consensus to remove the article again, but it's not so clear whether a redirect or deletion is appropriate as there are no specific arguments against either course of action (that past redirect attempts have been reverted is grounds for protection, as the editor who observed that noted). The headcount favours deletion but the possibility of future notability, deletion policy and the previous AFD result do not. On balance, this will be a redirect plus full protection, but only because of the deletion policy aspect; otherwise it'd be a heads-tails situation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Houlbrooke[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Has only political prominence at local level. Is the deputy party leader of the ACT party but has not been a member of Parliament as of yet (and may not even after the 2020 election). This article was redirected then recently recreated without anything to add to it that might otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per previous Afd. No substantive improvement to article. No justification as to why G4 should not apply. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a G4 as the previous decision wasn't a delete; it was a redirect. Schwede 66 09:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I've had a look at news items and Houlbrooke gets many mentions. But I haven't been able to find a single in-depth piece; everything I looked at (and I've gone through seven pages of Google News results) were routine mentions only. Schwede 66 09:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been redirected a few times already. If it is redirected it should be fully protected from recreation. Else move it to a Wikiproject draft. Ajf773 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sallin[edit]

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

He worked on Star Trek, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Can't see any sources that would help expand this beyond this. Now, since ST is so big, there are books etc. about the movie he worked in, and so his involvement is subject to some discussions like [19]. But that's it. Therefore he seems to fail WP:NBIO/NCREATIVE (in light of WP:ONEEVENT) as he is not notable for his career outside of being mentioned in connection to the famous movie he worked on. IMDb confirms that this movie was the highlight of his career (the most famous project he worked on). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, Sallin fits WP:NOTINHERITED, since The Wrath of Khan was his sole notable film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TH1980 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NBIO/NCREATIVE. NOTINHERITED. Kacper IV (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Mustafa (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Weak delete, fails WP:NCREATIVE. Störm (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 and likely G5. This has been recreated a dozen times at least under so many name variants that I'm having a hard time tracking them all down. Even the draft was previously MFD'd Praxidicae (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also this AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this and this. Praxidicae (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User: Praxidicae Thanks for mentioning the link i have seen all the previous deleted article but they were not notable you are right but on this article i have seen enough references in Google and Newspapers such as Gulf news , The News , The News (Newspaper) , Nai Baat , Humsub and urdupoint. You can't deny all references just because this article was created in past. You need to say about the reference.

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how AFD and notability work. There is virtually no difference with regard to actual independent reliable sources in the 12+ times this has been deleted and in fact, the only change in sourcing is what I would consider deceitful - it's almost exclusively content submitted or written by the subject. See below. Praxidicae (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/pakistani-cinema/pakistan-makes-short-film-on-abhinandan-capture-1.66011154	~		A two sentence mention of the subject	✘ No
https://www.parhlo.com/short-film-operation-swift-retort/	written by the subject	no editorial oversight on user submissions	see above	✘ No
https://timworld.info/operation-swift-retort-the-animated-response-to-india-from-pakistan/	I have sincere doubts that this is actually independent as it appears to be a piece submitted to a writer there & its partially an interview	? I have doubts about the editorial integrity of this particular piece		✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/523984-operation-swift-retort-the-animated-response-to-india-from-pakistan	very similar to #2	no indication of who the author is		✘ No
https://www.globalvillagespace.com/operation-swift-retort-pakistans-befitting-reply-to-indian-aggression/	? Almost certainly not independent as the News Desk submissions are user submissions generally	see above, no indication that they have any editorial oversight	see above	✘ No
http://khaleejmag.com/news/operation-swift-retort-respond-to-indian-aggression-by-pakistan/	Like the other sources above, I have doubts about this being independent. These are from questionable sources to begin with and are worded nearly the same with the same titles just one word different which leads me to believe this is likely PR submitted.	? see above	see above	✘ No
https://www.somethinghaute.com/pakistani-director-makes-animated-short-film-on-indian-pilot-abhinandan-capture/	? We have no idea who wrote this. The website is operated by a journalist however it's the equivalent of a blog and does not indicate she is even the writer.	per above		✘ No
http://testicanzoni.mtv.it/testi-DJ-Kamal-Mustafa_29047664	see below	This particular site is misleading but it is all user generated like a wiki. It's not reliable and it's not coverage.		✘ No
https://breakawaydaily.com/interview-with-music-producer-game-developer-dj/	Interview, definitely isn't independent	? Doubtful and worth noting that it has almost been exclusively used by sockmasters related to this subject.		✘ No
https://www.noragouma.com/interview-with-dj-and-music-producer-kamal-mustafa/	interviews of this nature are not independent	? sincerely doubt this is a reliable source		✘ No
https://urdupoint.com/k/9077	? I have sincere doubts that this would fall under independent, reliable or significant but that's based on a translation and this looks like a blog.	? see above	This doesn't appear to be about the subject, but just a passing mention	✘ No
https://hamariweb.com/articles/122748	written by the subject	user submitted, no editorial oversight		✘ No
https://videostreet.pk/news/54384/operation-786-a-film-about-pak-air-force-paf-operationir-force-paf-operation	? 404, can't find an archived version either	?	?	? Unknown
https://www.naibaat.pk/04-Feb-2019/20792	possibly written by the subject, author not identified	per the disclaimer at the bottom, it's a "blogger submitted" opinion		✘ No
https://beam.pk/animated-film-operation-786/	?	blog, no evidence that there is any editorial oversight or how their publication process works		✘ No
https://enews.hamariweb.com/entertainment/praising-pakistan-army-by-animated-film-operation-786/	?	? not even a mention of the subject.		✘ No
https://www.ukfilmreview.co.uk/post/operation-786-short-film-review	?	? I have doubts about the reliability of this site as it appears to be a hobby blog. It is possible that it is independent and reliable but it doesn't help to establish notability.	doesn't mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.ukfilmreview.co.uk/post/operation-786-short-film-review	?	? same as above		✘ No
https://simkl.com/movies/1004932/operation-786-animated-film	imdb listing equivalent			✘ No
https://www.dailyinfotainment.com/2019/02/pakistani-animated-movie-operation-786.html	?	I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any source that publishes content in english so rife with grammatical and spelling errors probably doesn't have the type of editorial oversight we require of reliable sources. Also note that it's run by generic blogger.com bloggers.		✘ No
https://duzk.com/v=5jKeq			see source 19	✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/523984-operation-swift-retort-the-animated-response-to-india-from-pakistan		see source #4, identical		✘ No
http://southasianmonitor.com/pakistan/operation-swift-retort-pakistans-befitting-reply-to-indian-aggression/	written by the subject			✘ No
https://www.naibaat.pk/29-Apr-2019/22882	see source 14			✘ No
https://www.medianetworknews.com/archives/2966	one sentence piece likely submitted as a pr by subject			✘ No
https://www.humsub.com.pk/208606/dj-kamal-mustafa/	Written by the subject.			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete and SALTper Praxidice. CodeLyoko^talk 18:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt created in mainspace directly so that's why AFC couldn't catch it when it was not notable in 2018. Since the previous AFD in 2015/2016, Mustafa has released the second film Operation Swift Retort in 2019, but after the thorough analysis by Praxidicae, there still aren't any GNG sources to show notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - as above. Neutrality^talk 03:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it, and I think we can speedy it. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt with thanks to Praxidice for that list which made it easier to investigate the sources. I agree with P's analysis and have not found any other sources to support a claim of notability. Note also that the Wikipedia articles about the two films he has created, which most of the references in the article about him refer to (Operation 786 and Operation Swift Retort) have been deleted as non-notable: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation 786 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Swift Retort (film). --bonadea contributions talk 10:37, 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. Sandstein 12:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talisman Studios[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 10:44, 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. Sandstein 12:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haq Public School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly insufficient sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to EdLab. Seems like the consensus here is that the sourcing presented is not in fact adequate to justify a separate article, due to the sources not meeting the substance requirements of WP:SIGCOV Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seen in NY[edit]

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

Went right to AfD, rather than prod, since the article is structured so well. However, I can't find a single in-depth source from a reliable, independent source in the current article. All are either from the group itself, or from press for the show at other facilities (e.g. St. John the Divine, Floating Library, Brooklyn Museum). Searches simply turned up more of the same. Fails WP:GNG Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – Sort of horrifying how much work was done and I feel bad about that. And so many links weren't working or were redirects. Super annoying. I fixed the links at least. And I did a pretty significant amount of edits, finding more information about the series. I hope this tips the entry into not being deleted. I got far into the episodes and was cleaning those citations up, but need to stop for a little while because this was time consuming to do in a compressed amount of time. And plus, I don't want to clean up the whole entry and then have it deleted, so waiting to see if what I've done will rescue the article before continuing. Please advise if this is an improvement.MootsieOrangeville (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)striking vote by blocked sockpuppet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP – further to the comments and work undertaken by MootsieOrangeville: continuing to look for sources in pedagogical literature, which are not always easy to track down online. Believe this series to be of value to the education community, and in particularly to educational scholars as it documents a large number of unique educational activities over a specific period of time, in New York. There are issues with the links as discussed above, in part because the organisation is undergoing substantial changes, with the original publication platform (New Learning Times) being closed. The continuation of this page as an encyclopaedic entry will preserve the knowledge contained in this series. Eduser us (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was asked to relist in order to generate a broader consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 10:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~changing vote to merge below _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC) – I agree with nom, the article is well written but the sources just aren't there. Keep votes so far seem to just be "I like it" and "I put a lot of work into it", which aren't policy-backed reasons for keeping an article. I'd be ok with sending the article to draft if keep editors think that they'll be able to find sources given more time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear Rosguill, it is incorrect to say that my "keep" vote suggests in any way that having put a lot of work into the page means I think it should be kept. Nowhere do I mention how much work I put into the page, and I fully acknowledge that the amount of work I put into the page has no bearing on the outcome of this process. I do not know why you are suggesting that that is my argument. Neither do I mention in my argument that "I like it" and think therefore that is an argument for keeping the page. It is clear in what I have written that I personally believe the page has value to a certain community, and acknowledge that more work needs to be done to include notable references. Again, I do not know why you would categorise my argument as such, when that is clearly inaccurate. The tone of these comments, and the inherent inaccuracies, seem to be demeaning in nature, which does not appear to follow Wikiquette. I would please ask that you review the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers page, and reflect on how your comments could be read as disparaging.
I notice that onel5969 has struck out the entire post from MootsieOrangeville for being a sockpuppet. Whilst I understand broadly what the term sockpuppet means, I do not know all of the policies and procedures around this. What is clear however, is that the edits made to the page from that account were improvements, and I see no reason why these contributions should not still be considered in this process. I do not see why their "keep" vote should be entirely disregarded in this case, unless the edits made to the page have been proven to be inaccurate. Again, I do not know the policies surrounding sockpuppets, but it seems to me that there is some value in their edits, and this should not just be disregarded, especially as the user who initially nominated the page is also the user striking out these comments, and effectually using that process as a double "delete" vote. I hope that the admin will consider this in their final assessment, especially as this is a relist, and there is currently only one additional voice contributing at this time. Eduser us (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eduser us, regarding the striking of comments, striking talk page comments by sockpuppet accounts is standard practice, see WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Regarding arguments, the now-struck sock did directly appeal to the amount of work they put into the article as a reason to not delete it. I apologize for any offense to you as that was not my intention, but while "I like it" is an oversimplification of your comment, you haven't provided a justification for keeping beyond your opinion that the content of the article is valuable. At AfD, arguments are generally rooted in providing evidence and making claims that the subject meets notability guidelines; more rarely, other policy and guideline based arguments are invoked. Finally, please avoid editing while logged out, and make sure that you put a signature at the end of each of your comments; right now it's not clear from the formatting that your second-to-last comment was actually written by you. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) and Redirect to EdLab, of which this is a project. @Eduser us: Whether or not articles are kept on Wikipedia is a function of "notability," which is sort of a jargon term here, meaning WP:N. Effectively, the question isn't about whether something is important, valuable, etc. but whether it has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. If there are journal/magazine/newspaper articles, book chapters, etc. about it, written by people without a connection to the subject, please link them here as that's what it all comes down to. It's not a perfect system, but it's the one we use. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – I was delighted to find this resource which becomes even more valuable now that www.newlearningtimes.com is no longer available. The defunct website's cache can only take you so far. This article on EdSurge shows the promise that once was https://www.edsurge.com/news/columbia-s-edlab-offers-forum-for-startups and here's another link that should help keep this article around. http://www.fluxfactory.org/news/kitty-city-in-new-learning-times/

Sorry for all the edits but here are a several more references to the original site "written by people without a connection to the subject." https://www.ichallengemyself.org/college-bike-tour https://www.morrisjumel.org/paranormal http://www.alleypond.com/news.html https://themusebrooklyn.com/press-1 https://www.manhattanbirth.com/manhattan-birth-on-the-web.html https://beatriceglow.org/new-page-1 http://stelar.edc.org/articles/seen-ny-bridging-gap-central-park-zoo http://www.cityreliquary.org/columbia-u-teachers-college-comes-to-the-reliquary/ http://stelar.edc.org/publisher/new-learning-times http://girlsriders.org/gro-on-new-learning-times/ https://www.southbronxunited.org/sbupress https://www.modernpinballnyc.com/field-trips-in-new-york-city/ https://www.courtinnovation.org/publications/seen-ny-youth-justice-board http://www.greenspacenyc.org/Press http://www.gamesforchange.org/blog/2013/09/20/seen-in-ny-games-for-change-festival/

And finally is it helpful to add this video to the Wikipedia Day page perhaps? https://www.vialogues.com/vialogues/play/8546_signed,Intelligencias comment added by Intelligencias (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to EdLab. There simply are not enough independent, in-depth sources to sustain this as a standalone article. The above reference dump illustrates this quite well: all of these are passing mentions. An article cannot be sourced on this kind of thing and primary material alone. - I don't see a barrier to treat the subject on the EdLab page, which may even include collapsed tables of episodes; the wikilinked listings are indeed useful, and offhand I can't see anything like such a list on the project's blog. But definitely collapse the lot please... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, please define with numbers what would constitute "enough independent" sources as well as what is considered "in-depth" so that I can contribute in an objective way that isn't at the whim of vague subjective rules and undefined guidelines. _signed,Intelligencias

Number of required sources is subject to discussion, but "multiple sources are generally expected". As for the difference between "in passing" and "in depth", that may be best illustrated by an example: this is moderate in-depth coverage of Planet Earth II. This is a passing mention. All of your links from above fall into the latter category. We require at least some from the former. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote to merge per Elmidae and Rhododendrites' points about EdLab. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Technology Challenge[edit]

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

No apparent notability. The article itself makes no claims that establish notability. Local news articles exist, but are primarily focused on local winners of the competition and their schools. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hard to find evidence this exists at all, let alone is notable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:03, 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. czar 08:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dylath-Leen (band)[edit]

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

Notability tag on this music group has waited 10 years. The article hasn't changed much since. Can anyone find evidence this band passes WP:NMUSIC/WP:GNG? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any substantial coverage. I also tried to look into the article's claim of them touring France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. I see they've played festivals, but I can't find mention of any tours. Skeletor3000 (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musical group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Center Parcs Europe. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 12:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Les Bois-Francs[edit]

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

Is this a real village that would pass WP:Notability (places)? Or just a hotel? I am not seeing much evidence this hotel (resort) if it is indeed just that passes WP:NCOMPANY. BEFORE doesn't show anything but mentions in passing/primary sources/press releases and like. Can anyone find anything to suggest this should be kept? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find evidence of notability for run-of-the-mill resort. Reywas92^Talk 21:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into Center Parcs Europe. 09:19, 27 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 Middle-Earth#Geography. Arguments in favor of keeping were that Tolkien's works have received more literary analysis than most other works of fiction, and that therefore the word "minor" has no relevance for the article-worthyness of this topic. However, as wikipedia aims to treat creative works "in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works" (WP:NOT#PLOT) and there already is Middle-earth to add such material, this list appears unnecessary, in particular since it relies on WP:PRIMARY sources. There were concerns of merge histories, attributions and incoming redirects, so I think it's best to close this as a redirect rather than deletion. This also allows editors to cull and merge things from the page history if they believe this helps the Middle-earth article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor places in Middle-earth[edit]

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

This is effectively a glossary and about as (un)encyclopedic as a list of all (place)names in Tolkien books or any other series; this list fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION and WP:NLIST. (We also have Minor places in Beleriand and Minor places in Arda which should be deleted as well if this goes). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list's name is an admission that it is little more than a collection of fancruft. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not much else to say. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article's name indicates that this is only about minor places, and therefore not likely to be notable. Vorbee (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Delete voters reasoning is lame, harping on word “minor”. Offhand, “minor” places in Middle Earth are more significant than 99 percent of places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, where i happen to spend most of my editing time. Shall we delete articles about the relatively minor countries on earth, say? What matters is sourcing, and i think it’s adequate here. Nothing is disputed. —Doncram (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the minor issue of 99% of said sourcing being WP:PRIMARY... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are changing your argument then, "PRIMARY" is not part of deletion nomination statement. Okay to do so, but it is different. And actually I don't think usage of primary sources is really an argument for deletion. For one thing, primary sources can be used "with care". And there is no dispute about anything. --Doncram (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Also, though the deletion nomination asserts issues of GNG, NFICTION, and NLIST, I don't see specific evidence about those, and I tend to think this article does not fail on any of those. It is one thing to challenge the article's editors to come up with more explicit sourcing, like by tagging the article. But I am pretty sure there exists lots of sourcing about placenames in Tolkien's works, including some extensive notes stuff by Tolkien-guy. I imagine there are masters theses and Ph.D. dissertations and academic articles. No mention of wp:BEFORE or other investigation into sources is present here. I tend to think this is quite valid by what NLIST is supposed to be about, that the topic of "placenames in Tolkien works" is indeed a real thing. --Doncram (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article seems not to be some editors' favorite cup of tea. But it is an extensive, well-developed compendium/creation, that is one of the things that Wikipedia is good for. There may be a philosophical disagreement about what Wikipedia should be for. Like this reminds me of AFD about some list of flags by numbers of colors, which I thought was great use of Wikipedia in a traditional way, accessible to children, say, and obviously not requiring extensive sourcing to notice that there are 3 colors in the flag of France, etc. Vs. others saying in effect it wasn't lofty/intellectual/rigorously sourced enough. It was indeed a compendium, and I think some objected because it appeared to them to be an inappropriate synthesis. But truthfully, lots that we do does amount to, or involve, synthesis (including lots of list-articles which i have created or developed and which are 100% clearly good contributions, IMHO). The disagreement boiled down to a difference of philosophy of what an encyclopedia can provide. Here, I think this is an extensive, good/great contribution, about an important topic, and learned/intellectual in its own way, though obviously of great interest to some and little/no interest to others. --Doncram (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That philosophy boils down to WP:ITSUSEFUL losing a battle versus WP:GNG. I used to be an inclusionist and I used to create such articles on fictional topics. But the community ruled that this is not welcome here. Unless you can change this, through RfC or such, this argument here will just be nothing more than a reminder that we have a list of bad arguments not to use during AfDs, and of course, AFD=/=vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Beware a temporary/local new consensus, contrary to larger/longer perspective. The deletion nomination and early !votes above seem to ignore discussion, directions towards specific sources in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Middle-earth (first nomination, in 2007). Including learned discussion/sourcing by Charles Tolkien (son) which I vaguely knew of. That afd was closed "Keep" with about 13 Keepers vs. fewer Deleters. Trying to ping all participants there (probably not all active now): @Tikiwont, BrownHairedGirl, Reinoutr, Csernica, CBDunkerson, Fram, Espresso Addict, Uthanc, Ridernyc, Artw, IronGargoyle, DGG, CRGreathouse, Fabartus, Mirlen, Pseudo daoist, Burntsauce, Gavin.collins, and Carcharoth:. --Doncram (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the fine reasoning and evidence cited in an earlier AfD. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram. I don't see why this had been re-listed. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This kind of writing is unfamiliar to me too, but there is guidance including MOS:INUNIVERSE. Maybe editing is needed. But interesting to me is guidance that footnotes are mostly NOT needed: “The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. (However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research.)” —Doncram (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an immense amount of literature, such that most of the individual listings could do with expansion. A few could some of these could justify articles. Rather than do that, a combination article is more appropriate. Tolkien's work is of major importance at several different levels of discourse, and only one of them is fan literature. It's also important anddiscussed academically, it's discussed in relation to film. The linguisticaspects arediscussed,and I expectthere's going to me considerably more of the psychological andocialideas that influenced the naming.

But WP needs to do similarly with other major classic works of literature. It has done so only a few enormousely popular franchises, but there's room for similar articles on hunderds of otherworks as important as this at the times and historically. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Middle-earth. Goustien (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is fancruft pure and simple. There is nothing showing that these places are of such note we need list-like coverage of them. If they were real places they would merit article, but they are not. Wikipedia is only meant to be a gazeteer to the real world, not a gazeteer to fictional worlds, so there is no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the literature on exactly this topic? I suppose if one denies the existence of the extensive sources that exist, then one can justify dismissal of the topic on basis of the resulting lack of sources, perhaps that is a strategy?

What about the quote from previous AFD which IronGargoyle provided in diff form above? So no one has to follow a diff, here it is directly:

Numerous independent sources are available; The Atlas of Middle-earth by Fonstadt, The Complete Guide to Middle-earth by Foster, the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia by Drout, The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion by Hammond and Scull, et cetera. Literally dozens (possibly hundreds when languages other than English are considered) of books have been written about the works of Tolkien... with detailed analysis of the names of these places, their possible real world analogs, demographics, et cetera. Organizing and referencing everything Tolkien related which was put on Wikipedia in the earliest days of the project takes time... but the absence of references establishing notability on each article is not the same things as being 'non-notable'. These topics satisfy WP:FICTION in spades. --CBD 10:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources you cite are pure universe summaries, like the The Discworld Almanak or such. WP:PRIMARY. The Encyclopedia, which I have recently analyzed, is better (well, some of its entries are, some are no better than PRIMARY). But it does not cover most of the entries on this list. You are effectively throwing sources (just like CBD did back then) hoping that something sticks. Nope. Not a single of those sources discusses why a collection of random placenames is encyclopedic. A few ME locations may warrant their own article. We don't need lists like this. Encyclopedias are not glossaries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This might be one of the only fictional franchises where I might support a general list of locations, but there has to be a cutoff point. "Minor places" should be that point. This does not establish notability. The locations are not necessary to understand wider context of the franchise. The only keep argument seems to be "just because." If there are sources for a location, then it should be on the main list and not this list. TTN (talk)

Another !vote hinging on the word "minor". There are sources. Including the direct works of Tolkien, which are valid for this kind of thing, and, per MOS editing guideline, do not need to be cited by inline citations. And including multiple scholarly works, as referenced above and in previous AFD. There is nothing made up here, it all is wholly accurate, as far as you and I know. And it is sourced by the works themselves, at least, and probably every item is also discussed in the major external studies of the works. --Doncram (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:TTN, you seem to be assuming that there exists a "Major places in Middle-earth" list-article, and you are suggesting a merge to there? I think that is an editing suggestion, and not suitable for an AFD decision, and there is not such a merge target anyhow. The AFD-nominated list-article is in a system with Minor places in Arda, Minor places in Beleriand, List of Middle-earth rivers, List of Middle-earth roads, and List of Middle-earth objects. As an editorial matter, I suppose a committee could decide to merge them all. Then it would of course be perfectly valid for anyone to split them back out as an editorial matter. Not for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then provide the sources. I hate this talking point. "There are sources" repeated ad nauseam is simply a deflection when these articles sit around for years gathering moss. They should not have been created in the first place until sources are present. Tolkien being highly analyzed is not in itself an argument for keeping articles on his works. On this article in particular, I see nothing of value. I have not read the article top to bottom, but anything real world seems to be trivial stuff like discussion on alternate spellings or minor commentary.

For this article to exist, it either needs to be notable on its own as a grouping, or it needs to be a valid split from the main article. If you say "Locations in the works of Tolkien" is a notable topic, I'd agree with you. I think summary style is better than a list, but I would not argue against a list existing currently. If we agree a list is fine, then we can agree that not all locations are equal. If we can agree with that, then we can agree that locations classified as minor are too inconsequential to include. If we're arguing that it's a valid split, then it's the same case of proving that these locations are necessary to be covered. I don't think that is the case given that these are minor locations with no important sourcing currently. You trying to turn this into an outside of AfD content issue is simply wikilaywering. TTN (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TTN does have a point, that essentially there is a big list of places in Tolkien's works, which we all should understand is an important, landmark, well-crafted universe that preceded, set the stage for others. Tolkien's scholarly knowledge of languages, and his careful creation of this universe of places and back-stories and so on, is known, though maybe not to all commenters here. He was also highly concerned about, and then involved in, issues of translation of these place-names into other-language translations of the Tolkien works, so he wrote more about the translation problems and provided guidance. About preserving the type of relationship that applies between modern English and the real old languages relating to English and the constructed old languages of the universe, about translating those relations to other modern languages. And there is scholarly discussion, books about these things, by others. The topic of "places in Tolkien's works" is unquestionably significant. So we have a valid big list-article. What TTN and maybe some others are saying is they want to jump in and set a cut-off for notability, hinging on the word "minor". Well, in Wikipedia's list-articles, decisions about determination of what items are list-item-notable are directed to be made by consensus of editors of the list-article, to be discussed at Talk page(s) of the list-article(s). In many lists, editors may decide to limit items to ones having separate articles. In many more, a different, broader level is set. (Often this is better because it does not drive people to create many new separate articles.) For this known-to-be-significant broad topic, there is an intelligent world knowing about these items (not particularly me, and i think not particularly most of the "delete" voters here). It's not a matter for external-type editors like us, to make the list-item-notability-type decisions. It is legitimately a matter for the "experts" or at least the editors who care about developing this list-article/system, and is not a matter for external AFD-type editors to make and impose, without much understanding. --Doncram (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are showing a clear failure to assume good faith. You attack anyone who stands for deletion of this unjustified article as not understanding the topic of Tolkien, his work, or how he created it. Nothing you say shows that we need an article on even one minor place in Middle-Earth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — as others have said, this is not an encyclopedia of Tolkien's imaginary world. We should document Tolkien's fiction in real world terms: when was it written, what were his influences, how many books did he sell, what did the critics say. A scholarly discussion of Tolkien's fictional geography would be one thing — probably belonging in a journal article rather than Wikipedia. But this is not that, it is a fictional gazetteer which belongs to a fansite. This is not a fansite. I've grown up reading Tolkien; I know a lot of these places. But there's no reason to have this page. Some fanboys had fun making it, but it doesn't belong at Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a real encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total fancruft that is, frankly, more fit for the LOTR Wiki._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure about the title, but a list of places in Middle-earth is certainly valid as a summary of elements in the works of one of the most significant authors in the English language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This one needs another week. The consensus seems to be leaning ever so slightly towards this being fancruft, but we have an earlier AfD that was clearly closed keep. A number of !voters have not provided policy-based rationales, given that this is clearly a controversial debate, hopefully we will get more policy-based input so that whoever has to close this in a week has something more to go on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a page of Minor places in Middle Earth is appropriate given that all the major ones should have their own articles. Artw (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When the forces for keep bring up as defense a citation to the dark days of 2007 when Wikipedia was uncontrollably inclusionist and building itself to be an project that inadequately covered and marginalized women and their interests while over emphasizing things interesting to men, I feel to say we are building keep votes on outdated precedents. I have yet to see a good argument distinguishing this type of article from one that comprehensibly tells us every named character in The Lord of the Rings. Both avoid any analysis of significance. To justify a list like this we have to show that every entry has at least some significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete super minor elements of a fictional world, fails GNG/NFICTION. Kacper IV (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could some consideration please be given to what to do with the edit history of lists such as these, which were typically created from stubs that got merged to form a list. 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 160 pages that redirect to Minor places in Middle-earth (there are similar large numbers for other in-universe lists that are up for deletion - most of the content started as stubs before a wave of merging some years ago). 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) 18:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We could just redirect this to Middle-Earth#Geography or such, through it is not a very plausible search term... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle-Earth#Geography. Goustien (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the Civilization of Death[edit]

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

The book fails WP:Notability (books). No reviews, no awards. The purpose of this article seems to be a veild attack at BLP subject Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, and most of the article focus is not even about a book but about a controversial interview/lecture by said subject. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wrote this. Wikipedia:Notability (books) tells that if a "book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" it is notable. The book, or they lecture of author of the book on the book with the same title of the book, has been the subject of intense media coverage in Poland:
Onet.pl: Largest news portal in Poland. August: [20], [21]. September: [22].

OKO.press: investigative journalism. August: [23], September: [24].

Gazeta Wyborcza: [25] Poland's best newspaper, saying in September that "Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (born in 1962 in Warsaw) became famous in July last year with a lecture on "Civilization of Death" during meetings "History Stop" at the Center. Janusz Kurtyka.".

Coverage in gazeta.pl: [26], one of the leading news sources.

Warsaw Gazeta: [27].

Fair Observer: [28], scholar Alicja Rybkowska writes about this in October.

NaTemeat.pl: [29] extensive coverage.

Intertia.pl: [30] extensive coverage.

gazetagazeta.pl: [31], largest Canadian-Polish newspaper. Editor in chief writes item on this.

All of these are in the article. Media for right-wing also been covering this. Najwyższy Czas! ran several pieces: [32], [33], [34], [35]. This book and the lecture on the book, has made a significant impact. AstuteRed (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC) - sock puppet of banned user[reply]

Pretty much all of them are not about a book but about a controversial lecture. Anyway, WP:NOTNEWS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lecture was on the book and to promote the sales of the book. The controversy of the book and lecture is same. Busy summer on gay rights in Poland we had, but this event and book stood out. AstuteRed (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC) - sock puppet of banned user[reply]

Nope, interview promoting the book and a book is not the same. An event may be notable, but this book is not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, scandal quite obviously notable, but the article on the book might not be the best place for the content which as Piotrus notes is mainly about the lecture. Possibly merge to the author's article, or re-purpose as some "Controversy of...." article. Renata (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lecture isn't separate from book. This is maybe most clear in media of right-wing that promoted the book and the event. See invitation to lecture on the book, including book sale: [36]. Coverage by Najwyższy Czas! afterwards: [37] "The book "On the civilization of death" by prof. Marek J. Chodakiewicz. It enjoyed extremely high popularity. Chodakiewicz became the # 1 enemy of the left, who attacked his family with fake news. In the absolute best seller this summer, prof. Chodakiewicz reveals the truth about LGBT. The book "On the Civilization of Death", in which he comprehensively describes the history of the sodomice movements and the dangers associated with them, received wide coverage." Then big picture of book coverage, and then "Recently, to the lecture advertising the book by prof. Even Gazeta Wyborcza referred to Chodakiewicz, describing on its website, more shocking progressives, fragments of the meeting.". The outrageous lecture described and promoted book. AstuteRed (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC) - sock puppet of banned user[reply]
Keep. Having now edited both this article and the relevant section at the BLP's, I've come to the conclusion that a separate article from the BLP's is merited. Why? The book in its own right is unimportant; its importance stems solely from the notability of its author. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is the "chief historian" of the Polish right wing - a smart, thorough intellectual, a professor at a (supposedly) prestigious institution in the US, companion to Donald Trump, defender of the NSZ, an ideologue of a new Poland... and completely f-ing insane. So it's notable, and now we just need a space; the main article is already chock full of criticisms and reviews, so we'd do better to keep this in a separate article and link the two. François Robere (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait a second. You say "The book in its own right is unimportant; its importance stems solely from the notability of its author." So how on Earth can you justify a keep vote? You say that the book is not important and remind us that WP:NOTINHERITED. You make a great argument for a delete vote, not keep.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently notable per WP:NBOOK, but material may make better sense as part of author's article per WP:NOPAGE. Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alexbrn: Could you explain how this book meets NBOOK? Not a single link above is, AFAIK, a book review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NBOOK does not require "book reviews", but coverage in general in line with WP:GNG of which there is sufficient, in my view. Alexbrn (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. Information in bio of the author. Pastsheld (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pastsheld. François Robere (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. At best nominator has made the case that the speech by the author of the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). The speech had the same title as the book and was on the book, so Wikipedia would have the same article with the same title. Plenty of sources so obviously notable. I dream of Maple (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC) - sock puppet of banned user[reply]
- Congrats on your first AfD vote and 250th total edit. Socking activity is heavy around here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It’s fairly obvious the majority of the content should be kept: the controversy, and thus much of the details from where that arose. The only real issue as already noted is where does it fit best. And it seems that wherever it lands it will be mostly intact as it presently appears. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC) - sock puppet of banned user[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The War of Souls. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War of Souls[edit]

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

Fictional event. Pure WP:PLOT. No evidence this meets NFICTION/GNG. BEFORE fails to find anything but plot summaries. Last AfD should have been closed as merge, as the keep argument by Jclemens that gained most 'per x' was actually a merge suggestion. But what to merge? It's all unreferenced PLOT. Could do a soft delete and redirect to the first novel in the series, I guess... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The War of Souls#Story The three sources this article cites are the only reliable ones that I can find. However, they are all lists of bestsellers that make no mention of any of the claims that this article makes. Honestly, this article is little more than a collection of fancruft and plot details. ―Susmuffin ^Talk
Keep or merge to The War of Souls#Story as per above. BOZ (talk) 23:40, 24 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]

Redirect to The War of Souls#Plot - There is really no reason for this to have been split off from the main article on the book trilogy at all. This amount of un-sourced, super specific plot detail is really not necessary, and the main points of the story are already covered on the article on the book. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Not opposed to redirection. Kacper IV (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vala (Middle-earth)#Ulmo. There was consensus that this shouldn't have a stand-alone article. If found necessary, more material can be merged via the page history. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ulmo[edit]

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

Fails GNG/NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. Suggest soft delete by redirecting to Vala_(Middle-earth)#Ulmo. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with "the Valar are significant in Tolkien's work" which would be an invalid argument even if we were AfDing Valars, which we are not. This is about an individual one, which like all the others, is not likely to be notable enough for a stand-alone article _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Vala (Middle-earth)#Ulmo. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his role is not at all important within the actual source material. There just is not enough sourcing to justify notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG/NFICTION. Necrothesp's arguement is invalid. Kacper IV (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Loel[edit]

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

I referenced article about an actor which does not meet the notability thresholds of WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as having no reliable sources, only the unreliable IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this qualifies as a speedy since there's enough of a vague assertion of notability via the claims of TV roles. That said, it would be good to find someone fluent in Hebrew who can help look for sourcing, just to verify whether or not there's anything out there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think he may actually be notable - he seems to have held major roles in some notable shows and a notable film. I've added them to the page. I haven't looked for sourcing yet, but ideally it should be out there - most likely in Hebrew. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While nominations can't really establish notability, it looks like he was nominated for an Israeli Film Academy Award for Best Actor for one of his films, the Pretzel one. I'm finding coverage in English for some of his other work, so I'm pretty certain that he's notable at this point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I still have some searching to do, but I've found enough coverage to justify notability for this actor and to show that there's definitely more out there. He seems to be fairly well known over in Israel, so most of the coverage is in Hebrew. I will try to add what I've found when I have more time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has prominent roles in notable productions so passes WP:NACTOR with the article currently being improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources there is no longer a need for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 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 redirect to Moscow Technological Institute#Moscow Business School. czar 08:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Business School[edit]

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

Advertising, promotion. Deleted 6 times in Ru.wikipedia.org Mitte27 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Passing WP:SCH is enough to save the article from deletion, since the school has a notable alumni that developed Numbuster. Final words: The article need a complete rewrite and more reliable sources should be cited by a willing editor who is familiar with the article. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh ... WP:SCH is a failed proposal. Also, notability isn't inherited so reasoning that the school where the developer of a well-known app attended makes the school itself notable is bogus. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be pretty notable and no good rationale given for deletion now the promotional material has been removed (which the nominator could have done themselves). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Appears to be pretty notable" is a strange reason to !vote Keep given that the article has exactly one reference - which is to its own website. What other indications are there (supported obviously be references) that this organization is notable? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect as per AllyD below. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. To meet the requirements for notability, there must be multiple references that meet the above requirements. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent Moscow Technological Institute article which itself has a brief section about this School (though it is itself a poorly-written, unreferenced article). I am not seeing evidence that this particular school has the individual notability which could meet Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges . AllyD (talk) 13:21, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The one "keep" doesn't actually provide any reason for keeping the article, so I'm going with the creator's request. Sandstein 12:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Duck Knight Returns[edit]

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

So, this article was actually created by myself some years ago, when I apparently thought this was going to be more notable than it wound up being. The rather lackluster (and in one case, completely non-reliable) sources I wound up sticking in here are not nearly sufficient to support this article, and there really isn't anything else out there. To confuse matters even more, the same title was used for an episode of the current DuckTales (2017 TV series), so pretty much all results when looking for further sources are regarding that instead. If anything, this namespace should probably be re-purposed as a Redirect to the List of DuckTales (2017 TV series) episodes, but the actual content of this article is simply not notable or sourced enough to stick around. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it eligible for WP:G7, it is it pretty different from when you wrote it? -2pou (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it doesn't have an extensive edit history, but there have been a number of other editors making changes, so I felt it was too different to not have to take it to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep and clean-up refs - If the references aren't reliable or support facts presented in the article, they should be removed. However, I think a better solution might be to keep the article and have a Wikipedia:Disambiguation notice that points to Duck Tales. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 19:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 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 delete. Sandstein 12:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Pericolo[edit]

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

BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as notable per WP:NMUSIC. The closest thing to a strong notability claim here is the fact that he's toured — but to make a musician notable for touring, you have to reference the tour to media coverage about the tour (actual concert reviews, etc.) which contextualizes its importance, and just showing a self-published tour calendar on a primary source promotional platform is not enough. The only other notability claim even being attempted here is the number of views his videos have collected on YouTube, which does not satisfy any part of our notability criteria for musicians at all. And four of the five references here are primary sources (the PR concert listing, two YouTube videos and his self-published profile on another PR platform) -- there's only one footnote that's actually a reliable source, and one reference is not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself in lieu of actually having to accomplish anything that passes NMUSIC's achievement-based tests. Furthermore, this has been salted on the Italian Wikipedia, because it's been recreated and redeleted as blatant advertising nine times this year alone — and for an Italian musician, it doesn't bode well for his ability to pass our notability criteria if even Italians, who by definition are going to be much more familiar with the Italian music media landscape than most of the rest of the world, still can't find the necessary depth and range of reliable source media coverage either. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as with the notability guidelines for politicians, musicians who merely pass GNG but do not meet the music notablity guidelines should also see their articles deleted. However in their case, the article does not even pass GNG, so it should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 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. Note: Delete and merge is not possible for reasons of attribution. Sandstein 12:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gettysburg Address (film)[edit]

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

WP:NFF Promo page for an unreleased student film. No sign of release impending, no distributor connected, no production company that has ever released a film. Facebook page that IMDb lists as the film's official website has not been updated in over four years, IMDb itself has not been updated in over two. A soundtrack was released four years ago (to little attention - Amazon has one review), and also a book of essays on the address that was supposed to be a tie-in. Once one gets beyond the 2013 "look, a father and son are making a movie" piece in the Globe, sources are weak (there's a University of New Hampshire article, as the student involved is one of their students, and similar "local boy" coverage from the hometown paper.) Nothing else other than passing mentions found via WP:BEFORE Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, see if this AfD shakes their tree a bit and gets an answer about why the film isn't being released. From the text and sources the film has major stars in voice-over roles, has released a soundtrack, and includes rare access from institutions holding documents about the topic. An interesting situation, and could be considered notable as a major but completed unreleased artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a curious assumption that a student documentary without a distributor or an experienced production company would be released unless there's a reason for it not to be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at the main editor's talk page asking them (if they are related to the film) the why's of non-release, and suggesting youtube as a possible route. Truly odd that the creators of the film were able to get all of those major and minor stars to participate in the documentary, create a soundtrack, and then leave it unreleased. I will change my "Keep" if more isn't forthcoming, or if the mystery isn't cleared up in a few days. Who doesn't like a good mystery! Randy Kryn (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about, instead of deleting, we change the article's name to The Gettysburg Address (soundtrack) by moving the soundtrack section to the top as the main topic of the page and give it a good edit. We can then tell the interesting story of the "where-is-it?" documentary as a good-sized section of the soundtrack page. And have one of the coolest names on the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does the soundtrack meet the WP:NALBUMS criteria? At the moment, we have it sourced to a sales page and to a review that's a self-published source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean one five-star customer rating at Amazon doesn't clear the notability bar? It's a start. Although self-published, Soundtrack Geek seems to be used as a source quite a bit on Wikipedia, as is reviewer Jørn Tillnes. The bar is still raised higher than that unless Tillness is established as a reviewer in other sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And even if you were to clear that, what you have is a single three-paragraph review, not enough to meet notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am singularly unimpressed by the level of WP:PAG based discussion above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Globe article, the Cornell University article, and the other cites on the page seem to be enough to show notability, verifiability, and to keep the page around. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cornell University piece is not a third-party source, it's six sentences talking about their involvement in the making of this supposed film. Look at it this way: What impact does the film's existence have? What import does it have? Since the film does not exist, and it has not built anyone's career, the answer is clearly none. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The film obviously either exists in production, and is covered in the reliable sources (Boston Globe, the Cornell article, and the other mentions), and what has come from it so far is an an album (which exists, sourced) and a book published by Oxford University Press (sourced), both covered in the article. Either the album or the book could be the stand-alone subject of the page, which combines all of the related topics. What adds to this film's notability are the quality of the voice actors involved as well as the seemingly unprecedented access to papers, manuscripts, and other historical remnants of the Gettysburg Address. With the Boston Globe and Cornell cites, and the amount of detail present, the page covers a unique and important subject. I personally would like to see the film, and await its eventual public release. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sign that either the book or the soundtrack is of sufficient notability to support their own articles. We do not have articles for every book or every CD that exists.... and that goes moreso for student films that look like they will never be released. That you would like to see such a film were it to exist is irrelevant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the book has been published and is sourced on the page, the album has been made and distributed and is sourced on the page, and the film seems to have been created with the direct assistance of many cultural institutions and many big-name actors and is sourced on the page. The Gettysburg Address is notable, the academic book about the address is notable, the musical presentation of the era seems exhaustive of its topic, and the page is a complete package about the project. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the entire section on the book is sourced to Amazon sales pages for it. If you want to make a claim that the book is notable, you'll have to find a better source than that. The soundtrack is sourced to Amazon sales page and a three-word quote from a self-published blog post. These are not signs of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book section draws repeatedly on the fact that this book is associated with the film, but I see no evidence on the sole source (the Amazon page) that this is the case. Yes, it is edited by the same person who made the film, but scholars often publish related works that aren't directly linked, and linkage should not be assumed simply from chronology. The book art is different from the film art (atypical when there is direct linkage) and the only place the Amazon entry mentions the film is in one customer review, where it says the compiler's work on the film 'inspired' the book, which is not the same as it being "a companion book". Customer reviews are not reliable sources anyhow, so we have absolutely zero reliable evidence of linkage. That same review is the only place that James McPherson is named anywhere on that Amazon page, and only to say that the editor consulted with McPherson (among a long list of consulting scholars). The quote from McPherson praising the book appears nowhere (maybe the page was different in 2017). Agricolae (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreleased film that violates Crystal ball, and an unremarkable album that has barley made a ripple.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A ripple is all that's needed for notability, especially as this album has been praised for its coverage of American Civil War music. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praised as such by some guy on his own web site. That is worth the square root Sweet Fanny Adams. Simple existence does not equate with notability, no matter how many stars an Amazon customer or a self-published blog give it. We only have evidence that two people have ever listed to this soundtrack. Agricolae (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "guy on his own website" is a notable reviewer cited often on Wikipedia. The soundtrack exists, as does the book which includes articles by many noted American Civil War scholars, and the film seems to have included many actors and research institutions. The combined book, album, and story of the film's creation make this a keepable article in terms of verifiability. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of web sites are cited on Wikipedia that shouldn't be, so I find 'other pages cite his blog' unpersuasive. Except for certain very-specific exceptions, self-published material is not WP:RS. That the soundtrack exists is not being questioned. That doesn't make it notable, or even necessarily noteworthy. A book exists, but the cited source does not link it in any way to the film, except in a customer review, which isn't a reliable source. A film does not become notable simply by virtue of its cast. Verifiability, mere existence, of three components does not achieve notability, like it was some product of alchemy, where a combination of the mundane produces gold. Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the WikiProject Military history page as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Slatersteven, plus mere existence is insufficient for notability, even if it combines three related items that merely exist. Agricolae (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refs other than that it exists. Basically an advertisement. Article didn't make it 90 days before it was challenged, and has been ever since. Sammy D III (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete film, but merge briefly. Gettysburg Address itself is exceptionally notable. Gettysburg Address#Legacy might be split with a new heading Centennaries, covering President Kennedy's speech and the 150 year events. The book, which is already mentioned, is clearly a notable aspect of that; the film soundtrack and unreleased film are probably less significant, but could be mentioned, with a full archival reference for where the film is deposited. I note that most of the film actors have articles, but the film itself almost sounds like a NN student project. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This book is only mentioned on the speech's page as a reference; there was another book, Gettysburg Responses, which is mentioned in the body of the text. If this book is particularly notable among the dozens of books which have been published on the address, the notability would have to be shown. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 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 Wrong forum. Mergers should be proposed on article talk pages, or just performed per WP:BOLD. Sandstein 12:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Superheroes Theme Park[edit]

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

There is now a Marvel zone at IMG Worlds of Adventure within Dubailand. Should this page be merged into the history of one of these articles? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 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. czar 08:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uncharted (chart)[edit]

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

Non-notable chart. Only lasted for 3 years and never gained any non-Billboard attention. Tagged for notability and sources since 2015. The most charted artist on it doesn't even have an article, nor do they seem to meet WP:NMUSIC. Just a failed experimental subchart by Billboard.

Note: I created this page, but given non-trivial edits by other editors and the age of the article in general, I don't think a G7 would apply. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Basically a list of non-notable artists (at least at the time they charted). Redirecting to Billboard charts (where it has a brief mention) is an acceptable option. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These are non notable artists list, as well as the chart. Perhaps someone can just write a word or 2 in Billboard (magazine) or Billboard 200, whichever applicable. This article clearly doesn't meet [[WP:NMUSIC] or WP:GNG for notability - Jay (talk) 07:22, 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 Withdrawn per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship book[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, no sourcing found, absolutely zero changes since 2006. Reads like a how-to. A cursory search found only personal websites instructing how to make one, or unrelated topics with "Friendship book" in the name. Previously kept in 2007 although the arguments were all WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:ITSNOTABLE. If no improvements have been made in 12 years, then it's clear that this just isn't a noteworthy topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to autograph book, which this sounds like. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Löbert, Anja (2016). "Penfriendships, Exchange Economies, and "FBs": Take That Fans Networking before the Digital Revolution". In Duffett, Mark (ed.). Fan Identities and Practices in Context: Dedicated to Music. London: Routledge. pp. 117, 185, 194. ISBN 978-1-138-93875-5. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Leonard, Marion (2017). Gender in the Music Industry: Rock, Discourse and Girl Power. London: Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-1-351-21824-5. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Eisenlauer, Volker J. (2011). "Multimodality and Social Actions in 'Personal Publishing' Text: From the German 'Poetry Album' to Web 2.0 'Social Network Sites'". In O'Halloran, Kay L.; Smith, Bradley A. (eds.). Multimodal Studies: Exploring Issues and Domains. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-203-82884-7. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Leonard, Marion (1998). "Paper Planes: travelling the new grrrl geographies". In Skelton, Tracey; Valentine, Gill (eds.). Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Cultures. London: Routledge. p. 117. ISBN 0-415-14920-7. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Mangano, Bryan (2017). Fictions of Friendship in the Eighteenth-Century Novel. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 32, 226. ISBN 978-3-319-48694-9. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Sanderson, David (2018-12-05). "Friendship albums show social media is nothing new". The Times. Archived from the original on 2019-11-24. Retrieved 2019-11-24.

Sources with quotes

Löbert, Anja (2016). "Penfriendships, Exchange Economies, and "FBs": Take That Fans Networking before the Digital Revolution". In Duffett, Mark (ed.). Fan Identities and Practices in Context: Dedicated to Music. London: Routledge. pp. 117, 185, 194. ISBN 978-1-138-93875-5. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
This article is reprinted from Taylor & Francis's Popular Music and Society journal in https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03007766.2014.975032.
The book notes on page 117:
If much contemporary research on fan culture is focused on fandom online, there is plenty of activity outside the Internet, and there was much before the Internet era. Anja Löbert's discussion of "friendship books" (or "fbs" as they were known) shows how female fans of Take That formed a thiriving social network in the 1990s, a time well before Facebook and other digital platforms made such cultures so public. The "fbs" prove that such fans were active, creative, and sociable, not isolated celebrity followers.
The book notes on page 185:
Two communicative subsystems receive particular attention. First, I introduce a pre-digital networking tool employed by the scene: "friendship books" or FBs. These were little stapled booklets inside which the originator would write her name, address, age, likes, and bartering interests, before passing them on to a penfriend who would do the same, and so on, until the booklet was full, by which time it had usually travelled around the globe.

The book notes on page 194:
Regular friendship books had a variety of variations, such as slams, crams, and decos. Slams were FBs that included various questions designed to get to know potential penfriends. Questions could include "What's your life motto?" and "What is your favorite book?" or "When was the last time you snogged?" Crams were like friendship books without any personal information. The idea—as the name applies—was to cram as many names and addresses as possible into the space provided. Due to the lack of available space, crams were not usually decorated or prettified in any way. Decos usually had a theme, such as, for example, cats, water, fire, or Asia. The main difference between decos and FBs was that decos involved more craft, while FBs were more focused on introducing onself and one's trade/swap interests. When signing into decos, materials such as decorative papers, pearls, grommets, feathers, fabrics, and other embellishments were used. In contrast to FBs, little information was given about the person; at most name, address, and age. Sometimes only tags like "Tina from Zürich" were included, indicating that decos were no mere means to meet new...
Further information from the book:
The majority of fans used three pathways: ads in teen magazines, FBs, and personal encounters at concerts and other places. The FBs are of particular interest here, because they were the scene’s very own innovation and allowed the fan community nearly complete independence from commercial platforms such as the teen magazine. They were DIY products, made out of small, often elaborately decorated strips of paper, stapled together to make pages in a little booklet. On the first page, the originator of the FB would write her name, address, age, favorite member of Take That, likes and dislikes, favorite bands, and bartering interests. It was then sent on to a series of penpals. Each new recipient would respectively fill in a page with her name and address, age and other details that she added. Once an FB was received (or, as was more common, a stack of them), one could browse for a suitable potential penfriend, write to that peer, and, with any luck, embark on a pen/bartering friendship with that person.
...
The FBs served at least four purposes (see Figure 4). First, they were a forum to meet new penpals—a pre-digital networking tool, as it were. Second, FBs advertised what the individual fans wanted to barter or, as it was called within the scene, to “swap.” As swapping and bartering were such an important part of the scene, members used their space on the FB page to indicate what they were after and what they could offer in return. This way, a fan could quickly assess whether someone would be a suitable penfriend or not. Third, FBs were a way of discovering new interests; entrants specified a list of which bands they liked aside from Take That. This practice was similar to what we now find on Last.fm, Amazon and other online shops when they suggest, “Others who bought this item were also interested in.” Frequently, for instance, Take That fans would put various Britpop or Indie bands among their likes, inspiring others to listen to this music as well. At the very least, however, such declarations of taste provided a sort of “scene barometer” answering questions such as “What’s going on in my scene?/What are my peers into?” Finally, FBs promoted selfexpression and creativity. While some FB authors would not use anything but a black or blue pen to make their entry, others would turn their small space on paper into a little piece of art. Advocates of the latter would have a whole range of FB-making equipment from the arts and crafts shop: felt pens, blow pens, gel pens, glitter, varnish, tape, clear seal, and glue. Clippings, stickers, and interesting materials and patterns that they collected from magazines and so forth were used. Some of these FB artists were not even looking for new penfriends any longer (indicated by the acronym SNNP, meaning “Sorry no new pals”), making the motive for their entry pleasure in the creative process. “It was such a creative way to get to know more people, or leave your mark. It’s like graffiti, you leave your signature, your piece of art on a wall for everyone to see, only that it isn’t ‘everyone,’ per say, it’s like a message in a bottle, traveling the world” (Oshra P., Israel).
Leonard, Marion (2017). Gender in the Music Industry: Rock, Discourse and Girl Power. London: Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-1-351-21824-5. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The book notes:
Within my research I found that some zine writers encouraged further grrrl networking by posting out 'friendship books' or 'slam books' with their zines. These 'books' are handmade by stapling several squares of paper together. The front page includes the name and address of the girl who produced the 'book' and the contact details of a friend of hers. Recipients of these books are requested to fill in their name, address and details of their likes and dislikes. When the friendship book becomes full it is sent to the girl whose name appears on the front page. This request for personal interaction is in keeping with the content of the zines.
Eisenlauer, Volker J. (2011). "Multimodality and Social Actions in 'Personal Publishing' Text: From the German 'Poetry Album' to Web 2.0 'Social Network Sites'". In O'Halloran, Kay L.; Smith, Bradley A. (eds.). Multimodal Studies: Exploring Issues and Domains. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-203-82884-7. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The book notes on page 132:
It will then be demonstrated that on a functional level SNS bear some striking similarities to the poetry album and its more recent equivalent, the friendship book.
The book notes on page 138:
In terms of data, the present study draws on a small corpus of texts, consisting of twenty-five poetry albums, twelve friendship books and 100 SNS profiles.
The book notes on page 140:
Shifting the focus to a more recent form of poetry albums, the so-called 'friendship book', we find some dramatic changes on a representational level. As illustrated by Figure 8.3c, friendship books contain theme question templates very similar to SNS profiles, asking for personal details, such as favourite animal, favourite books and songs, hobbies, career wish etc. Just as in SNS, profiles inscribers are prompted to attach a photograph in an ID photo format. On the other hand, friendship books typically provide templates such as “my verse for you” or “as a friendship souvenir”, prompting the author to deliver inscriptions in the style of traditional poetry albums. As my data demonstrates, only a few inscribers reverted to their intertextual knowledge and attached poetry album-like verses. More commonly, inscribers expressed a general wish or a self-made verse in the respective text templates (Figure 8.3d)
...
To this day, it is still a common practice for German schoolchildren to exchange poetry albums and friendship books, especially among the younger children (ages seven to fourteen).
The book notes on page 148:
Contrasting poetry albums, friendship books and SNS, we obtain the following results: the textual structure of poetry album inscriptions builds on conventionalised textual patterns that can be traced back to the mid-sixteenth century. In contrast, in friendship book entries and SNS profiles, the medium, with its pre-ordained templates, determines both the structure and the content of the individual inscriptions. From a macro-point of view, something that all text types have in common is their regress on fixed and formulaic cultural units. Poetry album verses resort to pattern books, for which we find evidence as early as in the sixteenth century, as well as to the author’s intertextual knowledge about album verses. The choice of a particular verse is constitutive for writing an entry in someone’s poetry album. The individuality and/or the self-representation of the author arises from the choice and a possible modification of an established album verse (see Linke 2007). Further, the pictorial elements of an inscription appear to offer various means for an indirect presentation of the author: notions about the pictorial parts of an inscription seem to be less strict, ranging from attached stickers and postcards to silhouettes and handmade drawings. In contrast, friendship book entries and SNS profiles are utilised to present the authors in a much more direct manner. In doing so, both texts draw on media discourse-related entities to deploy them for the individual positioning of the author, thus functioning, as Liu (2007) has shown, as expressive arenas for taste performance.13 Related to this, we can contrast the template "This is my favourite book" of a friendship book with a “visual bookshelf” taken from a Facebook profile. The friendship book’s template provides information about the inscriber’s favourite book. It is elicited by the statement “das ist mein Lieblingsbuch” (This is my favourite book) and constrained by the size of the supplied frame. In contrast to this, Facebook’s 'visual bookshelf' gives much more detailed information: about books the owner is currently reading, books she has already read and those she plans to read in future. By virtue of its hypertextual nature, Facebook’s ‘visual bookshelf’ comprises not only explicit statements about the author’s literature preferences but also hyperlinks from the displayed titles to discussion boards where one may comment on the individual books or click on a further hyperlink to purchase the specifi c title via the e-commerce platform “Amazon”.
The book notes on page 149:
The poetry album and the friendship book may be seen as predecessor texts of SNS. All of these texts correspond in articulating a social network. In addition to this, they all offer a means for textual self-representation: while in poetry albums personal details of inscribers may arise only in a more implicit way; friendship books and SNS profiles make personal information explicit.
Leonard, Marion (1998). "Paper Planes: travelling the new grrrl geographies". In Skelton, Tracey; Valentine, Gill (eds.). Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Cultures. London: Routledge. p. 117. ISBN 0-415-14920-7. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The book notes:
Friendship books and ‘Slam’ books are small hand-made booklets comprised of several squares of paper stapled together. Each ‘book’ contains a list of names and addresses and a brieft outline of the respective entrant’s likes/ interests. When full, the book is posted to the addressee on the front page.
Mangano, Bryan (2017). Fictions of Friendship in the Eighteenth-Century Novel. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 32, 226. ISBN 978-3-319-48694-9. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The book notes on page 34:
By the end of the century, notions of sentimental or romantic friendship as sites for literate, expressive subjectivities can be observed in the exchanging of libri amicorum or friendship books among educated classes. These books were creative and material expressions of the connection between two or more friends, sharing a lineage with common-place books and autograph books that reflected university friendships among men. Evoking pre-mature memorialization, they stored the concrete emblems of lived relationships, including drawings, letters, locks of hair, fabric, and copied quotations from favorite authors. Such practices invite us to consider how notions of friendship are re-shaped, at least within privileged literate circles, by the omnipresence of print media and literary articulations of friendship.
The book notes on page 226:
While friendship books appear to evolve out of the practice of autograph books, traceable back to sixteenth-century Germany, they also reflect eighteenth-century perceptions of interpersonal relationships in the "age of sensibility," and often work to document reading experiences. For two instances of eighteenth-century friendship books, see "Libri Amicorum: Friendship and Autographs." Anne Wagner. Untitled Manuscript. New York Public Library Digital Gallery. Web. 29 March 2013; and "The Unique Friendship Book of Rev. James Stanier Clark (1765–1834)." James Stanier Clark. Untitled Manuscript. Art Works Gallery. Web. 29 March 2013. http://www.artworksgallery.co.uk
Sanderson, David (2018-12-05). "Friendship albums show social media is nothing new". The Times. Archived from the original on 2019-11-24. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
The British Library's little known collection of alba amicorum, or friendship books, is to be brought out of storage to highlight how the youth of 400 years ago created their own social media.
Alba amicorum originated in Germany in the late 1500s. Young aristocrats or students would travel across Europe filling their albums with portraits, messages from people they befriended and even drinking rituals and rude pictures.
Roly Keating, the library's chief executive, said that the alba amicorum were a huge trend that took off as people "began to travel and make connections and, rather like today, they didn't want those friendships to be totally secret things".
He said he had been unaware of the library's holdings of about 500 of the friendship books, many of which it is putting on display in February.
Alexandra Ault, a curator in manuscripts, said that the museum had examples of books being used to collect autographs, including those of the poet John Milton and the explorer Francis Drake.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow friendship book to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friendship book participants: Eliz81 (talk · contribs), Myleslong (talk · contribs), Mandsford (talk · contribs), LaMenta3 (talk · contribs), Corpx (talk · contribs), Josiah Rowe (talk · contribs), Mathmo (talk · contribs), Jay32183 (talk · contribs), and DGG (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. an abundance of sources, recent and historical. Saying platitudes to ones friends did not originate with Facebook. DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the discussion that followed my initial reaction. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Page of the United States House of Representatives#House Page Board. Sandstein 12:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

House Page Board[edit]

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

The information from this article that is still relevant is now at Page of the United States House of Representatives Peoplenewit (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC) (categories) peoplenewit (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge Doesn't look like all of the information is there, but it can certainly be merged without opposition I hope. Reywas92^Talk 19:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 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 redirect to Variable Geo. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 05:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Variable Geo (anime)[edit]

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

Not notable. Prodded in June, prod was objected to after the single ref was added, which is a long list of anime releases mentioning the subject in name only. Searched for the name in English and Japanese, and only found one "review," which is actually just a quick plot summary. Skeletor3000 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appears to be a page for the fighting came this is based off of at Variable Geo. There's already some detail about the OVA on the main article, so I don't think a merge makes sense - delete should be fine. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support a redirect as a second choice, per Knowledgekid87 below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Variable Geo: It's an adaptation based off the fighting game. However, there isn't enough information on a standalone article on the anime series especially when poorly sourced. lullabying (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Variable Geo. I have merged only the referenced content as the rest is plot info (WP:NOTPLOT). The section on Variable Geo lightly touches upon the plot details that can always be expanded with sourced information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yutaka Tanaka. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 05:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Night[edit]

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

Not notable. The single review cited in the article is about the anime version. Neither version has any further non-fan reviews that I can find. Skeletor3000 (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yutaka Tanaka. This was the first work of a known manga author, it should be redirected as a possible search title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yutaka Tanaka as above. This can be used to expand on Tanaka's first work and reception. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yutaka Tanaka. Makes the most sense for this one. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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