Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 November	26 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 redirect to List of Taito games. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Space Chaser[edit]

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

There are multiple issues with this page. There are no good sources. StrategyWiki is not reliable and the only other one that has information in it appears to be a primary source. Most of the text appears to basically be a copy paste from StrategyWiki. Unless there are any independent sources that can verify anything in this article, I don't see how it meets Wikipedia's requirements. WP:NRVE Bluedude588 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bluedude588 (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Taito games. I personally don't care about this page or this game in the slightest, and I have not found much to indicate it can meet the notability criteria. At the same time, this game has seen a few home ports and inclusions in Taito-related game compilations, so I think this page could have the chance to be recreated if reviews can be found. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Taito games Currently the article cites three sources. One of which is unreliable as it is just a StrategyWiki per WP:RSP. The other source is a PNG to a website which no longer displays that image. The final source is a Japanese website which seems to be a database entry but I cannot translate it. I could not find any other reliable coverage of the game thus it is not notable to have its own article. Redirecting to List of Taito games seems like the most appropriate solution. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:25, 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. While there's a consensus for keeping the article, I do feel some of the policy justifications are fairly weak, or not well addressed in this discussion. It might be best for this to be reviewed again later in a couple months (or longer, preferably). I could re-list the AfD, but considering the previous one had two such relists with no additional feedback, I don't think prolonging this would be helpful. Accordingly, this is closed as 'keep.' Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DZRV-FM[edit]

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

Relist following a no-consensus closure; the problem was that there was still only one "vote" each way after three full weeks, not that there was really any strong disagreement. In the original discussion, a user showed sources which verified that a radio transmitter broadcasts on this frequency in this location; however, the sources failed right across the board to provide any verification that the station produces any of its own original programming, rather than simply rebroadcasting programming produced elsewhere. They also mostly failed to verify that "DZRV" is actually its call sign, as all but one of them referred to the station as DWRV, but that's not the fatal issue here. A station whose article is located at the wrong name can just be moved — but producing some original programming is one of the four essential and non-negotiable criteria that a radio station always has to meet to even be notable in the first place, so a station that can't properly verify that it passes that criterion doesn't even get to have an article at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After what I saw in the last discussion, and the backing evidence presented, I think the article is a keeper. Three references seems good, that GeoCities mirror needs to go. I would like to see all the evidence presented in the last AfD added to the article. I know nothing of Filipino radio stations, just looking at this from an article standpoint. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:40 on November 26, 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way, Bearcat don't bother responding, I won't reply. I am not looking for a conversation, debate, or even a limrick. My !vote stands. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:42 on November 26, 2019 (UTC)
  - I respond for the benefit of other people reading this discussion, not for you, so I'm really not interested in what you're looking for — the last time you and I tangled on a radio station that didn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion rules, you were in the wrong, and ran to somebody else for assistance in trying to fling shit at my face but he backed me up and not you, and yet I'm the bad guy here? Not how that works, dude.
    At any rate, none of the evidence presented in the last AfD was dispositive — literally all we saw was proof that a transmitter exists on this frequency in this town, but with a different call sign than the title of this article suggests. And whatever the station's call sign is or isn't, we saw exactly zero evidence that it originates any of its own programming and isn't just a relay of another station — but originating at least some of its own programming is one of the non-negotiable core conditions that a radio station always has to meet to qualify for an article per WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the evidences posted in the previous discussion, including the ones by 4meter4. It's better to keep the article as is. I have explained more than enough in the previous discussion. And I won't explain any further. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not "explained more than enough" — as I already pointed out above, the first discussion completely failed to provide any evidence that this station satisfies one of the four non-negotiable core conditions for the notability of a radio station: directly originating at least some of its own standalone programming, as contrasted with simply being a rebroadcaster of a station from somewhere else. Rebroadcasters are not independently notable, so to qualify for an article a station must, always and without exception, show hard proof that it is an originating station and not just a rebroadcaster. Demonstrating that is not optional; it is a mandatory and non-negotiable requirement that a radio station must always be able to show. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles of some stations in the US which hold sources from only FCC, Broadcasting Yearbooks, Radio-Locator & Arbitron. The same goes for this article. Among the sources in this article are the Yearbook from PSA and/or the recent record from NTC. Hence, this is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. Arguing with me or anyone who has the same vote as mine in this discussion won't change anything. With all due respect, I already explained more than enough as this is not a debate. And I'll still stand with my vote. So, BE IT. PERIOD. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that the problem here has anything to do with what types of sources there are — the fact that they're government sources is not the problem, because government sources are unavoidably necessary to an extent in radio station articles. The problem is that none of the sources offer any confirmation that the station creates any of its own original programming, as opposed to simply being a rebroadcaster of programming produced elsewhere — which is a core condition that every radio station always has to meet to qualify for an article at all. It has nothing to do with whether the sources are government ones or not — it has to do with whether the sources are properly verifying that the station meets all of the necessary notability criteria or not. Even in the United States, a station which is only a rebroadcaster of another station, and does not actually create any of its own distinct programming at all, gets a redirect to its programming source and not a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was already agreed to keep it and I don't understand why delete this again when it has been resolved (with all the technical jargons included). It hasn't been two months since this was voted for keep. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first discussion closed no consensus, not keep. It has never been "agreed" to keep it. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was closed as no consensus, hence defaulted as keep. But, it doesn't mean it will be kept. There's a possibility for a rediscussion to be open, like this one. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read it again. There was really no consensus. Sorry. I am changing my keep vote to no vote. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is a stub. I would suggest those who want this article to stay long to start working on expanding it, or else, i am not surprised if it will be nominated for deletion again. If this radio station is really significant, I believe it is not too difficult for you (those who voted to KEEP it) to find more info to make this article looks more encyclopedic - Jay (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes the website's standards for notability. Capt. Milokan (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What source verifies that it passes the "must originate some of its own programming" condition for the notability of radio stations? Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relist or Draft~~ Delete - Non notable and fails WP:GNG - Jay (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBROADCAST. Bearcat's original nom, and in particular his reponse to Superastig is a spot on analysis.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I'm rather neutral as to whether it should be kept or removed for the benefit of the encyclopedia. It certainly needs to be moved. On the positive side, it does seem to have its own programming, as indicated by the presence of a "station manager" on the geocities page. On the negative side, is that geocities page really a reliable source, even in the most liberal interpretation? On the positive side, the philstar source indicates the station carries some network programming, indicating that it isn't just a translator or repeater, but chooses its own programming. Also on the plus side, it seems to have a strong signal within a very major metropolitan area, indicating a topic of inherent encyclopedic interest. On the negative side... there's sure not much to build an encyclopedia article from. The article says the station has its own studios, which is HIGHLY indicative of original programming, but I couldn't verify from the sources that it actually does have its own studios. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The geocities website is an old website of a regional sector of Philippine News Agency. It is archived and outdated, with its recent post dated late 2005. Though I'm neutral re: that link, there may be some old, but good sources there. It's up to them if that link should be retained or let go. _SUPER ^ASTIG 23:54, 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 10:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Magic (Doyle and Macdonald novels)[edit]

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

I read these books as a kid, and even enjoyed them; but I can't find any substantive secondary sources about them. In addition to the usual search engines, I also looked through ISFDB, which, while not reliable in itself, often links to reliable sources. These books, as far as I can see, aren't even listed there. I frequently write about speculative fiction, so I'd be surprised if I've overlooked anything, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I couldn't find any reviews, so it seems a failure of NBOOK, but ping me if reviews are found and I'll revise my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 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 List of Rome characters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niobe of the Voreni[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Rome characters where the character is already discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Similar to my comment to the other character for this TV series. If not delete, redirect this to List of Rome characters - Jay (talk) 06:45, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quintus Valerius Pompey[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another non-notable fictional character who fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Similar to my comment to the other character for this TV series. If not delete, redirect this to List of Rome characters - Jay (talk) 06:40, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Cassius Longinus (Rome character)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - more fancruft, fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above comments. If not delete, redirect this to List of Rome characters - Jay (talk) 06:40, 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 Placentia, Newfoundland and Labrador. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anne's Academy (Dunville)[edit]

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

I'm unsure if this meets WP:NSCHOOL. It may, because it had upper grade levels from 1979 to 2010. However, I'm struggling to find much to uphold notability here. Raymie (t • c) 22:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 22:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 22:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Placentia, Newfoundland and Labrador-if there is anything to merge- the combined community has a population of under 5000. An Education section could include other schools. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Clem, if for no better reason than that's what we usually do with schools that lack sufficient sources. It's possible notability could be shown for the period it was a secondary school, but there is virtually nothing about that in the current sourcing. Another ATD might be to move it to draft if anyone wants it. John from Idegon (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, having looked at the article, it doesn't look like there is anything of value to merge; the history section is completely unsourced and the services section is sourced to the school's website that doesn't work and a directory listing which doesn't work for me, getting a certificate error. So I think it would be better to redirect with the R from school template. For the target page, it should be Dunville, Newfoundland and Labrador which has a link to this school and is also mentioned in the brackets of this article name. It could also be redirected to its school district; Eastern School District of Newfoundland and Labrador. Or merge per above, but thoughts John, ClemRutter? Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts? From our article- Dunville (or East Placentia) is a village within the township of Placentia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and would suggest that Dunville could be merged with Placentia, and become a redirect. Placentia is the town with the receiving high school.Laval High School ClemRutter (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Dunville one would be more specific and contains a link to Placentia, but yeah I agree; redirect to Placentia. By the way, the Laval High School link doesn't work, I'm getting "access denied"? Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So did I- I have removed the pipe- and the link works now. ClemRutter (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 08:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Doehner[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:1E. No indication of any claim to notability other than an "I was there and lived" with respect to the Hindenburg crash and happened to outlive the other survivors. Subject did not have a significant role in the disaster. See also the talk page discussion. (Note: I had Proded the article but the talk page discussion indicated some disagreement so I feel this is the best place to sort it out.) Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biographical works Category:Disasters

Keep - WP:BLP1E is NOT a stand-alone WP:DELREASON - it's very clear what it says the means for resolving a WP:BLP1E situation are and they do not include deletion, but are merge/rename/redirect (and then, not in all cases). The only reason why WP:BLP1E should lead to deletion is where the event to which you'd otherwise merge/rename/redirect is itself not notable, or there is nothing to merge, or the redirect is not plausible - and in each case there is another policy that is failed.

However, this is a clear case where the subject should be covered separately to the event. Specifically, notability is met for Werner Doehner on the basis of the multiple articles published in reliable, independent sources (e.g., 1 2 3) - you can't get much more notable than having multiple multi-paragraph articles written about you over the course of a number of years in national/international broadsheets. That's an easy WP:BASIC pass. Covering him above a brief mention on the page related to the disaster is obviously undue so no need to merge to the disaster article. The claim to be the last survivor of an event is separated from the event itself by more than 80 years so it is obviously not true that this is a WP:1E situation. Whilst WP:WAX is not a great argument to use at AFD, it is nonetheless the case that we have articles on the last survivors of wars and other disasters (e.g., Harry Patch, Millvina Dean) and it is instructive to consider the fact that their notability is considered as separate to the events of which they are the last survivor. FOARP (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was really challenging. It's true that the only reason Doehner was notable was because he survived the Hindenberg (WP:1E): When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. However, there is extensive significant coverage (not reflected in the article, but exists) both over the years and now on his death. I've gone back and forth between WP:GNG and WP:1E and WP:BLP1E. I finally narrowed it down to this part of WP:BLP1E: The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. In this case, significant coverage was persistent over the years, particularly as other survivors died until he was the last one. Multiple highly-respected sources consider his role significant, even though his "role" was simply continuing to live. So, I say we should keep it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the cogent arguments of FOARP and Schazjmd, and because we tend to keep such "last survivor" articles (although this consensus could change). Bearian (talk) 15:23, 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 no consensus. Those advancing delete argue that evidence put forward of notability actually fails on several grounds including lack of significant coverage and notability not being inherited. Those advancing keep suggest that there are sources which can be pointed to now, and further that there is reasonable evidence to suggest sources exist that aren't present in the encyclopedia. In the end when properly weighing the policy and guideline based rationales offered there is simply no consensus here about notability and so it is closed as no consensus. While this is done without prejudice to a future renomination, I would suggest at least a few months elapse to give interested editors time to access sources which might not be readily available online. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Earp[edit]

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

Non-notable person, per wp:Notability (people) guideline changes since the last discussion in 2006. Nothing remarkable here. Thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and especially WP:NOTINHERITED. Please note: he was not a participant of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, which would have made him notable. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but he was identified as part of the Western culture by The San Francisco Examiner, so I guess in some way he was associated with the legend. Genium . 23:14, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)
Keep Not seeing any claim of notability, credible or otherwise. Being Wyatt Earp's half brother is not enough per WP:NOTINHERITED. Served in the Army, but does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has his entry in the Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography, where he is described as pioneer. Genium . 10:02, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Genium . 10:06, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Genium . 10:18, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)

DELETE as nom. I could be OK with a merge/mention in the Nicholas Porter Earp's (his father) article, and the rename of that article to Earp family or similar, as he seems to lack notability also. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 1962 Brand book of the Denver Posse of The Westerners published in 1963 included Some notes on Newton Earp, by Gary L. Roberts. Was also the subject of a dedicated article in The 1,001 most-asked questions about the American West. Genium . 23:14, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)
Keep historical figures don't necessarily show up in "google" searches well, but even checking Google Scholar and Google Books above shows a good number of mentions and details of the individual--including a fairly contemporary mention of him in the Wichita Eagle. I think there seems to be an assumption that this person does not meet WP:GNG but in my view does indeed clearly and abundantly pass. Since I found this collection simply by clicking two of the links above, I wonder if WP:BEFORE was completed prior to the nomination of this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not by anyone involved in writing the article, who failed to find anything that he'd done that was in any way noteworthy. Is it too much to ask that someone's claim to fame is clearly stated? Your source has a tantalising bit about "an account of a late 19th century shooting at Garden City’s railroad depot involving Marshal Newton Earp, half-bother of Wyatt Earp", and on that basis I have stricken my !vote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly you are not saying that everyone ever written about in a newspaper or two is notable. Even if he was a sheriff somewhere, and a soldier, this guy's life was un-extraordinary, and he is really not notable for anything. Sorry. Wonder no more, because even after BEFORE, there is nothing here to show notability. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like I posted above, a good amount of research and data is easily found in Google Scholar and Google Books. As for a "claim to fame" that is not a requirement for notability, because "notability" and "famous" are not the same thing. Notability is determined by the coverage and it is not a matter of opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you consider "...a good amount of research and data is easily found in Google Scholar and Google Books..." as even the few references used in the article illustrate the glaring lack of notability:
- - - - 7) "Missouri Marriages, 1750-1920" is a Family Search webpage which refers to a primary source verifying he was indeed married;
        
        6) Newton Earp card is a genealogy page referencing a primary source document verifying he indeed enlisted in the army;
        
        5) Gatto, Steve. "Marriage to Urilla Sutherland" another genealogy page referencing a primary source document indicating that he was justice of the peace at Wyatt's wedding;
        
        4) Newton Earp ; picture archival webpage is a self-published, blog-genealogical site (Shinaberry Family tree) with no editorial oversight besides the author; this is the most used reference in the article and does not pass Reliable;
        
        2) Chrisman, Harry E. (1982). The 1,001 most asked questions about the American West only mentions the town of Newton, Texas; and as such is a non-sequitur;
        
        1 & #3) Thrapp, Dan L. (1991). Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography: A-F mentions Wyatt beating him in an election, hardly what anyone would consider notable.
Do you perhaps have additional information and sources that just don't verify that he was born, was married, and a soldier but actually shows some notability for this guy? I see nothing that is "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention" about him. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please click on the Google Books link above. Here's the key results from the first of 10 pages:
Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography: A-F - Page 447, Dan L. Thrapp - 1991 "He may have hunted buffalo briefly the winter of 1873 near Peace, Kansas. Newton Earp was a Mason. He died near Sacramento, California, where he had removed from Kansas in the 1890s. Ed Bartholomew, Wyatt Earp: The Untold Story, ..."

Wyatt Earp: A Vigilante Life - Page 58, Andrew C. Isenberg - 2013 "In an era when divorce was difficult to obtain, spousal abandonment was a common way out of an unhappy marriage.46 In contrast to Virgil, four years in the army seem to have inspired rather than inhibited Newton Earp's marriage plans."

A Wyatt Earp Anthology: Long May His Story Be Told - Page 739, Roy B. Young, ‎Gary L. Roberts, ‎Casey Tefertiller - 2019 "Even a casual review of “Legendary American” and the endless array of photographs that should credit to others. In Earp Facts, Volume Three, p. 32, Boyer, in describing the flap over the Newton Earp family photograph published in the San ..."

Wyatt Earp's Cowboy Campaign: The Bloody Restoration of Law ... - Page 292, Chuck Hornung - 2016 "Western-Outlaw Lawman History Association Journal, Summer 2001. Cubbison, Douglas R. “Newton Earp: The Forgotten Fighting Earp Brother.” Western-Outlaw Lawman History Association Journal, Fall 2000. _____. “The Service of James ..."

The Denver Westerners Brand Book - Page 43, Westerners. Denver Posse - 1962 - "Newton Earp lived such an obscure life, while his half-brothers attained fame as gunfighting marshals. Until the publication of Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal by Stuart N. Lake in 1931, few people had ever heard of Newton Earp, and indeed Mr."

Suppressed murder of Wyatt Earp - Page 77, Glenn G. Boyer - 1967 "Newton Earp moved from Sterling to Garden City, Kansas, sometime in the late 70's or early 80's, as well as I can remember and reckon the dates. I went to Garden City in the early 80's and was with him there at times in the early 80's. I believe ..."

Wyatt Earp, 1848 to 1880 - Page 44, Ed Ellsworth Bartholomew - 1963 "Perhaps Newton Earp had reason to feel cool toward his young half brother Wyatt, but he was still Newton “the Good,” a patient man. There are those who believe that Wyatt lived with Newton when things went wrong for the young man."

Like I said, just some of the first of ten pages. This is starting to clutter up the discussion--in the future please click on the links yourself rather than forcing editors to re-post here a duplication of large amounts of content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All mere mentions, not significant; and, per #5 above, he's notable for how obscure a life he led? Not changing anyone's mind here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An individual can indeed be notable for attempting to live an obscure life, as the VOLUME of third party independent reliable sources in Google Books would support. We as editors don't decide if someone is notable based on whether or not we think they did something noteworthy, we compile what others have already decided. And a number of others have already decided that--for whatever reason does not matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete -- So what did he do to make him notable? Even if related to Wyatt Earp, notability is not inherited. It is a pity that Genium is providing links to a database not the actual articles. I am not questioning verifiability, but notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the subject may be, its notability comes from its presence in encyclopedias, for me at least. This is the case here. Genium . 02:11, Nov 30, 2019 (UTC)
There must me "significant" independent coverage for notability. Mere mentions, even in an encyclopedia, is way below that threshold. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG defines: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. That threshold has been met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (people): For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That measure has also been exceeded. This is indicated by the coverage and that other third parties have found incidents in his life "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in third party works. Whether or not you or I think it is interesting or not does not matter, for that is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT or a derivative of that argument. What matters is that others (apparently a good number of historians) thought it was interesting and they recorded it in third party works. Then we in the never-ending process of building an encyclopedia recognize that they thought that and take the multiple works together to create an article. The books, the historical documents, and even the modern-day references of items held to this day in museum all point to the undeniable conclusion that independent third party researchers have concluded that his life and incidents that surround it is worth recording.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only significant non-trivial more-than-passing-mention coverage is self-published web page. Agricolae (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to what do you refer? Newton Earp died in 1928, he didn't self-publish any web page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SELFPUBLISH. 'Someone's personal website', such as this page's heavily-used ref #6, is not WP:RS and does not indicate notability, just the personal whims of the compiler. Agricolae (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you believe are self-published?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
. . . such as this page's heavily-used ref #6 (now changed to #7 - part of some Shinaberry Family web history site). That is the most-used source, cited 6 times. (Same with the ". "Marriage to Urilla Sutherland" citation - a personal web page.) The next most used is Roberts, which I can only see snippets of, but begins with "It often happens that deserving people go through life unnoticed," which you apparently take to mean he is deserving, but I take to mean he has been largely unnoticed. I can't tell if it is self-published or not, but given the topic I doubt it underwent serious editorial review. Chrisman again only snippet view for me, but it returns two disconnected hits (neither of which show his actual name), and that is not what I would expect if he was given more than trivial coverage. The pension index card is an unpublished primary record, its use being original research, plus it is an index card and not even the record, so it isn't even well-done original research (indexes aren't sources, they are a way to find sources). The Missouri Marriages ref isn't working, but seems to be a database search result, so again badly-done original research. That leaves the Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography, which gives him a brief blurb - he was born, he fought in war, he ran for office and lost, he went west, he had a family, maybe he hunted once, he died. It would be the strongest argument in favor of notability, but given the esoteric title and the pedestrian nature of entry, I don't exactly count this as significant coverage. You clearly disagree, so be it - I am done here. Agricolae (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of better sourcing can be achieved through editing. Some of the sources in the article would not stand up to a notability test (although they are good for verifiability), there are many others even online in Google Books that meet or exceed notability standards. The issue of deletion should be about the notability of the individual, not the current state of the article. While I agree that sometimes an article can be so bad that we're better off deleting it (policy violations are an example) that's not the case here. The subject matter is notable as referenced by sources found through searches: and that's the question we are here to address. Editing of article content can be handled on the article talk page. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has entry in Dan L. Thrapp (1 June 1991). Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography: A-F. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 446–447. ISBN 0-8032-9418-2. . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many such articles of individuals made famous by association with their famous families, who of themselves may not done anything particularly noteworthy, but have generated some interest in the media and the public eye. Consider the English royal family, for example, princess Margaret's grandson Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 17:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, OTHERSTUFF exists on wikipedia. Although I respect the great deal of time and effort you have devoted to the Earp family member articles, I have to disagree when it comes to this guy. I would also draw your attention to wp:Family. As to European royalty, members of royal families hold titles, which bestows upon them more deference regarding notability. What title did Newt hold again? :-) Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 08:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide states "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article." Boston1775 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia's own guidelines for notability of military personnel, the page on Newton Earp clearly discusses his birth, personal life, and military career. There is no mention of education although that is most likely because he had little to no formal education as he was a farmer and carpenter. GenQuest notes that Newton Earp's life was rather non-descript and ordinary and we know of him primarily due to his famous siblings; however, given that there is enough information about Newton Earp to meet the minimum guidelines set by Wikipedia in relation to the notability of "military people" then the page should be kept. Boston1775 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy states: "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so." Boston1775 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia's own guidelines for the deletion of a page, the page Newton Earp should not be deleted since there seems to be an ideological divide between the "keep" or "delete" points of view in relation to the page on Newton Earp. Boston1775 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except, your reference is to a (non-binding) essay at Military History, NOT a policy at MoS. Respectfully, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the discussion on the Military History page is non-binding; however the "Deletion Policy" is just that a "policy". Given that this is the second thread that is attempting to remove the page on Newton Earp it should be crystal clear to anyone reading this thread that there is no consensus for removal of the page and thus the page should stay as per policy. What makes this forum great is the freedom of speech everyone has and the right to an opinion. However, at the end of the day, it looks like we will just have to agree to disagree on if Newton Earp is notable or not. Boston1775 (talk) 04:23, 29 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. Closing statement is on the talk page Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The following article is being nominated for deletion for several major factors. These include a lack of citations, containing mostly original research, and lacking little notability for existence. If the article is to remain and avoid deletion, editors must take this opportunity to discuss how to change the article's current layout and improve it. Such a suggestion should include how to redo tables on contestants that take part, listing episodes of each series of the programme, and presenting the information in a much better way. GUtt01 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for most of/all of the same reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all the series up for deletion? I don't see nothing wrong with them. So it's pointless deleting them =\ L1amw90 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I will go in-depth on what is wrong with these articles, and point out what could be done to keep these from deletion, with editors able to voice what they think, what they suggest, in order to form a general consensus on how best to deal with these problematic articles:

Lack of citations - A considerable number of articles, particularly the early ones, lack citations for the information within, including any references to the contest's results for each respective series. Except for the citation on the ratings of each series, this is a serious problem. If the articles are to remain, most notable entries of information will need to have references found.
Original Research - Much of the articles are fed with OR that is considerably inflated and thus can't be retained without sources. If the articles are to remain, various layouts of information will have to be removed; most particular will be all sections relating to Bushtucker Trails, Dingo Dollars and Star Counts.
Difficult Results tables - We got two table in use detailing the results of the contest for each series. One is simple and efficient, detailing each celebrity that partook in the series, their most notable work, and the result of their performance. The other is more complicated, use too many colours, and sees to have a split in it detailing elimination of celebrities. While the second's only notable factor is the voting results, it's clearly problematic. The only solution I can suggest is removing the second table, and placing any citations linked to results into the first table; voting results may be retained, but only if there is a general idea of how to do so, otherwise they will have to go.
No Episode Table - Except for where one was provided, most articles don't include an episode table listing the episodes of the series. If the articles are to remain, such an episode list must be included; short sums of the episode should also be written out, detailing a brief summary of events covered in the episode.
Leads - These will have to be amended and cleaned up, as they really could do with improving.
Existing References - Any references from sources deemed unreliable will need to be removed. Editors should double-check these if the articles are to remain.

If editors can determine how best to deal with the issues I have pointed out, and figure out what to do with the articles in order to rectify the problems, then they could avoid deletion. But this will acquire an effort by editors to make certain to combat the issues and clean up the articles in question. If nothing is considered, it will be most likely that the articles will be facing possible deletion. GUtt01 (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for Closure of AfD: As the nominator for this discussion, I am calling for closure of this discussion after a review off a previous AfD I was involved in concerning a similar matter, with request that no result be accepted with what was put forward by everyone who partook in this AfD, nor the articles deleted. Based on the comments of a number of editors, I feel I have done the exact say thing as I had pointed out to a nominator in the AfD I entered into. This particular AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Apprentice (UK series thirteen) - was done to provoke a deletion discussion on a series of articles for a programme because of its layout, and I myself pointed out to the nominator about WP:BEFORE in regards to their action. Although it was not appropriate, it did have the "silver lining" of editors determining what to do with the article and related articles connected to it within the discussion and prompted an eventual change of these to combat the issues. My only concerns that I like to be dealt with in independent discussions are:~

A full-on discussion on the layout of these articles, and those within other international editions, where there is at least 3 seasons or more, should be conducted over the relevant issues I raised, and a general question over two additional areas - out-of-universe viewpoint (when edited), and general interest.

A discussion over whether to divide MOS:TV into three separate Manuals of Style - 1. Television ; 2. Season ; 3. Episode

~~I would also like any other AfDs pertaining to programmes related to the original/the franchise to be suspended pending the discussion marked within #1. GUtt01 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

This is purposefully disruptive behaviour simply to make a point. If you want to raise points about formatting/style then open an RFC on it. AFD is not for formatting/style issues. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retain and tag for improvements These articles as with many in the genre of "reality television", subsist because they are covered by the general notability guidelines WP:GNG. The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I cannot see any WP:DEL-REASON that applies. Lack of article quality does not trump WP:GNG for article validity. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notability that is at issue here. It is Original Research, and a number of other problems that need dealing with; a considerable number also have a serious citation issue as well. There was a serious problem with a selection of articles covering each series of the British edition of The Apprentice, and when they were put up for AfD, it led to discussions that deemed they not be deleted, on condition that the articles receive a serious clean-up of OR from them, covering the contests in each episode, and switching out layouts towards an Episode List table arrangement. GUtt01 (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series). The nominator raises a valid point, looking through these articles all of them are summarised in the parent article anyways, the rest of can be considered WP:FANCRUFT and WP:OR and that belongs outside of Wikia or another external fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series). I didn't think I'd agree upon seeing the deletion message, but after reading the reasons mentioned above, I think all should be redirected to the main series article, providing that adequate information on each series will be added to I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series), including the contestants, ratings, episode counts and final results. The main article also needs a major cleanup, looking at it. – DarkGlow (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect will be necessary, unless its the only option. It's more a case that these articles could avoid deletion if they are changed and altered to improve them. When I look to the main article - I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series) - I think that should really not be that detailed for each series. An overview of results for the programme's history, and a brief text overview of each series would be best on those. But that's my opinion. GUtt01 (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GUtt01: I do agree that it would be too much on the main article, however, improving 19 series articles is a lot of work, so if you really want to keep them up, good luck to you! You have your work cut out for you. – DarkGlow (talk)

Redirect all - the nominator makes a convincing case. They're also magnets for trash-quality sources, e.g. The Sun, the Daily Mail and other deprecated and deeply unreliable sources. (If they could rely on Digital Spy, which is actually accepted as reliable for future telly stuff ...) It would be lovely if the articles could be saved, but they'd need actually saving - David Gerard (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please show the deletion POLICY based on low quality as opposed to the WP:GNG which permits the existence of an article, even those which are start class? Leaky caldron (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy says an article must be sourced to Reliable Sources which are Verifiable, with No Original Research. These idividual series articles fail all three, quite badly. Notability is satisfied for the main article - it's clearly a notable TV show - but the individual series articles fail to show individual notability from the sourcing shown for them. You may dispute that, and discussing it is what AFD is of course for - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- One way you can dispute this, is to simply look to the reasons given and determine if the articles can be edited and amended to combat the issues - for example, what information in the articles in questions could be kept, and what could be removed (i.e. anything that is more notable for fans, rather than generally encyclopedic). GUtt01 (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all unless WP:OR and WP:V is addressed in time, which can be easily the case - if both are addressed, I'll switch my vote. Meanwhile, WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and therefore has absolutely no standing whatsover on an article's fate. ミラ P 17:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ミラ P 17:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - I'll comment and quickly leave the scene as I have bad experience here. I've had the (dis)pleasure of going over hundreds of reality articles the past 2 years from fixing article titles to working on the reality infobox. I can say without a doubt that most of these articles are exactly as these nominated above. The editors who create them, while probably doing so in good faith, just don't care about any MoS guideline. They copy the previous season tables, input the data and move on. However, go in and try to fix something, and you'll encounter a shit storm and good luck trying to get any consensus for a change. These reality articles are mostly uncited, full of trivia and excessive "in-universe" information (why does I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 18)#Dingo Dollar challenges have a column that lists "Scones with jam & clotted cream" as a prize? Who cares? This is not a rhetorical question, I really want to know who is the person that for him this was the information he was after) and that is before even going into grammar, layout, accessibility and linking issues. This is all just to say that, while WP:OSE, in this case, the OSE is a large part of our community who just doesn't care to do better. --Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Far too many "reality TV" articles are like this: an unsourced, WP:INUNIVERSE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of "results" with no real notable content. What was done at these articles belongs at the Wiki, not on Wikipedia. Delete hard. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Notable shows always have articles for their seasons. Some reliable sources talk about the seasons, comparing their ratings to the previous seasons. [1] There are reliable sources that review each individual episode. [2] Just need to have information about each episode of the season listed in the season article as other such articles do. As far as people claiming its original research to list who was on the show and who won, that's ridiculous, you can get information from the official site about that. You can also easily do a news search for others listing the same information. AFD is not cleanup. Discuss the problems and find a solution to fixing the article. I'm doing some work on them now. Dream Focus 19:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no they don't! That is completely false!! Read MOS:TV – "season" articles should only be created if there's enough sourceable material to show that it's notable enough for a standalone article. These articles completely fail this benchmark. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can supply good enough sourcing, and remove the OR, that would be excellent - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why have not the articles been suitably tagged? Leaky caldron (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's nothing stopping you - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - David, I'm not asking for the mass-delete and my interest in the articles is, at best, passive. My concern is that more suitable alternatives have not been considered as an initial action. If the decision here is likely delete, sticking tags on 20 articles is not going to prevent that, is it?Leaky caldron (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Right - so why is this a question, then? Calling out problems fatal to an article in an AFD doesn't require first adding tags to an article - David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - it will be much better to have one decent article covering the entire series than a bunch of not-so-good articles. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: What about List of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! episodes? Would be safe to list only who was eliminated, plot summaries that name the challenges, and the ratings. Ooh, the ratings. ミラ P 23:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all, per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhat a joke. How can they possibly be redirected. These pages have been standing for years with no problems. It’s arguably the biggest reality show on ITV. How can the individual pages be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.221.163 (talk • contribs)
- In addition, WP:ARTICLEAGE is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussion – it's basically a valueless argument in AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm curious as to why these have been proposed for deletion, but not all the other articles on series of reality TV shows around the world. I'm no fan of reality TV, but it seems a little odd and inconsistent to propose these for deletion and not others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is usually not considered a good argument. The usual answer is "if you want those gone, go do so" - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well done for not actually reading what I wrote and noting I wasn't expressing an opinion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ever heard of a "test case"?! – Plenty of us have had problems with all of these article for years (I've mentioned reality TV articles like these several times in WT:TV over the years), but didn't want to have to put up with the inevitable "pushback" from the reality TV fandom (e.g. take a look at Gonnym's !vote above...). It looks like somebody finally decided to break the logjam. I, for one, applaud this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no problem with it as long as it is applied equally to all similar series from all countries. It should also have been specified that it was a test case. And in all fairness, the notability of reality TV series in general should probably have been discussed elsewhere before a single series was taken to AfD. Because to the uninvolved editor (like me) it looks like this series has been targeted, whereas the points made could actually apply to all of them. Therefore, I think I'm going to go for Keep, as a wider discussion needs to be had. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be clear, no one is really challenging the proposition that, in general, reality TV shows are "notable". (There are some exceptions, but most reality TV shows are easily notable enough to have their own "TV series"-level articles.) What we're challenging is the proposition that "season" articles for these shows that consist of nothing but an unsourced WP:INUNIVERSE tally of "results" are somehow "notable", because they're not. This issue goes far beyond just these articles' ignoring MOS:TV – in their current form, they fail not just WP:GNG but a lot of other guidelines as well!... So, deleting this set would be a start, that hopeful leads to other WP:AfDs, or at least a massive reediting, of article sets such as these. And wider discussions have be held, in WT:TV for one, but at the time no one wanted to deal with the pushback from the reality TV fandom. So voting "keep" here strikes me as a WP:POINTy vote. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's a procedural vote, as I don't think this is the right place for this debate, which affects many similar articles. I'd happily delete the lot, but an AfD singling out one series from one country is not the place for this discussion. Note that in Britain "series" is used for both the overall series and for what Americans called seasons. I'm fully aware that the show itself is not up for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP: The pages have been active for years and not one person has had any problems with them until now. They are clear in the content in relation to contestants, elimination history and ratings information. To delete these you might as well go ahead and remove all the Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother, International versions of I’m a Celebrity... pages too. Sources from newspapers are still relevant and informative too Superdry19 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's not true – plenty of us have had problems with articles like this for years. I'm glad somebody is trying to do something about these WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:INUNIVERSE messes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I also would encourage people in this discussion to take a look at the Wikipedia:Subjective importance essay – that also makes some good points directly relevant to this discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:HARMLESS is not a good reason for retention. Ajf773 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all unless someone can demonstrate that the articles can be cleaned up and fixed. At this point, if people want the articles to exist, just WP:TNT them and start again. Not hard. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Whilst I do agree with some of the above points, based on the fact that a lot of other reality TV shows have individual articles for each series (including Big Brother and Love Island, I see no reason for these to be deleted unless you're also proposing to delete all of the individual series articles for other shows. Also some of these articles are about 10 years old and editors have spent a lot of time adding content to them, it would be a shame to see all of this work go to waste. Commyguy (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to discuss those articles feel free to start up a separate AfD on those. We are talking about these outlined in this AfD only. Ajf773 (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all All these seasons pass WP:GNG because the show is huge and so gets extensive coverage in all the press and specialist media magazines like the Radio Times. It's an institution in the UK and so the readership is high. Even season 1, which happened over 17 years ago, still gets thousands of readers every day. There are numerous spinoffs in other countries and the nomination doesn't address these. And the argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cuts both ways. What it actually says is that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". It's clearly our standard policy to maintain articles for the seasons of all these major shows. All the following are blue links and this proves it:

And that's just the big shows of this type. If you consider TV in general then there are countless pages about seasons of other shows – see category:2019 American television seasons for a long list of many examples. Articles about seasons are quite normal and so it would not be consistent to eliminate one small set for no particular reason. Andrew D. (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is not really the fact that these articles should not exist, but rather the fact that they need to have guidelines and rules about how they should be laid out. If its an article concerning a series/season of a televised talent contest, then the article for the season should consist of an overview about changes to the contest in that series (i.e. host and judging panel), no. of entries involved (an exact figure at an exact stage), along with results - both an overview of the contest, and individual results at key stages (auditions can be the tricky part, and that could be dismissed as highly problematic) - alongside ratings for episodes, and criticism and controversy created within that series/season. Unfortunately, some programmes that do hold a contest, tend to fall under reality contests, and these get trickier; and with this AfD, the nomination of these articles is because the layout of each is practically problematic. When I made this AfD, my goal was more to provoke a discussion and possibly action to determine how to correct the issues I raised than deletion, the latter being only accepted by me if there was no proper consensus on what to do. GUtt01 (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, again we are NOT talking about other shows and we don't assume season articles are notable because some other popular shows are. Ajf773 (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator clearly states that "When I made this AfD, my goal was more to provoke a discussion ... than deletion". If we're actually discussing rules for such shows then we should obviously consider all of them, not just an arbitrary selection. See also salami tactics. Andrew D. (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Also to what I mentioned above, to delete the 19 pages for the British version of the show would be a bit harsh when there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of articles with the same content for the International versions of the show plus Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother, The X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing, Dancing with the Stars, Dancing on Ice I could go on but you know what I mean, it is massively unfair to target one tv show when others like it exist and pages have been around for YEARS without issue or nonesense like this. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for us to look back on history so why not have history of what is the biggest and most popular show in the UK on here. Superdry19 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do already, the history is well summarised in the parent article. We must not let an encyclopedia quickly turn into a fansite with needless details about every season/episode. For the purposes of this AfD, we are not interested in other shows, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That, I'm afraid, is short-sighted. Continually quoting OSE is pointless. Most of us are well-aware of it. And generally agree with it. However, common sense dictates that we do not look at these shows individually, but as a group. There are wider issues than just a single show. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I expected, so many "keep"s that ignore the fundamental issues.
No, we don't always have seasons articles for a TV series. Even famous ones. Even award winning ones. HBO's The Leftovers (TV series), a highly priased series, does not have a season article for any of its 3 seasons. Neither do the 5 seasons of Black Mirror nor the first 2 seasons of Twin Peaks.

These articles with violations of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N per seasons, and major WP:ACCESSABILITY issues would not pass WP:AfC and be left in draftspace until ready for mainspace. Why would these be any different?

Most of these articles are pure WP:PLOT, with zero real-world context.

It's also obvious from past experience that none of the editors voting keep will ever work on these articles - not that they have to - and relevant WikiProject editors (TV), have shown zero interest to get involved in this endless cleanup mess, which means that the state of these articles will stay the same with unverified, unsourced, incorrectly formatted content, which does a major disservice to the entire wiki. --Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we do tend to have them for reality TV series. So singling this one out makes no sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero real-world context"!? These are called "reality show"s precisely because they take place in a real-world setting. I looked in on last night's show and the high spot seemed to be that they had silkies for dinner. That's a real type of chicken which really has black skin. This really threw the inmates who generally agreed that they looked like baby T. Rex. The existence of these chickens was new to me and so was somewhat interesting. If our article about the chicken gets linked to the page about the season then that's somewhat educational and so we're good. Get real. Andrew D. (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew D. - this is what happens when editors go on a deletion spree against fiction-based articles, they start to think that everything is fiction, even shows that are reality shows! FOARP (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of argument is that? No one considers reality shows as fiction. Only if the production company and broadcaster make clear it is. GUtt01 (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all - Season articles need to stand on their own. They are not valid splits. It's simple enough to just not cover the content. Let fan wikis handle it if there are no sources available to establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle of WP:FAIT. There is a discussion that should be had to determine the sourcing that is available per season. For a long-running show like this which I have even heard of in the States, and a causal Google search, there is clearly sourcing that can be added, to talk about production, filming, cast selection, and reception. What does need to be worked on is the cruft - tracking contestant progress and major events of episodes is important to reality TV, but these articles frequently draw cruft to the nitty-gritty details. (This is from experience in editing articles for Survivor and The Amazing Race, among a few others) I would say that a better approach to avoid FAIT is to give editors a chance to improve one or two of these season articles, and then see if they pass muster for an article. --Masem (t) 16:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Arguments based on page quality are unconvincing as they are ultimately asking us to do clean-up and AFD is not clean-up. Arguing the notability of each page in turn is likely to be a gargantuan task as there are so many of them but rest assured that this series (which regularly receives viewership of 10 million+ in the UK, in a population of 66 million) is very notable and the events of each season are covered in reliable sources. Just to take the first season on this list (the one that aired in 2003): 1 2 3

Additionally, let me just point out that the Nom's invitation for us to go and fix these articles goes against WP:BEFORE - it is for the nominator to first assure themselves that articles are beyond fixing BEFORE bringing them to AFD. Alternatives to deletion appear not to have been considered at all. EDIT: in fact, this seems like very WP:POINT-y behaviour from the nom - nominating articles for deletion purely to make a point. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misstatement of the nominator's statements on the article. Also, claiming the nominator should have fixed the article instead isn't actually a requirement at AFD - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE clearly states "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD". That is, if it can be saved by editing, then you should not take it here but edit yourself. You should not try to use WP:AFD as a way of recruiting other editors to do your editing for you. FOARP (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - Per WP:GNG. All articles seems to be with the WP:GNG criteria and all seasons are notable. Also AfD is not a clean-up service BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - These articles have existed for a long time, like all other reality TV seasons, this show is huge in the UK and nineteen seasons in, still gets a large amount of viewers as well as media coverage. The voting figures are not available for the early seasons, but the same can be said for The X Factor. Keep the articles and stop removing added information. Reli source (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all - I have always found these articles to be very informative, especially with the contestants list and voting statistics. All articles meet WP:GNG and have existed for years so there is no need to either delete them or elongate the existing I'm a Celebrity Page. With the greatest of respect, I think the only thing to do here now would be for the user who nominated these articles for deletion to withdraw their nomination. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The quality of the references has been raised as an issue above. Per WP:NEXIST what matter is whether sourcing can be found in reliable sources for each article. I've been through each one and found broadsheet coverage (Telegraph, Guardian, Independent etc.) for each one. This is what the nominator should have done before bringing this to WP:AFD. Whilst the tabloids do cover this series in detail, the broadsheets also give it regular coverage, as does the BBC, ITV News etc. and the sources are easy to find. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I'm doubtful that the nominator had bothered to conduct a WP:BEFORE or understand the deletion criteria. This is one of the biggest show on British television, there are without doubt a lot of coverage on major news outlets on the programme, for example for this year, you can see coverage in the BBC, The Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, etc. all major reliable news outlet, easily satisfying WP:GNG. The nominator rationales are not based on any deletion criteria, and misunderstand the purpose of AfD, for example the notability of the article is not based on sources in the article, but based on sources that exist (therefore conducting a search per BEFORE is essential). AfD is not meant for improving article, that can be done in the talk page, therefore all the complaints about these articles are irrelevant and should not be part of the discussion in an AfD. I can see many non-notable season articles for other shows, this is not one of them, and bringing this up for deletion discussion without doing a basic search is just wasting other people's time. Hzh (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I would hope that this would be kept as they are a massive part of British Pop Culture and are a big point of interest. We have many source(s) for these articles. This is the TV Show, that come available when the air and for 28 days on relative catch-up services. Due to people adding new, false information on these articles, a edit lock is best and a episode summary could also be helpful for newer seasons(as they are available), as demonstrated in the articles for the 11th and 12th seasons respectfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.130.140 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per GNG. They may not be typical season/series articles, but they still remain valid articles. If they're poorly sourced, remove the unreliable sources and tag them as requiring further sources. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect all per nomination. 195.191.241.12 (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Blocked proxy FOARP (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - This is a known TV show (and all its series) just like Britain's Got talent, American Idol, etc. They comply with WP:GNG requirements. Dont see why these have to be deleted while the rest of similar TV shows can be kept - Jay (talk) 04:35, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of species in the Inheritance Cycle[edit]

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

Long unreferenced, fiction oriented article that belongs on something like Wikia -- not seeing a encyclopedic reason to keep this around. Sadads (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sadads (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Sadads (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT, pure trivia. b uidhe 20:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is better off on a fan Wiki than here.TH1980 (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's duck season! Wabbit season! Wrong! It's the season for lists of unnotable fictional elements. (No limit on how many you can bag.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Williams (musician)[edit]

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

Not notable. Autobiographical article, created after several previous attempts by an editor who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. References in current version are: 1: a profile in a county-wide newspaper; 2: from the non-notable (well, not represented in Wikipedia, anyway) organisation she has founded; 3: from her own record label; 4: her daughter's blog; 5: an entry in a list of donors, which verifies her as an alumna but nothing more; 6: a dead link; 7: a listing as one of the acts on a jazz cruise ("We're excited to have the jazzy soul duo of BOB BALDWIN & LORI WILLIAMS on this year's cruise!", nothing more). Nothing demonstrating notability: the first item from Fairfax Times might go part way (can't read it as it's blocked in Europe) but everything else is non-independent or trivial. She seems to have published several albums on her own record label, and won various awards as an excellent teacher, but this doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. PamD 20:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PamD 20:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. PamD 20:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTOBIO, WP:NOTRESUME, WP:TNT, and lack of WP:SIGCOV. We are not a free webhost or social media site for posting one's resume, we are a charity governed by fiduciary and other rules. Based on the user name of the creator, that it's a SPA, and the personal details in those edits, we must conclude this is an autobiography, for which we strictly construe the rules on notability. When Wikipedia was first started, such behavior could be excused, but it's 2019 and there's now no excuse. This article is very poorly formatted and has zero independent sources except for one local newspaper article, making a total re-write necessary. However, just to be fair I conducted several online searches. I found very little about this person. The burden is on the editor/subject/fans to prove they are notable based on WP:42. The subject, with all due apologies, seems to be a run of the mill and non-notable musician. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Echoing what Bearian said. Furthermore autobiographies aren’t necessarily wrong but advised against. If she had SIGCOV in independent secondary sources that qualify per GNG then yes no problem she could write her own autobiography but again if she had true notability she wouldn’t need to do so herself. Fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:SINGER.Celestina007 (talk) 11:53 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete - because it looks like a resume to me, and have nothing reliable to prove notability. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You know there is little to write about when the article tries to fill up space with the names and birth dates of all her relatives. Note that she has a rather robust media profile here: [3], but it appears to be her first serious notice as a solo performer, and most of her other media mentions are in connection with people she backed up in the past. Beyond that one European profile and the local newspaper write-up found by the nominator, nothing else beyond the typical gig announcements and streaming sites can be found. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete If we do not cut out and remove autobiographies we are going to develove into Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 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. Sandstein 10:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evene[edit]

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

One line article with no independent references Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One line of text, one reference, that can earn only one vote from me. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 20:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If nom and others are not viewing and commenting on references and content at fr:Evene.fr and not tagging for improvement prior to nominating for deletion they ain't doing a comprehensive search. But a one liner like this is of sweet use to no-one unless they go to the French site via e.g. Wikidata. Problem is the references given there are a tad wanting too.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, or redirect to Le Figaro. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 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. Sandstein 10:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eliphalet Pond, Jr.[edit]

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

county register of deeds is not a position that makes one default notable. The sourcing is such we could find for every single holder of office at the county level, in the US ever, and in no way shows notability. The position in the military is below the level that would make him notable John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire and storm: per nom, per recent such AfDs, and for such threadbare sources that achieving "trivial mention" level would take more effort. From an editor of his experience, creating this sub-stub is in trout slap country. Ravenswing 00:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - In an era of few colonial/state/national officials, he held three local positions. To paraphrase Tip O'Neill, all politics was literally local c. 1800 United States, when our state and federal governments had extremely small full-time staffs. I'm assuming good faith by Slugger O'Toole. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to emphasize a few points (copied in part from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Foord): Before 1800, the federal and state governments were minuscule compared to what they would become later, so local governments had out-sized influence in Americans' lives. Fewer than 100,000 white men voted in the 1800 United States presidential election. State and local governments were practically independent, according to the Report of 1800. In the War of 1812, and going into the Era of Good Feelings, the United States government grew exponentially. States also grew larger and started to enforce the idea of separation of powers into their state and local governments at the time. In the 1828 election 1,148,018 white men voted, 10 times the number who'd voted 28 years prior, a reflection of overall growth in population, immigration and naturalization, the expanding suffrage to White working class men, the Louisiana Purchase, and the greater number and importance of Federal officials. So I'd lean to keep the ones of those who served their careers in local government earlier. Pond's entire career was 1793 to 1813. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And if you'd like to take that argument to NPOL's talk page, fair enough, but the guideline on the ground doesn't grant presumptive notability to minor county and town positions: 0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 22:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While I appreciate Bearian's comments, the fact remains that the sourcing is terrible. Even the Dedham Historical Register only mentions him once in passing. Great first name though; I'm going to name my first son Eliphalet ... or Sue. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It looks as if his post as registrar of deeds for the county was the result of being Town Clerk of Dedham, Norfolk County's main town. However in both roles he was merely a NN local official. Without him having done something more significant, he fails WP:POLITICIAN or the equivalent for officials. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep - even delete comments acknowledge that the topic exists and has sources. The main point of contention is how to deal with the topic - to merge it elsewhere was considered but found inappropriate as this is a distinct study, and the amount of material would weigh down proposed targets. Much discussion was focused on the exact name, but nothing definite was decided. Opening a page move discussion to find the most helpful name would be the next appropriate stage. SilkTork (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super-chicken Model[edit]

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

Subject is very unclear with few (if any?) reliable sources for verification on what exactly it is. There's no real context offered to the article on what makes it different than other experiments on selection or genetics. Citing (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RS NEXIST. A rather exciting piece of research which is in fact a productivity model. Inc, Real Business, Forbes, Ted Talk Lightburst (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for finding those! Do you have any thoughts on the article title? I don't know if this idea goes by other names (or if just "Super chicken" would work).Citing (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will let some other editors weigh in. I think it could be an article just about the research of Muir, or merge to a future article. I find some non-RS references in which businesses make reference to the research application in a business productivity model. Lightburst (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (e/c) I am ambivalent about this one. It certainly, as an article, has some glaring problems. First the name itself: of the four references given in the previous !vote, two (Forbes and Inc [is this considered a WP:RS?]) never refer to it as a model (or use the word 'model' at all), while one (Real Business [WP:RS?]) uses the term to refer to something different than how this article defines it. We say "The behavioral model attempts to explain how competitiveness in the workplace can be counter-productive in business" but the Real Business article, as I understand, it is calling the 'super-chicken model' the way of doing business that places emphasis on super-performers - in other words, the s-c model is the less-productive approach, not an explanation of why it is less-productive, as our definition suggests. (And I don't have time to listen to a TED talk, but even if it does define it the way our article is defining it, it is not a good sign that the secondary sources don't use it that way, and mostly don't use it at all.) Forbes' use of 'super-chicken phenomenon' is closer to our definition, because phenomenon clearly refers to the whole scenario and not just one option. Moving from the lede to the body, nothing is said in the body about business at all, just chickens, but this article, to be noteworthy, can't be about a chicken experiment, the chicken experiment can only be providing context for a way of viewing business, but what should be the focus of the body is completely absent. I know AfD is not cleanup, but this is so much of a mess I don't even know what to make of it. Agricolae (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) One more note: As of now, including the four cites above and one additional relevant one on the page, we have two versions of the TED Talk (TED and NPR), two commentaries on the TED Talk (Inc and RB, which both read like 'I just saw an interesting TED Talk'), and just one (Forbes) talking about business in general without mentioning the TED Talk. Whether this is really a full-fledged business model, independent of its proposer's TED Talk, and not just somebody's TED Talk that gets mentioned occasionally when someone new sees it, is the difference between notability and not. Agricolae (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Agricolae: I hear your concerns. Regarding the body and intro, I just started today so it is disjointed, and had hopes that some more ARS may adopt this for clean up. It seems that businesses have adopted the research and applied it to business. That of course is not RS. But it is a thing...Healthcare Think Tank, More reference to this concept, Corporate Mental Health. (mostly blogs) Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not an established concept but an analogy one person made which resonated with some people sufficient to get a few posts about it. It's possible there's an underlying concept here, but if so I would expect coverage not of "this neat inspirational thing someone said in a ted talk" but of the concept itself in journals/books. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Yes - good points: the actual research project at Purdue which was then applied to a business or workplace environment. I will continue to look for RS in that business application. Otherwise this article should just be about the research of Muir - or perhaps an article should be developed for William Muir (biologist). At this point not much RS regarding the business application, just the individual businesses which have adopted referred to this concept. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not opposed to a merge if there's a sensible target (whether Muir, Heffernan, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c, again - bad timing today) Muir's body of research is pretty low-profile, except for being plucked from the literature as the basis for the TED Talk. It is not like the Stanford prison experiment, where that is all you have to say and those familiar with the field will know exactly what you are talking about. I also suspect that there are a body of analogous experiments done by other researchers on other animals that are just as well known in the field but didn't happen to be the one read by the TED presenter. I don't know Muir outside of this discussion. Maybe he satisfies notability standards for scientists, because they allow a whole lot of obscure scientists to have vanity pages, but I would find it hard to believe William Muir's chicken research would be notable. Agricolae (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading through all the sources mentioning this research, and it seems notable. Margaret Heffernan gets coverage all over the place talking about it. [4] [5] [6] [7] Reliable sources explaining this notable research which don't involve her exist as well. [8] [9] Dream Focus 23:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least in its current form, as it is, at best, a WP:TOOSOON neologism, and at worst just a TED Talk that captured the imagination of a few people. It is not (at least yet) a notable business model, and as an experiment (of necessity occupying a different namespace) an occasional reference to it just doesn't cut it. Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's an article, Memo to Jeff Bezos: Stack-Ranking is a Destructive Employee Practice. It mentions Stack ranking model. StrayBolt (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article related to medical education, Can doctors learn from super chickens? StrayBolt (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in the book, Effective DevOps: Building a Culture of Collaboration, Affinity, and Tooling. StrayBolt (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which only says that Heffernan used the term "super-chicken model" in her TED Talk. That gives the distinct impression that "super-chicken model" has no significant currency outside of this one TED, that it is nothing but a neologism. ('Super-chicken(s)' alone is also a neologism, but appears to be generating greater currency.) Likewise, this presents the model the same way our one previous secondary source presented it, and differently than we do (as the less-productive approach, not as an understanding of why it is less productive). So either the only two secondary sources we have for the 'model' term are misrepresenting it (not a strong argument for notability) or we have it wrong. Agricolae (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source I added put together some really interesting research on football (soccer) teams that provides some objective criteria. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, nowhere in it is there any mention of a 'super-chicken model' - lots of super-chickens, and talk of various models, but it doesn't refer to anything as a super-chicken model (the closest it gets is referring to a "super-chicken group" which isn't the same thing). Thus far, there is only one secondary source here that mentions a "super-chicken model" and they use the term differently than we are. It is hard to justify the namespace on that basis. If this ends in a keep, the page really needs to be moved off of its completely unsupported current namespace, perhaps to Super-chicken(s), and the description recast accordingly. If it stays as super-chicken model, then we need to define super-chicken model the same way the only secondary source to use the term defines it: "Super-chicken model refers to a manner of team recruitment that favors bringing together high achievers, but that proves less productive than a recruitment model emphasizing collaboration over individual excellence." or something like that. Agricolae (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Agricolae: You my be correct about the name - I feel like from the research the name Super-chicken has been accepted in both the Muir research and the business references, IMO the descriptive that follows (model) or does not follow is not yet universally accepted in the lexicon. The article's creator chose the word model and we have not heard that editor. The editor who started this article was not notified, so I placed a message on their talk page. I am unsure by your !vote and follow up comments if you still believe the article should be deleted, or just renamed? My opinion is that the title of Super-chicken would be a confusing and misleading target. Lightburst (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first part is easy. Based on the references brought forward thus far, I have no choice but to conclude that Super-chicken Model [capital 'M'] isn't really a thing. It is just an adjective [small 'm'] that Heffernan used to describe one of the two contrasting scenarios. The phenomenon where the team-builders do better as a group than the hyper-A-types is the thing, but the phenomenon is not what is called the 'super-chicken model' by any of our sources, apparently including Heffernan. As such, if this namespace is what is up for a vote, my vote is Delete. On the other hand, were the page to be renamed and the description changed to simply super-chicken(s), or even super-chicken phenomenon ([small 'p'] where 'phenomenon' is serving as a descriptor and not part of the formal name - something 'model' can't do both because it is used by Heffernan to refer to something different, and it is not quite 'on the nose' linguistically) and the descriptions modified accordingly, then I am still not convinced that it is notable either, as opposed to NEO and TOOSOON. However, I agree that it appears to be getting there, and it's a close call. That means were this page currently called by one of those alternative names (with a description to match), I would probably Abstain, but likewise it means I don't want to vote for a Rename because I remain unconvinced the alternative is notable enough, but certainly that would be better than the current namespace. So in summary, Super-chicken Model is still Delete, Super-chicken(s)/(phenomenon) is a Confused Shrug. Agricolae (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "super-chicken model" is not a real thing. Read this source used in the article to establish the definition of "super-chicken model". It makes it clear that the "super-chicken model" is not an actual model that companies are following, it's just an analogy that a few individuals have used to criticize actual organizational models. I don't know what the notability rules are for an analogy, but is has got to be more than "a couple writers have used this analogy". ApLundell (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cheep~~ Keep and move to Super chicken study
This is a super clucking interesting AfD, so I'm sticking my beak in. The proper subject of the article is a 1996 study by Purdue University College of Agriculture professor Bill Muir, and the application of that study's findings to various disciplines. Muir hatched the idea in 1996, and David Sloan Wilson laid a lot of groundwork over 20 years, but coverage really took flight after Margaret Heffernan's 2015 TED. The study is WP:GNG-notable based on these WP:THREE:
1. David Sloan Wilson wrote about it in 2008, 2016, and 2019, which I'll count as one
2. NPR 2015
3. The Straits Times (Singapore) 2015
I know this is an AfD and not a move discussion, but I'm going to try and kill two birds with one stone by listing the sources to show WP:SUSTAINED coverage and notability, and also note what word(s) they use to describe the subject. I feel "study" is the word used most often by the most reliable sources; "model" seems to have been coined by Heffernan; "experiment" is also very common; and, interestingly, Muir and Wilson don't even seem to use the term "super chicken" at all (just the "chicken study" or "chicken experiments"):
- 1996: Muir's initial "super chicken" experiment (source)
- 2008: Culture Snob, which has David Sloan Wilson discussing Muir without using a "super chicken" label. Originally published in River Cities Reader).
- 2014: Genetic Influences on the Behavior of Chickens Associated with Welfare and Productivity by William Muir and Heng Wei Cheng, Purdue University, published in Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals, pp. 317–359.
- 2015: Margaret Heffernan TED talk about Muir's study; she uses "super chicken model"
- 2015: NPR "super chicken model" and "experiment", interview with Heffernan
- 2015: Inc uses "superchicken", "super-chicken" and "study"; doesn't mention Heffernan (Inc. (magazine) is included in the reliable sources search engine)
- 2015: [10] The Straits Times (Singapore); "super-chickens" and "study"; focuses on Heffernan
- 2015: Real Business "super-chicken" model; discusses Heffernan
- 2016: [11] The Evolution Institute, David Sloan Wilson interviewing William Muir. Nobody calls it "super chicken". It's the "chicken experiments". No mention of Heffernan.
- 2016(?): Evonomics "experiments" and "study"; Heffernan mentioned; article is undated
- 2016: [12] Forbes "super chicken phenomena" and Muir's "experiment"; doesn't mention Heffernan; cites to Wikipedia, though
- 2017: Inc again "superchicken" and "study"; mentions Heffernan
- 2017: 2Civility "super chicken study", "experiment", and "super chicken model"; cites Heffernan
- 2017: Purdue Alumni magazine; not independent, not GNG; "experiment", "study" and "superchicken model" (quoting Heffernan)
- 2019: MD Magazine "super chicken" and "study"; no mention of Heffernan
- 2019: This View of Life 2019, book by David Sloan Wilson, "chicken experiments"
- 2019: Seton Cove 2019 "the super chicken study" (citing Wilson's 2019 book)
- ???: 15five "Superchicken model", questionable RS, focus on Heffernan's TED talk
As an aside, William "Bill" Muir may be notable [13] [14] [15] [16]. I haven't done the research to determine it. But his 1996 study/experiment with chickens is notable. That it's not Stanford prison experiment-levels of notability shouldn't ruffle any feathers; it's still notable under the GNG test, and so the article should be kept. – Levivich 03:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quibble over one thing, the NPR reference is not from the news and other daytime topics fare, but from the TED Radio hour, which is basically TED cross-marketing for a public radio audience. I am not sure I would count that as all that independent of Heffernan's original TED Talk. (e.g. Fresh Air draws from across the cultural spectrum, from journalism to music to fiction to history, etc. When the TED Radio hour is produced, they pick a TED Talk they liked - not the same thing.) That doesn't affect the rest of the analysis, though. Agricolae (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good point; the NPR source is shaky on the independence requirement of GNG. If I had to pick another, I'd probably go with Evonomics or MD Magazine–except I haven't researched them enough to know if they're solid RSes or not. – Levivich 04:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is part of my problem - not familiar enough to distinguish a business/econ RS from a glorified blog, hype-site or 'paper mill' (except Forbes, of course). Agricolae (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes would be one of my top 3 if it wasn't for the fact that it links to this damn article. I hate it when RSes do that. I wish they'd stop citing us so that we can cite them. – Levivich 05:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two different things are being conflated here. A study about actual chickens, and the topic of this article : an analogy about human organizations, loosely based on the actual chickens. Sources demonstrating notability for the former do not imply notability for the latter. ApLundell (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to artificially limit the scope of this article narrowly. No reason to do that. The studies and concepts are interrelated and potentially useful to readers. Legal relevance is not required. We should err on the side of too much of the irrelevant, rather than too little of the relevant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relevant point though. What is this article about? A model? An experiment? An analogy? Some new business slang/a neologism? If we can't answer that question because not enough has been written about the topic, then we can't write a good article without going into original research.Citing (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levich has suggested a proper title which would speak to the concerns expressed in this AfD: Super chicken study. Lightburst (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into pecking order which is a related and more established topic. Notice that the sources for the article in question have "pecking order" in their title more often than they have "super chicken" (the score is 3-2). Another option would be counterproductive work behavior whose title is self-explanatory and so fits the advice of WP:NEO, "it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible". The topic may also be useful in considering what happens in Wikipedia – whether editors attack each other as an alternative to more productive work. Me, I'm sticking to my taxon as being a dragon and so it takes more than a chicken to bother us. :) Andrew D. (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the most parsimonious solution to me.Citing (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Muir's study should be mentioned in those articles, but a merger would put too much text about this particular study in those other articles (pecking order, counterproductive work behavior, even chicken), creating an WP:UNDUE problem IMO. – Levivich 19:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Heffernan wrote prior to her May 2015 TED talk in her April 2014 book, A Bigger Prize: How We Can Do Better than the Competition, about "super-hens" instead of "super-chickens". Also, the TED talk description says Organizations are often run according to "the superchicken model," where the value is placed on star employees who outperform others. And yet, this isn't what drives the most high-achieving teams. I skimmed one of the 1996 Craig & Muir papers, didn't find "super-" and thought that was a different experiment (from TED Talk), where they brought in a breed of superchickens (which the seller recommended trimming the beaks) which killed off more of each other than the two other groups. StrayBolt (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside your main point, the quote from the Heffernan TED talk makes it clear that even to her, the 'model' refers to the less-productive approach, (a small 'm' model, used to describe the less effective thing some companies do, not a big 'M' Model that is an established part of the toolkit that companies set out to employ, or as we describe it, a big 'M' model that is a tool for understanding the dynamic). Contrary to what the lede says, it doesn't "postulate" anything, nor help understand anything, it is just a style of recruitment. I am going to change the lede to reflect this, but the text will need to be changed again if the AfD results in any of the moves that have been suggested. Agricolae (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:03, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffalo Bunch[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Performing a Google search for the band brings up a few trivial mentions but nothing significant enough to satisfy GNG. Phil roc (c) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Phil roc (c) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is extremely skimpy, virtually a list of their albums, and lacks any sourcing that establishes notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: essentially written by an editor who has only made four edits to Wikipedia, and heavily reliant on WP:INHERITED notability to the band's relationship (both fraternal and professional) with Daft Punk. But this really is all the duo ever did – they made two singles, and a bunch of remixes, before parting ways in 2003 to make music solo. Romain Séo has stated that their own records barely sold more than a couple of thousand copies, their main popularity came from their remixes. They're just a footnote in the history of French house music, and as they haven't been active in 16 years, sources are going to be tough to find. Richard3120 (talk) 11:36, 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 10:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TV UOL[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, the article fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.TH1980 (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Connect360[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I understand why it was nominated for deletion, as it certainly deserved considering the state of the article. I just edited it though and added a reception section and provided two reputable sources. They demonstrate the article's notability, so I believe it should be kept now. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No way does that automatically establish notability. There needs to be significant coverage of this from reliable, independent sources for this page to establish notability, and I have not been able to find any. Two sources is pathetic for an article this short. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems like you have it mixed up. Two sources is more than enough for an article this short. I'd say two reviews from big name publishers establishes some degree of notability. The sources are reliable and independent as well, so I don't know why you bring that up. You also seem kinda hostile in your language. Don't know why you are being antagonistic. EDIT: Just added another source from PC World. I think the notability of the product has been established. Three major technology publishers wrote about this software. What more could you ask? SECOND EDIT: Found two more sources, one from a publish magazine. This piece of software has definitely gotten some attention. If two sources wasn't enough, how about five? Bluedude588 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article clear fails the notability guidelines. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It is significantly covered, and does NOT fail any guidelines whatsoever. For example, [17] and [18]. JohaNepomuk (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet account. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 00:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added ANOTHER reliable source. JoeLeboe (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet account. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 00:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel this article meets the criteria for notability. Also, since when does a user's opinion NOT matter if it turns out to be a sock? Haseo9999 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Because creating additional accounts to try and make it look like others agree with you is against policy. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 01:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understood. Haseo9999 (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Macworld review (of version 3.1) and other tech media coverage are enough to satisfy GNG. Pavlor (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Essentially per Pavlor.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Xplorer[edit]

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

Article does not have any references, and does not appear to have general notability. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no doubt that this company exists and some sources which verify this existance. However, there is a consensus that this company does not have sourcing available to satisfy our standards under WP:NCORP and thus is deleted as non-notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salming Sports[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication this passes WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. No improvement since AfD 5 years ago. Editors at prior AfD failed to provide a single source and their arguments were limited to 'I've seen their products in some stores'. My WP:BEFORE fails to show anything outside mentions in passing / press releases. (But maybe there are some Swedish sources I am not seeing...) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NCOMPANY/GNG. No sources, Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. Kacper IV (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. While it survived its previous AfD it was on the basis of WP:ITSPOPULAR / WP:IKNOWIT / WP:Clearly notable. The NCORP criteria have been tightened up since then. I don't consider either of the existing sources to be independent. In my own search I found no new sources that were reliable, secondary, independent and in depth. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and redirect into Börje_Salming Quick Google search shows they're an established athletic gear manufacturer including being named an official partner of Professional Squash Association https://psaworldtour.com/news/view/139/psa-launch-partnership-with-salming . This definitely isn't some generic brand that come and go and there's reasonable assumption to believe there are sources in Swedish and presence of English sources isn't a requisite. Graywalls (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I'm just giving my perspective on why there are likely sources, but since I don't understand Swedish language, I'm not able to understand the sources. Graywalls (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There may be sources. This has been listed on Swedish themed deletion lists, so hopefully a Swedish speaker will comment. I'll also note that sv:Salming Sports has no references. And why some refs have been added recently to the English version we discuss here ([19]) I don't consider them to be sufficient. A WP:INTERVIEW in an outlet (Handbollskanalen) that does not seem to be notable to even have a Swedish Wikipedia article (so presumably some very niche newspaper or portal), and passing mentions in outlets like Triangle Business Journal. and RunSociety – Asia's Leading Online Running Magazine. Sorry, if that's all we have, we are scraping the proverbial barrel here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 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. Notabiliy per WP:NMUSIC has been established. BTW @RebeccaGreen:, I'd request that you continue working on the article. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 16:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yukari Hashimoto[edit]

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

Fails WP:Music. The links that I found only mention her couple of times without going in depth.--Biografer (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: This article is poorly sourced, but her profile on Oricon does list soundtrack albums credited completely under her name, such as Osomatsu-san. lullabying (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mr. Osomatsu soundtrack reached #5 on the Oricon charts as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some references and some quotes from reviews. She has a substantial body of work, and her music is commented on in reviews of the anime series. Probably other sources could be added - I haven't searched by all the albums yet. It would be useful to add about one soundtrack reaching #5 on the charts, as well. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:13, 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. The text is unsourced, and there is already a section about Hithlum in Beleriand, so a merger doesn't make much sense. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hithlum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication this fictional location passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to show anything that's not a mention in passing/fictional bio summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Beleriand. Goustien (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE. Closing editor is reminded that votes with no rationale are generally not considered of much value. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Insufficient sourcing. TTN (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, redirect or delete? I'm discounting the keeps as just a vote and because the IP does nothing but cast drive-by "keep" votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no sourcing showing this place is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE or MERGE: No sourcing showing any stand-a-lone notability. Merge to Beleriand acceptable, or other pertinent Tolkien list article. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 22:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Meets Core content policies such as WP:V, and inclusion criteria such as WP:RS and WP:N. It "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As argued, the guideline TooSoon does not apply as there is appropriate content, viz: there are six reliable sources which talk directly about MCL35, which give it notability, and more detail is supplied by the McLaren website. Arguments that more detail is required are not policy passed as evidently there is enough material here for an article. SilkTork (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McLaren MCL35[edit]

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

This article was created prematurely. There is little in the way of content directly related to the car aside from vague references to a "new concept". The article should be deleted, or at least turned into a redirect (McLaren would be the best fit). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify per nom and specifically WP:TOOSOON, we can't realistically expect this to contain any more content till February. I do oppose changing this into a redirect per WP:RFD#DELETE rational #10 which will apply, if not now, in February, when the car is launched, besides its highly implausible that someone will search this article so a redirect may be unnecessary. If this does become a redirect I disagree that Mclaren is the best fit as 2020 Formula One World Championship will provide more details on the subject.
SSSB (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC) (draftify vote added at 10:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note that WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not a policy. Content actually does exist, McLaren already have several articles regarding who will be involved in the development and testing of the MCL35. Although the specifications of the car don't exist, a fair bit of background does.
5225_C (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY SOURCES can't be used to establish notability.
SSSB (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not contested in the original proposal.
I also note official policy states that "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia", and I believe McLaren's releases meet that criteria. The MCL35 has been covered by several independent sources that have analyzed McLaren's intentions for next year's car. I don't see an issue with the use of primary sources either.
5225_C (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources I have found that analysed McLaren's intentions for next year state the obvious, that Mclaren want to get quicker with the MCL35 given only a passing mention. Notability is not contested in the original proposal., yes it is, through WP:TOOSOON which discussess notability. This AfD is about MCL35 is not currently notable, although it certainly will be in the future. I believe McLaren's releases meet that criteria, no it doesn't, Mclaren's content is not reputable published, it is analysed through a secondry source which is different.
SSSB (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please define "reputably". As a casual observer, I would expect reputable to mean having a good reputation. McLaren speaking about the plans for their 2020 car appears reputable to me.
5225_C (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reputable published means that content has been published by a reputbale organisation other than Mclaren. primary sources that have been reputably published refers to research papers and the like. Papers which have been written as a primary sources by researches and have been published as a primary source in a publication independent to the writters (such as a scentific journal). None of Mclarens content covers that.
SSSB (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of this article I would say McLaren themselves are a reliable source for the claims we are discussing, which are not easily challenged or misinterpreted.
5225_C (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also to point out again that WP:TOOSOON is not policy. The original proposal states that "There is little in the way of content..", which does not challenge notability.
5225_C (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides those are just list of emplyees who are involved in car delevlopment, MCL35 is just mentioned in passing as it is the next Mclaren project. A fair bit of background doesn't exist. The only MCL35 specific content I have found is that it will be designed with a 'new' approach with no indication of that this approch may be or any other specific information.
SSSB (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content I have found does include employees involved with car development, states that Alonso will be involved in the testing process, and that the goal is to reduce the gap to the top three teams in time for the engine switch. I think that can count for a few paragraphs.
5225_C (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you linked to and/or added tose links with content in the article I could be convinced to change my stance with on. Claiming that you have found these sources doesn't count for much if you don't provide them. But as I hinted a out above this is general information about Mclaren and their competiveness in F1, it doesn't sound car specific.
SSSB (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully intend to expand the page. I plan to work under the impression that McLaren's goals for the car would be car-specific.
5225_C (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again supporting a keep motion. The original proposal for deletion claimed there was too little content for the article to exist, however, content and sources exist and I am yet to see a reason why the article should be deleted, since the "lack of content" complaint has been satisfied with solid information.
5225_C (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@5225C: You can't vote twice, if you have something else to say you use Comment not Keep
SSSB (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft This article is definitely created far too ahead of time WP:TOOSOON, given the car has yet to even be teased, let alone launched, and this entire article seems to rely solely on statements to the media, which ultimately may not be true, even if its a press release, and these claims to the media can only be validated, when the car is unveiled in February. TJSRX (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I need to point out that WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not a policy. Information exists, and McLaren have been very eager to discuss their aims for the car. Whether or not those aims come to fruition is not a deciding factor in whether an article should or should not exist. To quote from WP:SPECULATION, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included [...]", and "It is appropriate to report discussion [...] of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
Considering this policy, I can't support a delete motion.
5225_C (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@5225C:

"McLaren have been very eager to discuss their aims for the car."

Let me guess: to go faster? It's almost as if they're a racing team ... Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually. More specifically, sub-one second gap to the top three. That might seem obvious, but it's how they want to do that that has given the basis of an article.
Sarcasm doesn't help with the discussion. Your deletion proposal complains about a lack of content. There's content (it's on the page).
Simply saying that "to go faster" is obvious does not put into question the content of the article. Based on actual policy (see quotes above), it is appropriate to report expected development and that is what I hope will continue with this article.
5225_C (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@5225C: there may be content, sure, but there is little substance. Case in point:

"reflecting the change in design philosophy"

What does that actually mean? What was the "design philosophy" to begin with and how has it changed? The article does not say. Likewise:

"changes tested in 2018 as an indication of Key moving the MCL35 closer to the rear design seen on the RB15 and STR14"

What were the changes that were tested in 2018? Why weren't they introduced to the 2019 car? Why is the rear design of the RB15 and STR14 significant, and how does McLaren expect that will benefit them?

Like I said, there's content, but no substance to it. It appears that the "Design and development" section has been added to the article to pad it out and justify its continued existence. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did no specify whether you meant content or substance. But, in fact, I'm inclined to agree with you. Canseco's forecast should be elaborated on and combined with the snippet on design philosophy. That would not only add "substance" but ground the claims in reality.
5225_C (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft works. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why?
5225_C (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft as it is WP:TOOSOON. Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON is not policy, as I've noted above. Content exists.
5225_C (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON is an essay, sure. But really every time someone says it is TOOSOON they are just saying that it doesn't meet GNG yet, which is the crux of the essay. Essays on notability basically just often cite GNG and are often completely reliant on policies and guidelines, as this is. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why isn't WP:GNG cited instead? I would say that the MCL35 article contains many of the stated requirements.
5225_C (talk) 06:35, 4 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. I'll leave the backlinks active so a redirect can be created. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Elves (Warhammer)[edit]

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

Combination of in-universe plot with 'how to play a game' strategy guide based on WP:PRIMARY sources. Fails WP:NFICTION, WP:PLOT and in general, GNG. Yes, I know there are hundreds of articles about how to play with Dark Elves in various WH games, but that's all PRIMARY. If we cannot discuss the significance of this faction to real life (scholarly reception, etc.), there is little we can work with here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Elves as not independently notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, and there's really little point in retaining this information. TTN (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage in sources. No point in deleting this article. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Sock of permabanned user A Nobody Reyk _YO! 17:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's so far no well-reasoned "keep", but do we redirect or simply delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect- As a title it's useful, but the only reason for preserving the history would be if there was any chance any of the current content could come in handy later on. That's clearly not the case here. Reyk _YO! 15:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Elves per Reyk - The term could potentially serve as useful redirect to the appropriate place in the master "races" article for the franchise, but there is nothing worth preserving or merging. The topic is already sufficiently covered in the target article, and this current article is nothing but massive amounts of un-sourced and primary sourced cruft. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Kacper IV (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See You in My Nightmares[edit]

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

According to WPN:Songs

1) Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable)

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

3) Has not been independently released as a recording by several notable artists.

On top of this "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 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) 09:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose "See You In My Nightmares" is a significant song. It is notable for having charted on multiple official charts despite not being released as a single, and was the primary motivation for the creation of a dedicated experimental film by Spike Jonze titled We Were Once a Fairytale--that title being a lyric from the song itself. In addition, Pitchfork and other publications did cover the song and the development of the film. While I don't think this is the most ubiquitous track from 808s & Heartbreak, it is notable enough to warrant a dedicated page.TheKingLives (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having charted doesn't indicate that is notable. Pitchfork source is nowhere in the article. I'm pretty sure that the information regarding the movie can be added on the 808's album page. Not only that but it was used as a backgrond song. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchfork source added. The rules for notability state that if an article is unlikely to grow past a stub it should be included elsewhere, but this article has grow past a stub and contains worthwhile information. Essentially, the song is significant enough that the artist has expanded it for use beyond the album, and as a result the song has been covered by numerous publications that are cited on the page. TheKingLives (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Included a positive review from PopMatters in the article. TheKingLives (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sick joke indeed calling this a C class article, while this is not even a start one. So what about Pitchfork? It just talks about the movie, nothing else. At least PopMatters is something. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Doctors[edit]

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

Pair of academics who do not pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Article was written by a colleague of theirs. Hoalst Pullen and Patterson have collaborated on academic textbooks and one book for National Geographic. The book for which they're most known, Atlas of Beer, received some press; but no reviews in Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, etc., so I think a redirect and rewrite to the book is also not a good move. JSTOR and Google Scholar searches reveal nothing significant. Hoalst Pullen is editor of Applied Geography, but I don't know that that counts as a major academic journal. If so, perhaps a page move to her name is in order? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I mistakenly did this as a proposed deletion rather than a nomination. I apologize for the error. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I found a little press on the atlas, enough to make me think it might be notable: [20] [21] [22] [23]. But I didn't find enough about these two people, separately from the atlas, to convince me that they are independently notable, through WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTHOR. Perhaps there are reviews of the edited volumes but, as edited volumes, they don't count for enough. Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON: if they write another book on beer that gets enough attention, they can pass WP:BIO1E. And if either one of them becomes notable through scholarly accomplishments, we should have a separate article for that one rather than a joint article as now. But for now, if we have an article on the atlas, we can redirect this term to it, and otherwise delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:TOOSOON at the least, with no opinion on whether the beer atlas deserves an article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:44, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Moore (musician, born 1931)[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage. Article has been copied and pasted several times (bypassing AFC declines) in what seems like an obvious attempt to game the system. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 14:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a big issue here is that almost the entire article is copyvio from the newspaper article included, or from the AllMusic biography... if this is kept it will have to be rewritten. Richard3120 (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:COPYVIO of this and WP:TNT. What a mess. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, gsearch brings up lots (probably some/most deemed snips/mentions) of Moore ie.

Guyana Graphic - "Celebrating The Life of Neil V.I.M. Chan, A.A.",

Stabroek News - "Entrepreneurship on Robb Street yesteryear",

Caribbean Life - "Guyana mourns the loss of disco legend Neil Chan",

Guyanese Association of Barbados Inc - "Happy Holiday: Al Seales, Billy Moore and music at Christmas",

Guyana Artistes Carifesta '72 - "The Voices of Yesterday and Today - There are yet a few more singers and enertainors from the good old days who made a name for themselves internationally. Happy Holiday/You, You, You/Simply Tremendous, Ladies and Gentlemen Billy Moore and the Fabulous Four Lords is one of those groups ..." (page 5),

Guyana Folk and Culture - "Remembering: Cultural Colleagues Who Passed In 2016" (page 30) (small obituary),

Melodisc Records issued Love is Everywhere as a b side to King Sparrow's Calypso Carnival - here and issued by Parlophone as an a side - here,

the song Happy Holiday discussed here,

that song is called "the Greatest Caribbean Christmas song." by Guyana Chronicle - from "A Brief history of Guyanese Music" (page 20) (same article also states "Some of the great groups of the 50 and early 60s included The Four Lords ... Until the early 60s , it was the leading vocal group in Guyana. ... Their recordings include "Simply Tremendous", "You You You" and the classic "Happy Holidays". Composed by Lord Melody, it was on the Guyana Hit Parade three years."),

Guyana Folk and Culture - "Happy Holidays Al Seales, Billy Moore and Music at Christmas" (pages 16, 17),

so i reckon something here is wikinotable but is it Billy Moore, The Four Lords (and/or other band members), or "Happy Holiday"? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am going to watchlist this for possible cleanup tomorrow. Lightburst (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst While I appreciate you helping, sadly I think this is gonna be a case of WP:TNT. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 19:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already TNT'd the content. What is left is a skeleton. Not sure I can find more RS, but the article looks better minus the copyvio and with categories, sections and an infobox, Lightburst (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lightburst. Now speedy deletion is out of the equation (with the copyvios removed, G12 is pointless), now is a question of is this subject notable enough to have an article. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 20:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the independent AllMusic bio is significant coverage with the book and newspaper sources and the music seems to have been released on notable labels, he also won a national cultural award so I believe there is enough notability for the article to stay now that the copyvio has been removed, imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having some knowledge of his country's music, I am skeptical of the claim that Mr. Moore is an "icon", and there might actually be some merit to an article about his group The Four Lords. But now that the article creator's errors have been removed, the book-oriented sources found by the voters above will be enough for an article on Mr. Moore. He has a place in the history of his country's music, though sources that are not related to his lonely death will be thin on biographical details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEYMANN by Lightburst. This is a useful article about someone who appears in two books about music (of Guyana and of Trinidad), and we also have an AllMusic bio and an obituary, certainly enough to show that he meets WP:BASIC. It seems that there was a profile of him in the newspaper Sunday Stabroek [24], and this book Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World Part 2 (Bloomsbury Academic, 2005) [25] has a bit of information ("The Four Lords led by Billy Moore, for example, made their debut on this label") [possibly Melodisc Records, which is covered on that page]. It does seem that Billy Moore is notable. It's possible that the group and/or the song might also be notable, possibly even more notable, but we have this neutral, sourced article about the person, and as yet, no articles about either the group or the song, so that is surely a discussion for another day. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:02, 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dune ships[edit]

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

Trivial list of in-universe minutia. It should be deleted as well, but List of technology in the Dune universe covers most of the stuff in this article anyway. TTN (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial, non-notable list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a non-trivial, notable list that has no reason for being deleted. --199.123.13.193 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)blocked sock Reyk _YO! 06:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as pointed out by TTN, this is redundant to List of technology in the Dune universe and, on top of that, is badly sourced fancruft. Reyk _YO! 22:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.— TAnthony^Talk 07:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of fancruft trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 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. No independent sources and the only Keep argument was WP:OTHERSTUFF. RL0919 (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecraft in Red Dwarf[edit]

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

This article is a list of in-universe minutia. These are details irrelevant to the casual reader, more suited to Fandom or another fan wiki. While not currently even present in this article, any details on the modeling the ships could easily fit inside Red Dwarf#Production. I don't think there is any argument to describe this as a necessary fork. The only one that could be described as important to the series would be the main ship, but that does not need more than a small paragraph unless there is real world information somewhere out there. The rest of the information is way too in-depth, and it does not need to be merged. TTN (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I like Red Dwarf, but this really is excessive fancruft. Fortunately there are sites like Wikia to take elaborate, but ultimately unencyclopedic, labours of love. Reyk _YO! 18:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 99% of these fan lists have to go, and probably the other 1% too. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a classic case of deletioncruft. This encyclopedic content is definitely worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. --199.123.13.2 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sock Reyk _YO! 06:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No less appropriate for Wikipedia than lists of minor characters in television series, of which there are hundreds. Trimming might be required of the excess detail, but it's still not too fancrufty a list. If the consensus is to delete, then merging an abridged form into the main article would be worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 02:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If ships equate to the same importance as characters, what is the cut off point? When is something too trivial to cover in detail? TTN (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN and is sourced entirely to primary sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. Also AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:22, 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 delete. The "keep" arguments appear to show that WP:TOOSOON applies, and haven't given a strong case that the topic is currently worthy of encyclopedic attention. Therefore consensus is "delete" by strength of argument. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehwish Iqbal[edit]

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

Started by a WP:SPA User talk:Sophiatemporali. Weak coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NARTIST. Störm (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the artist may be notable in a few years, but to this point the coverage is WP:MILL and trivial, so it is WP:TOOSOON.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (with a keepish flavor:)), Iqbal was a Blake Prize 2018 (65th) finalist, a Paramor Prize 2017 finalist, a Woollahra Small Sculpture Prize (unfortunately this wikipage hasn't been updated to include info on this prize) 2018 finalist, works/exhibitions/reviews by/at ABC - "Artists challenge what 'sacred' means in modern Australia" (group exhibition), Hawkesbury Regional Gallery - "Go West exhibition" (group), curator Paul Howard reviewed "Flux" exhibition (individual), UNSW Galleries - "Exhibition explores the experience of contemporary Australian Muslims", anyway, hope this helps afd editors. ps. googs has more but zzzzzzs beckoning:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: Thanks for compiling those sources. I looked at them all. With the exception of Paul Howard review, every single one of the links above is a trivial name check (as in Jane Doe, Mehwish Iqbal, John Smith), although a few include a photo as well. I can't see any SIGCOV in what you mentioned, although it is true that she has had some recognition.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ThatMontrealIP, yep agree, hence my "comment" (though "keepish":)), not quite enough to get her over the wikinotable line, i think whats telling is the final exhibtion i listed reflecting the lack of recognition/representation of Australian Muslim artists in major/significant OZ collections/exhibtions (but hopefully in the future....:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: the last source just says "Abdullah M.I. Syed, Mehwish Iqbal, Fatma Mawas and Shireen Taweel."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A ProQuest search of offline Australian newspaper articles revealed 33 articles mentioning her. I was hoping to be able to add some references to the article to then see if it would help it survive a AfD discussion, however all articles were from small local (at best regional) newspapers; and none were substantive coverage. So I didn't add any, but she is certainly a developing artist with a reputation. Not sure this is enough to justify the page at this time...Cabrils (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Lack of reliable sources and the cited sources do not guarantee the notability criteria. Abishe (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article cites a number of "Publications", presumably about the subject. They appear to have been copied from https://www.mehwishiqbal.com/cv/. I tried looking up
- 2016 News Article: Culture Goes West, The Daily Telegraph at dailytelegraph.com.au and found [26],[27], [28]
- Subliminal Landscapes, Istanbul Art News March 2015 and found nothing
- 2013 Article, Art Monthly Australia Searched all issues via http://www.artmonthly.org.au/archive and found nothing
- 2013 Article, OOMK (One of My Kind_London and found [29] which contains text that is strikingly similar to text used in the article and her own about page.
I stopped after that. Someone else may want to look for earlier sources.
Coverage of this artist appears to be limited to factual reporting about her accomplishments as an emerging artist, but I see no evidence of critical analysis of her work. Vexations (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:38, 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Australian Open – Women's Legends' Doubles[edit]

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

Unsorced content on the 2019 Australian Open – Women's Legends' Doubles content. KM251 (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is not unsourced and the nominator has not presented a reason to delete the article. Iffy★Chat -- 09:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, article is in fact sourced and no valid reason has been presented for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know about what this person was seeing as there is a source for this page which counter-acts with this nomination. If I do have to nit-pick though, there is no lead but that isn't going to swing my vote. HawkAussie (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no basis for deletion cited by nom. Article has a source (and others would be available). Bookscale (talk) 02:55, 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Liga 2[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Still waiting for 2019 Liga 1 and 2019 Liga 3 to finish. Don't you think? Wira rhea (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Wira rhea (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unlike 2020 Liga 1 there is no content here which merits an article at any time, let alone early. Giant Snowman 12:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep - article is still lacking content and sources, but much better now, probably just about notable. Giant Snowman 08:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on User:GiantSnowman; unlike Liga 1, the regular Liga 2 season is already finished, so we do know who is playing next year, other than the teams promoted/relegated. Nfitz (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on @Nfitz: - there is no information at all in the article (nor sources!) and if there wasn't an AFD and I came across it I would speedy it. Giant Snowman 21:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think a simple redirect to Liga 2 (Indonesia) would make more sense, given that the annual article normally starts now. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article has both sources and information now. GiantSnowman. Nfitz (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if Liga 2, as the season is finished, the teams for next season already confirmed and I has sandbox for this page. What do you think GiantSnowman? Wira rhea (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liga 2 (Indonesia) as it's just a blank state that will probably be recreated once the season is over. For now I would say redirect as the 2020 season will probably run for the Indonesian league. HawkAussie (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has been expanded since the Afd has started and with references now added I will switch my vote over to a Keep. HawkAussie (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this season of Liga 2 is over. How about it HawkAussie? Wira rhea (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wira rhea Still sticking to my vote of redirect. HawkAussie (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How is this not a clear A7? There's no content. It was prodded and then immediately sent to AfD. It can be easily recreated when there's enough to add. SportingFlyer T·C 01:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC) No longer a blank article, can probably be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 01:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's got content, it's got references. Might have been a redirect when initially nominated, but this is what's here now. I'd suggest that @HawkAussie: @SportingFlyer: review again. Nfitz (talk) 18:43, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Liga 3[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. This season is not entered the national round yet, still qualifying round. Wira rhea (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Wira rhea (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unlike 2020 Liga 1 there is no content here which merits an article at any time, let alone early. Giant Snowman 12:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liga 3 (Indonesia) as it's just a blank state that will probably be recreated once the season is over. For now I would say redirect as the 2020 season will probably run for the Indonesian league. HawkAussie (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete on A7 grounds as there's no content. This was PROD-ded, but the PROD was removed by creating this AfD, which makes no logical sense whatsoever to me. SportingFlyer T·C 01:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when there significant independent, reliable are found and content is added, the the article could be recreated. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This season is not entered the national round yet, WP:TOOSOON --SalmanZ (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Liga 1[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. There are still 6 match weeks to go even though 3 promotion teams have been confirmed, because only one team that secured a place for next season Wira rhea (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Wira rhea (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is too soon, why did you, User:Wira rhea create 2019 Liga 1 in November 2018, and significantly edit 2018 Liga 1 in October 2017? Nfitz (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nfitz In 2018 case, already many teams that confirmed for next season. I got confused at first so I moved my draft in my sandbox into 2020 Liga 1. But then I think, it's far less team confirmed than 2018. I realized my mistake for this page, so I decided not to edit 2020 Liga 2 and 2020 Liga 3 yet. But I don't know. If this page is keep, then I'll continue to work on this page and the other. If delete, then I'll wait until at least half of them (9 teams) is confirmed for next season. Wira rhea (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a the current standings, it could likely hit 9 (or more) teams confirmed in 12 days time - 5 days after this AFD is complete. Are you suggesting that it should be deleted, but recreated 5 days later? Nfitz (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right. So you suggesting to keep this page? If so, I'll continue my edit there. Wira rhea (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestions (yet) ... just trying to understand the nomination ... and the Liga 2 one as well. I can't say I understand Liga 3 - when does that start? Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For Liga 3, the national round always start either November or December, because the format is group stage tournament. Wira rhea (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the provincial round? Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial round are depending on the policies and desires of the respective provincial associations. As long as it ends before the regional round start. Wira rhea (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - don't think CRYSTAL applies here. Giant Snowman 12:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like Nfitz has said, by the time that this Afd is over we might have teams that are confirmed to be playing in Liga 1 which would cause the page to be recreated. Unless something drastic happens in the next few weeks then the league will probably run next season. HawkAussie (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not WP:TOOSOON, already seems to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 01:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to meet GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per me. Nfitz (talk) 00:13, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Sohail[edit]

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. This bio comes under WP:BIO1E, fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having several sources and being divorced from someone notable is not a one way ticket to notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO1E and WP:ANYBIO.CodeLyoko^talk 18:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, WP:RS, and WP:GNG. Sourcing is from gossip papers. She hasn't done anything notable, and doesn't even make any allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on WP:ANYBIO. Being divorced from someone notable does not mean the person is notable. It also appears to be a case of single-event notability. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:46, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christine M. Cook[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER unless the female firsts make her notable which IMMO they don't and NACADEMIC. Gbawden (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. First female part is what makes her notable. Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ohio’s first female to assume battalion-level command. If she was the first American female to assume battalion-level command that would make her notable. But the first in a particular state? No. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Necrotesp. Plus the other firsts are only things she thinks she is, not that she knows for certain (and they're not that notable either). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First female battalion commander. In Ohio. There's a reason we set the bar in WP:SOLDIER at flag rank. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Battalion level command does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2018 United States House of Representatives elections#Missouri. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Hoagenson[edit]

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

An politician candidate who failed to win the Missouri congressional district election does not meet the Wikipedia WP:NPOL requirements and GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test per WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. To qualify for an article, rather, she would have to demonstrate one or the other of two things: either (a) she was already notable enough for other reasons besides the candidacy that she would already have gotten an article on those grounds anyway (i.e. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) she can be referenced to such an unusual degree of coverage, nationalizing and deepening far beyond what just every candidate in every election can always show, that her candidacy has a credible claim to being much more special than everybody else's candidacies (i.e. Christine O'Donnell). But this claims literally nothing that would fulfill the former, and is not sourced nearly well enough to pass the latter. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2018 United States House of Representatives elections#Missouri. She doesn't meet WP:GNG, but the losing major party candidate for a US election is usually a valid search term for the election. Hog Farm (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2018 United States House of Representatives elections#Missouri as a usual and appropriate outcome for failed general election candidates for US Congress. --Enos733 (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested and usual practice. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable candidate for elected office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 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 keep. Passes WP:NPOL (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 12:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Lee (California politician)[edit]

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

Subject is an American district city council. Fails WP:NPOL for not having an important, national political position. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article definitely needs improvement, but Los Angeles is a major, internationally prominent global city — exactly the tier of cities where we do accept city councillors as notable per WP:NPOL #2. National political positions are not the only path to notability as a politician — we also do accept mayors and city councillors as notable enough under certain circumstances, and serving on the city council of a major metropolitan global city is one of those circumstances. The navbox template at the bottom plainly verifies that all 14 of Lee's council colleagues have articles, and he would be the only one who doesn't if he were deleted — the only difference between this and those is that they've all been in office longer while Lee is a recently elected newbie, and thus they have had a lot more time to get improved and expanded. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL, city councilors in prominent cities such as Los Angeles are acceptable - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per established precedent and practices - he is confirmed as a council member of a large, international city. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Los Angeles is a major, international city and there are sufficient sourcing to develop a complete article about the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LA is a large and significant enough city for its City Council members to qualify for WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 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 no consensus. The sources given are highly questionable, but there are multiple objections to deletion and no one but the nominator in favor after two relists, so closing this as no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paddi Edwards[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, with no major roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 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) 09:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I think this article was nominated for deletion mistakenly because subject is notable actress. مضحرالعجایب (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 11:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a notable actress with sufficient global coverage. WikiAviator (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What global (or even local) coverage? IMDb does nothing to support notability, and ancestry.com even less. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep.Since I have added references 1 2, there are now references in the article. I am of the opinion that passes WP:GNG. She work multiple movie that time , i think probably notable actress.-Nahal^(T) 10:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this relatively new film festival. The refs all appear to be based on press releases. Nothing substantial found in searches. Very high probability of COI authorship. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Similar awards, and film festivals were discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 6#Dada Saheb Phalke Award/Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards, which in turn was caused because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards. Also to be noted, the film festival awards was speedy deleted for unambiguous advertising/promotion, which was recreated by the same user after two months, and then went to AfD. [...] Given the name of creator of this AfD's article, the chances of COI are very high. As creator of this article is Abhibabamishra (talk · contribs) (baba is a nickname), and according to the promotional article of Abhishek A Mishra, he is the CEO of this film festival. In any case, this film festival is brand-jacking of the most prestigious Dadasaheb Phalke Award. It does not pass general notability criteria, as it lacks significant coverage. It is clear this "film festival" article was created through COI or UPE in replacement of the deleted "film festival awards" article; clearly for promotional purposes. Wikipedia shouldnt entertain such promotions. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, usernamekiran laid out the case for deletion quite well, nothing to add. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment the article creator has been blocked for sock-puppetry. Kindly see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhibabamishra for more details. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek A Mishra[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The refs all appear to self generated from press releases. Most also talk about the Film festival and only about the CEO in passing. Strong suggestion that this is an autobio - just sufficient non controversial edits to get auto confirmed then becomes a SPA. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo.Krishna's flute (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The references provided only tangentially mention the subject - he is only mentioned in passing as the source of a quote in each one. I wasn't able to find any better reliable source mentions to demonstrate notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete either an auto-bio, or a COI/UPE or all of them. The subject of the article doesnt have wp:sigcov, thus failing general notability criteria. Kindly see my detailed comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival (Abhishek A Mishra is CEO of that film festival). —usernamekiran(talk) 20:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be deleted. This profile holds the right to be published on Wikipedia as per Wikipedia's terms and conditions. It has provided necessary and valuable references to hold the same. He is a renowned personality from India who is ths CEO of India most prestigious award ceremony "Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards". He is also the official Advisory Panel Member in CBFC, Government of India. Abhibabamishra (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment moved from this AfD's talkpage. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of indepdent, 3rd party coverage. Wikipedia is not Who'se who, you do not strong arm your way into coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment the article creator has been blocked for sock-puppetry. Kindly see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhibabamishra for more details. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kasumi Suzuki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

And we're back. Nothing has changed with this actress since the last AfD. A lot of trivial sources have been added to the article, but nothing of substance. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NACTOR. Ref #1 is a promo. Ref #2, is not an independent source. Ref #3 is a listing, which shows she had minor roles on various tv series. Ref #4 is a simple listing which doesn't even mention the actress. Ref #5, shows that she had a significant role in a one-off tv production, which is like having a featured role on a single episode of episodic television, which never counts as per WP:NACTOR. #6 is a very brief mention, literally, she is simply listed. #7 is a character bio on a non-independent source. #8 is probably the briefest of mentions, simply mentioning her first name. #9 is a promo for the DVD of a show. #10 and #11 mention her as well, but the article claims this is a "lead role", however the imdb.com page doesn't even list her as a cast member; in addition, the similarity between these two refs would appear to indicate that they are based off a press release. And finally ref #12 is an ad for the blu-ray. All of these sources were available prior to the AfD. None indicate she has the prerequisite of more than one major role to pass WP:NACTOR, and the totality of the current sourcing doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources #9 and #12 are not "advertisements" as much as they are news articles discussing the release of films and series. She had a leading role in Karas and has also appeared in multiple recurring roles such as Bakuryuu Sentai Abaranger and Threads of Destiny. And just because she was cast as a lead role in an episodic television series, that's still a lead role. She passes WP:NACTOR because she was cast in a lead role at least once. lullabying (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lullabying. The statement that "Nothing has changed with this actress since the last AfD" is correct only with respect to her career, but some new info has surfaced to show she had more major roles long before that AFD. They were not brought up in the 2016 AFD so they were not discounted either. Oh, and @Lullabying:, you should remember to bullet your AFD votes. ミラ P 17:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with the framing of the comments above regarding passing the actor-specific guidelines, but let me add I feel GNG is met here too. #10 and #11 conflicting with IMDB isn't a strong argument when we have independent sources indicating the article's subject appeared in major roles. That's significant coverage in a non-trivial manner. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to Keep, especially if the alternative is a redirect to Ojamajo Doremi, which is a terrible idea and the previous AfD should never have been closed that way. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While the sentiment is roughly split numerically, 2 'deletes' are weak, pointing to existing reviews of the subject's work in secondary sources. I could see a potential case for a 'no consensus' close, but with a stronger policy argument based on these reviews, I think the consensus is that this article satisfies GNG. Accordingly, I'm closing as 'keep.' Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lemm[edit]

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

no indication of notability. Same editor creating a bunch of biographies of questionable notability. See https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Chuang726 Graywalls (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Former full English professor at the major university and sufficient coverage per WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:THREE. scope_creep^Talk 08:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep, a late career academic and a published author. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similar to Laurence Hutchman, being a professor isn't on its own enough for notability, nor are the local news articles cited WP:SIGCOV. There may be a case for WP:NAUTHOR here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe:, so do you think this article should be kept or deleted? For the purpose of AfD, if you don't mind putting your position if you have taken a position... thanks Graywalls (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Sadly, even top poets are often too difficult to source to achieve Wikipedia-notability. They don't tend to have the in-depth coverage such as book reviews that one would expect for other people working in the humanities. In this case, the awards are a good start but they're too local to convince me. And full professor at major university is suggestive but not by itself sufficient for WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per David Eppstein. I don't see NPROF here, and it doesn't look like there's NAUTHOR either. I'll comment that I did find one review of his nonfiction book on Milton Acorn, but no other reviews in reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to see impact on others. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There are long reviews of his works in the Montreal Gazette [30] and the Calgary Herald [31], and that's just from a very quick look on Newspapers.com. I will add them and others I find to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 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. Looks like the consensus here is that WP:NPROF is not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Hutchman[edit]

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

no indication of notability and the article doesn't assert anything that indicates notability per WP:NACADEMIC The same editor has been creating a load of Dial-A-Poem Montreal related articles over a short span of time. See https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Chuang726 Graywalls (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professor at a major university. scope_creep^Talk 12:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Scope creep:.. I think we use WP:NACADEMICS when we evaluate notability for professors. I did a quick check and I'm not seeing any indication. Since having published things is often a tenure requisite, I think this ensures Wikipedia from becoming a catalog for every professor at every major universities. Graywalls (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Full professors at major universities are almost always notable. Almost every professor at every major university will eventually have an article in Wikipedia including this man. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While full professors at major universities are often notable, it isn't automatic. That's what WP:NPROF is for, and I don't see it here. WP:NAUTHOR looks much more likely; I'm not familiar enough to judge. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a professor anywhere, even at Harvard or Cambridge, does not confer notability by itself. Sources inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Despite the claim made above, professors even at "major universities" aren't automatically notable, and many are not. Plus, 5,000 students isn't "major". Now, the subject has published a number of volumes of poetry, but that alone doesn't make one notable; nor do I see that the subject passes WP:PROF. Thus, delete. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Sadly, even top poets are often too difficult to source to achieve Wikipedia-notability. They don't tend to have the in-depth coverage such as book reviews that one would expect for other people working in the humanities. In this case, the awards are a good start but they're too local to convince me. And full professor at a good university is suggestive but not by itself sufficient for WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- David Eppstein, this is a problem, yes, but there are dozens of magazines/journals (really, websites...) that review poetry, and I don't find any reviews of his work. There's this, but it's nothing. He's published a load of books, but that press doesn't seem to be that notable either... But this is something we need to work on: guidelines for poet biographies, and some commentary on reliable and notable sources. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - and there are many "self publishing" houses specifically meant for the creative types as as the examples in https://www.editage.com/book-editing-services/articles/top-10-self-publishing-companies-a-2018-guide-for-first-time-authors.html having a book published through vanity presses is like saying you have a Wix or a Weebly website, which means "published" as in more than likely satisfying evidence of publication for copyright or "prior art" burden for when the idea came up for patenting purposes, but meaningless for "reliably published" definition for Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I say mostly since I commented already. NPROF just isn't there, and it doesn't look like the reviews for NAUTHOR are there either. Comment that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Lemm is an especially similar case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the inclusion guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. 2001:569:7C07:2600:3872:173E:11E1:2108 (talk) 04:58, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linux India[edit]

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

Hard to see that a community of mailing lists is notable, even if it had decent references, which it hasnt. Rathfelder (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by nom.Krishna's flute (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Insubstantial and virtually unreferenced, it does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Iadarola[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

American talk show host. This article was redirected as non-notable in 2017 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Iadarola (2nd nomination). At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 16, GeekInParadise argued that the person is now notable. DRV decided to re-submit the article to AfD. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 10:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC) @GeekInParadise, DGG, Lightburst, Robert McClenon, Trackinfo, SportingFlyer, and RoySmith: This is to notify you as DRV participants and previous AfD closer about this discussion. Sandstein 10:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article has been reference-bombed with too many sources, but it has sources, and the subject appears to pass general notability marginally. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last discussion on this topic was in 2017. Previous reasons for deletion included WP:RS and WP:TOOSOON. However, since this was last discussed, he has become the co-host of The Young Turks. The channel averages over 30 million views per month, and has over 4.55 million subscribers.[32] Additionally, his newer show "The Damage Report" averages over 300,000 views a day. [33] As part his program, he has interviewed propionate public figures including Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang.[34] Additionally he is often cited by news outlets regarding his political analysis, such as Mediaite, Paste, Washington Examiner, Newsweek, and The Washington Post. He has also been on Politicking with Larry King and has been a contributor for KTLA. I now feel that I can assist in creating this page without running into WP:RS issues. This combined with his prior discussing on a show he hosted for Fusion TV and "True North" (a Verizon produced mini-series), makes me feel that this is now eligible for creation under WP:WEB. GeekInParadise (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you are complaining about reference bombing, then that might be my reaction; to source everything due to two previous AfD attacks against this subject. It doesn't need the volume of sources except for the fact that this is the third AfD on this article. The second one merged it. Background: The Young Turks is a an online youtube based network. If it is not the current top rated network, it had that rank and is near the top now. That means they are a big player. Their cumulative views are in the billions, tens of millions monthly noted above. That means more viewership than cable news. Started by Cenk Uygur in 2002, they take a politically progressive stance. They have not been regarded as part of conventional media. Their success is offensive to conventional media, who would love to ignore them out of existence. Like many youtube celebrities, they have self-created their on-air personalities. Iadarola is one of those and not just an also ran. For years he has been the #3 anchor of the main show, so he frequently anchors at least an hour a day. Plus lead anchor of several versions of his own shows, currently the Damage Report which was launching when the last AfD hid his article through the merge. Documented, he has also branched off to other independent projects. He contributes and plays pundit on other media outlets. With Uygur running for Congress, Iadarola is now essentially the co-anchor of the main show. In previous arguments, I believe Iadarola has been used as a token target to dismiss the importance of the network, and its content that obviously offends those of opposing viewpoints. It is a classic case of an WP:IDon'tLikeIt argument. The standards of sourcing artificially increased and obviously for the last year those in opposition have succeeded in squelching wikipedia's mission of providing information. We should be answering the question: "Who is this guy?" which is why I created the article. It was not I who brought the suggestion of resurrecting his article up, there are other people noticing this omission to our content. A year on from the previous poor decision, there are even more sources reporting on Iadarola. Trackinfo (talk) 22:59, 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. It took some relists, but it seems like the consensus here is that the sources offered do not establish notability due to not meeting WP:SIGCOV Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Clyde[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as clearing WP:NMUSIC. She's not automatically notable just because the article says she toured, as NMUSIC requires a concert tour to be the subject of reliable source media coverage (e.g. concert reviews) and not just technically verified by a blog; she's not notable just because she got streams on Spotify, as NMUSIC doesn't take streaming media into account at all -- a person has to have an actual hit on a real IFPI-certified national pop chart, not just an impressive-sounding number of plays on an internet streaming platform, to be notable for having a "hit"; and she's not automatically notable just because her song was once selected to soundtrack a television commercial, if your only source for that is a YouTube copy of the commercial rather than a newspaper or music magazine article about it. And three of the four sources here are the YouTube commercial, the blog and a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself rather than being written about in the third person -- and while there is one source here (Fader) that's actually worth something, it isn't worth enough all by itself if it's the only acceptable source you can come up with: even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires more than just one source of that calibre. Every musician is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much more and better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources cited. And I just checked Wikipedia to find info about her, which seems like what Wikipedia is supposed to be here for. NoahB (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not just count up the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses a certain arbitrary number — we test the sources for their type, their depth, their reliability and their context, and delete anything that doesn't have enough of the correct kind of sources. A Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself does not count as support for notability, a video clip of her song on YouTube does not count as support for notability, and blogs do not count as support for notability. And also, Wikipedia is not here for just maintaining an article about everybody who exists — to clear the bar for a Wikipedia article, a person has to have several pieces of a certain specific kind of coverage (third-party journalism), in a certain specific kind of reliable sources (real daily newspapers and major music magazines), which verifies that she has accomplished something that passes WP:NMUSIC. But there's only one source here which meets the first two tests (but still fails to meet the third), and one source is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Huge numbers of plays on Spotify but not much else. Found this:[35], [36] I think it is a case WP:TOOSOON. I think she probably is notablish but not according to the notability criteria on Wikipedia, i.e. not coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV at the moment. scope_creep^Talk 09:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the CBC source is from the CBC's local station in her own local media market, not from the national network, so it's not a notability clincher if it's the best source anybody can show — and it's a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, rather than being written about in the third person. And the Yahoo source is also a Q&A interview, so it's not a magic source either. So I'm not sure why you started out saying "weak keep", but then formulated what's fundamentally much more of a delete argument — those sources aren't actually tipping the scales at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in Relix, Flood Magazine, Complex Magazine The Fader, Exclaim!, Atwood Magazine, The 405, The 405 (again), Impose Magazine, iHeartRadio, and Vashtie. Passes WP:GNG. Andise1 (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of those are {a) Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first person, and thus not sources that contribute GNG points, (b) unreliable sources that do not contribute GNG points, or (c) very short blurbs that are not substantive enough to contribute GNG points. GNG is not just "two or more footnotes exist" — it tests the sources for a lot more than just their number. It tests for whether a source is a real, reliable media publication or a mere blog; it tests for whether a source represents third party journalism or the subject talking about herself; it tests for the geographic range of how widely she's getting covered; it tests for how long or short a piece is; and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Bearcat:. , I think people fail to realize the simple formula “In-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The subject of our discussion doesn’t qualify for inclusion with the aforementioned yardsticks. Celestina007 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The purponderance of Q and A interviews do indicate a certain level of success and minor celebrity on the artist. However, the lack of independent reviews suggest that this is WP:TOOSOON. WP:SIGCOV is not met.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having read them and looked at them, they are all indicative of musician right at the very beginning of her career. On top of that social media statistics at 9k odd followers on Instagram and 36k odd on YouTube, nothing substantial anywhere else. Again all indicative of a lassie at the start of her career. A search of coverage turns up zero quality references. There is a minor entry at Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but that is it. Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:MUSICBIO.scope_creep^Talk 11:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NEXIST the RSs in trade publications, Flood Magazine, Complex Magazine The Fader. Some editor should add the WP:RSs found in this AfD. I do not think I have time Wm335td (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Complex is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, and Flood magazine is a very short blurb and not a substantive source. So both of them could be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after she had already cleared GNG on stronger sources, but neither of them is a source that counts for anything toward getting her over GNG in the first place. GNG counts the number of substantive sources that are being written about her in the third person, not just the number of web pages that can be shown to have her name in them. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having stream in Spotify or being interview by magazines which are considered primary source (not independent) does not quality and meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. it is too WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 10:36, 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. Consensus is pretty clear that interviews do not establish notability, and there are also concerns about promotional language. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Standard[edit]

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

Recently started company selling a niche product. Several refs but do they establish notability? No indication of sales volumes - is anybody buying the company's product?

See also, comments already made here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Escalating repeat coverage in The Royal Gazette (Bermuda) reporting substantial sales by a newly formed, fast growing regulated company. Only recently notable, seems likely to be more RS soon. Contrary to the smear campaign, this is not crypto -- they're talking about a regulated physical commodity..

There has been significant, independent, reliable secondary source coverage (not related to press releases) in

Bloomberg (seven minute video segment during trading day)
Fox Business News (live video interview during trading day)
Opalesque
TDAmertitrade Network (live video interview during trading day)
Bernews
Coinbase
Royal Gazette Just this week 1 2

As a reminder for the apparent ME TOO crowd below, read the article and references, instead of assuming...

How to apply the WP:NCORPcriteria[edit]

The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

This article meets every one of the criteria. Previous Speedy Delete under G11 was unwarranted and is not evidentiary. --Nixie9✉ 13:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: above comment by Nixie9 was modified here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article sourced to press-release churnalism and crypto sites and crypto site reprints (irrelevant for assertion of notability) - not independent RS coverage. I tagged the extensive list of press release rehashes and literally company sources that are being used to assert notability. This is why I tagged this article twice for speedy deletion as blatantly promotional. This article is a promotional spinoff of Cormac Kinney, which the creator of this article has been repeatedly removing tags on its equally dubious sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this was recently deleted on WP:G11 grounds and I would probably have kept it that way. The sourcing is pretty terrible, fails WP:PROMO and WP:NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 10:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basic crypto-startup spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional spam, NCORP fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I disagree with the characterization of it as "spam", I don't really see multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV, and there's also a recentism/notnews/oneevent/sustained concern. Bottom line: the announcement of a company launching does not necessarily make the company notable. We shouldn't base articles on press releases, even if the press release is reported on in multiple sources of questionable reliability (like cryptocurrency trade publications). Because it fails NCORP, delete. – Levivich 15:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Levivich. Doesn't meet NCORP. Borderline promotional spam: G11 was probably appropriate. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 15:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even after trimming promotional content, still promotional, does not pass corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. Kill it with fire.—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nine. 9 significant, independent, reliable, secondary articles is not enough. --Nixie9✉ 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- thinly veiled advertising brochure. Reyk _YO! 11:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The issue isn't that it hasn't gotten news coverage - it has - but whether the coverage is no more than routine, thus this fails WP:NCORP. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Nixie9. The Bloomberg, fox, and Royal Gazzette coverage alone, seem to me sufficient to pass NCORP. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those are interviews, and thus WP:PRIMARY sources, which do not contribute to WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, even if we were to have an article, nuke it and start again. It's intolerably promotional and there's no neutral, encyclopaedic revision to restore.—S Marshall T/C 15:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability, all are churnalism. Furthermore, I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content (this is the key bit and why the references provided to date all fail). Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we're in that Twilight Zone where nobody makes sense. Bloomberg, Fox and TD segments and interviews, and Royal Gazette are somehow churnalism, not significant, not independent? Because a long segment on a national network has an interview, it somehow becomes primary? (it doesn't) Does anybody read the content, references and standards before !voting? If there's something non-factual or promotional, please fix it. This knee jerk negativity about new companies related to digital assets is unbecoming.--Nixie9✉ 22:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the near-unanimous negative response, I suggest that the Wikipedia notability and sourcing rules - particularly for corporations - don't say what you think they say - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And removing the tags on the bad sources really, really doesn't make the problems with those sources go away - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed what I believe are incorrect about those tags on the Talk Page.--Nixie9✉ 04:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be satisfied with whatever outcome the closing admin makes. Seeing that the response is only "Near Unanimous," I suggest that G11 Speedy Deletion rules don't say what you and RHaworth think they say!--Nixie9✉ 04:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Foster[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NPOL. Consensus is that UK Lord Mayors are not notable as this is just an honorary position that rotates between the local councillors. Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the UK does have a narrow "elite" selection of cities whose mayors are directly elected to the position by the voters, Plymouth is not one of them — "Lord Mayor of Plymouth" is simply a ceremonial position that rotates annually among the city councillors rather than being directly elected or having any executive power in its own right. Such mayors are not presumed notable just because they exist, however, so to qualify for an article he would have to be referenced much better than just one local media hit and one primary source. He would need to show nationalizing coverage demonstrating a reason why he was significantly more notable than the norm for this level of office — but nothing here demonstrates that at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lord Mayor is a ceremonial post. Only executive mayors are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually no mayors are default notable. Those who are just city councilors given fancy titles need to pass notability for city councilors, and Foster does not do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Garnick[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability here. While I initially thought appearing on Caught in the Moment might garner some coverage, there's simply no RS that turn up. This article is completely unsourced and unencyclopedic. Kbabej (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. It's odd that this page has been around for 13 years and not edited very much. Can we search deeper for possible sources? Is she presumed notable due to her work on a popular TV series? Cam this be merged somewhere? Bearian (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's already merged. The info from this article already appears on Caught in the Moment under her section. --Kbabej (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This unsourced, possibly unverifiable puff piece is already in the Caught in the Moment article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete' An article only sourced to the unreliable IMDb. The fact that this article has seen so little editing while existing over a decade is probably a strong indicator the subject is just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Santiago[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero real world notability. All the references are within the context of the game. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one independent source found in my search. b uidhe 04:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 05:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Not seeing much to warrant a separate article, so I think a redirect might be in order. Even then, despite the Gears of War franchise being relatively big, none of the characters have really stood out that much, so even that might be a bit much. Eik Corell (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Essentially nothing comes up when you search his name in Google. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gears of War Certainly no significant coverage from reliable source to be seen on this fictional character thus fails WP:GNG. Since the character is part of the Gears of War video game series it is worth redirecting there. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 15:57, 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 02:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Foord[edit]

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

Biography of a person whose only stated notability claim is as town clerk and registrar of deeds at the county level, which are not inherently notable political offices. People are not automatically notable just because they happen to be glancingly namechecked a couple of times in local-interest sources; at this level of significance, he would have to show nationalized coverage to clear the notability bar. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very important to note that this AFD is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enos Foord. ミラ P 04:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The office holds no notability; it doesn't have a WP article of its own (and for good reason). The sources are here are just mentions, and extremely local. --Kbabej (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable office to pass WP:NPOL nor the sourcing is good enough to pass WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above and my comments on the Enos Foord AfD. Also note that the article creator has made, in recent weeks, a great number of similarly marginal articles with similarly threadbare citations. [37] Ravenswing 11:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletel I shudder to think what Wikipedia would be like if we allowed articles reflecting such hyper localism to survive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:SNOW, contra Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliphalet Pond, Jr.. Before 1800, the federal and state governments were minuscule compared to what they would become later, so local governments had out-sized influence in Americans' lives. Fewer than 100,000 white men voted in the 1800 United States presidential election. State and local governments were practically independent, according to the Report of 1800. After the War of 1812, and going into the Era of Good Feelings, the United States government grew exponentially. States also grew larger and started to enforce the idea of separation of powers into their state and local governments at the time. In the 1828 election 1,148,018 white men voted, 10 times the number who'd voted 28 years prior, a reflection of overall growth in population, immigration and naturalization, the expanding suffrage to White working class men, the Louisiana Purchase, and the greater number and importance of Federal officials. So this article is about a person whose term in office overlapped with this rapidly changing period of American History. I'd delete this one, but keep the ones of those who served their careers in local government earlier. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 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 List of starships in Babylon 5. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omega-class destroyer[edit]

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

No indication this fictional starship class passes WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to show anything that is not a plot summary. Some discussion of origin and design, but mostly sourced to blogs/listervs/etc. Deprod by User:Sgeureka with "remove prod for being one of the better-written B5 articles (WP:WAF) - either take it to AfD, or I suggest merging his with the Ship list (along with Babylon 5 (fictional space station) and Starfury". So, let's discuss: delete, merge or keep? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 25 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} 03:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of starships in Babylon 5. This kind of real-world design information is exactly what WP:WAF recommends for coveraging fictional items, and I believe that since it's so rare to find on WP amidst all the fancruft, we shouldn't delete it further. However, this fictional item doesn't need a stand-alone article. Since B5 aired in the early internet days, I can overlook that the creators used outdated ways of fan communication that WP typically doesn't recommend as sources, but that's part of the show's history (Babylon 5's use of the Internet). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. No shred of analysis. Not opposed to redirect. Kacper IV (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - All primary information, fails GNG. TTN (talk) 15:00, 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thalarion[edit]

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

No indication this fictional location passes GNG/WP:NFICTION/WP:PLOT. Primary sources only, no real world significance, BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a plot summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 25 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} 03:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because you have two uses of the name for a place in fiction does not move the place to be notable if neither use of it was notable on its own. especially since there is no evidence of a connection in these two uses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:59, 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bialya[edit]

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

No indication this fictional location passes GNG/WP:NFICTION/WP:PLOT. Primary sources only, no real world significance, BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a plot summary. Deprodded by User:Spinningspark with "There is at least an arguable case for an article. At least one book with an out of universe discussion with comparison to RL countries and politics https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AEBUDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT143 " Thank you for a valid argument, through from what I can tell the source mentions this country only in passing and doesn't provide any analysis of the country itself. Still, let's discuss, can anyone find more analysis of this fictional location that would warrant keeping the article as a stand-alone entry? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 25 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} 03:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. I do not see sources covering this in detail. Kacper IV (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article in way to inuniverse. On the other hand from the passing references in places like Arrow we realize this place lacks clear development. It is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Silmarillion. Clear consensus to not keep the article in its current form - the only counterargument arguing keep apparently didn't convince anyone else although a bit more discussion on the proffered sources would have been desirable. There is some disagreement between editors on a merge or redirect, mainly due to concerns about which merge target to use and whether there is properly sourced material that can be merged. Neither discussion strand seems to have gotten to a clear consensus. Thus, this will be a redirect to the most commonly cited merg target, and people can merge stuff from the history as they desire or debate further adjustments to the redirect in the appropriate fora. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Round World version of the Silmarillion[edit]

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

Super minor fictional concept. Fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG. Possible WP:OR. Deprodded by User:Spinningspark with "I'm at WP:PRESERVE on this one. It at least has the benefit of being an out-of-universe discussion". Thank you for an interesting rationale, but we still need to find better sources and such, and I am not seeing anything myself, and I note concerns about OR. Can anyone rescue this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 25 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} 03:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:HASTE, there is no need in starting articles on topics that could be legitimate WP:SPINOUTs one day; the parent article can cover it fine for a long time. And this is even just an unsourced stub (no length concerns) and an unlikely search term. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's hard to see how this could ever possibly meet WP:GNG. At the very least, nothing came up in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: Something certainly came up in my WP:BEFORE. See the links I provided below to book sources. SpinningSpark 15:27, 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 unless sources can be produced to support the material, in which case merge to Tolkien's legendarium. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: there already is a source in the article. While it is not available in preview, there is no reason to believe that Christopher Tolkien did not discuss this issue in his massive commentary on his father's works. It would be a massive failure of AGF to assume that the editor (User:Ausir) did not get the material from the source. If you have doubts on that, you might want to take a look at Elizabeth A. Whittingham The Evolution of Tolkien's Mythology where she discusses this issue at length, particularly with respect to Christoopher Tolkien's commentary. She clearly believes the issue to be important in Tolkien's evolution: The 1946–1947 "Round World Version" is an important juncture in the final development of the Ainulindalë. Peter Kreeft The Philosophy of Tolkien also discusses it with a rather different take. It is covered in the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, which Piotrus in another Tolkien discussion said was his go to source for establishing notability for Tolkien elements. See the entries for "Earth" [38], "Middle-earth" [39], and "The Silmarillion" [40]. It is apparent that Tolkien spent a long time trying to solve this inconsistency and it was a major factor in him never finishing, or producing a canonical version of, the Silmarillion. SpinningSpark 15:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Tolkien's book is not an inline reference, so it's impossible to tell just what it's good for and to what extent; "no reason to believe that Christopher Tolkien did not discuss this issue" is speculative at best. In any case, it doesn't warrant a separate article IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't speculative at all. Did you read what I wrote? I provided you with a source that discusses Christopher Tolkien's writings with several specific page citations to exactly the source in our article. WP:General references are a perfectly valid means of referencing an article. That is certainly not grounds for deletion even if you don't approve. SpinningSpark 20:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because "there is no reason to believe that [a source] does not discuss it"? Seriously? WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being deliberately disingenuous? There is hard evidence that the Christopher Tolkien source discusses the subject because the Whittingham source says he does, and cites him extensively. There is also the matter of WP:AGF, a core policy. On the grounds that we assume good faith of the editor who inserted the source, we should assume that he is not misrepresenting it unless someone has evidence to the contrary (like reading the source and failing verification). SpinningSpark 14:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my comments above. SpinningSpark 15:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Middle-earth canon or Tolkien's legendarium. Not individually notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on Simirilian, where a brief mention can be included on the process of getting that dreadfully unreadable book published, when C. Tolkien probably should have sought out a real writer to finish it before putting it to press.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. We don't just pretend there are sources. Kacper IV (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kacper IV: Nobody is "pretending" there are sources. The source in the article is perfectly legitimate. I have provided further sources above. SpinningSpark 14:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not sourcing (although I am not convinced there is enough sourcing of this to pass GNG). The issue is that there is no strong argument for a seperate article on one of many multiple plot plans in the development of a book. Especially considering the low critical and popular success of the book. I tried to plow through the Simirilian despite my father's warning it was unreadable, and although I plowed through I remember little of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on the Similirian. This is a detail of the development that does not merit a seperate article. Even if when C. Tolkien dies whoever takes over the estate has more literary abilities and publishes a readable round-world version of the Silmarillion (as opposed to the unreadable one C. Tolkien published), I would still oppose a seperate article, and put both versions of the Similrilion in one article. That might not win, but with only one published version, I see no reason for this as a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I doubt such a minor topic would be worth having separate even if there were some sources, but I see little point in giving benefit of the doubt to a topic that has existed for 15 years. TTN (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not give presedent to existing articles. Such a path would reinforce systemic bias to something worse that it already is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Silmarillion. Even if there are some sources discussing this topic, I'm not seeing why this would need to have a separate article from the book itself. This is just a single part of the development of what would eventually be compiled to make the published version of The Simarillion, and could easily be covered in the "Concept and Creation" portion of that article. Even with sources, this does not seem to be a necessary WP:SPLIT. Rorshacma (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Faolin42 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Half-elf. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Half-elven[edit]

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

NOT to be confused with Half-elf (where this likely should just redirect), this is effectively Half-elf (Middle-earth). Fictional concept. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. Nothing to merge to the main half-elf article (which is in terrible shape but I hold some hope it might be notable either due to real mythology or due to some sociological analysis related to interracial relationships in literature) since nothing here is referenced to non-primary works and it is all PLOT anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 25 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} 02:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Half-elf#In other contexts The vast majority of the sources that I could find discussed half-elves that were not created by Tolkien. It does not appear that this concept is particularly well-studied. However, it is a plausible search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:49, 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]

Merge to Half-elf, which needs a serious rewrite. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Half-elf.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Not opposed to redirect. Kacper IV (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Half-elf. Basically means the same thing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Gandalf#The White Council. RL0919 (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White Council[edit]

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

Fictional organization. No indication it passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to find any discussion that's not in passing and goes beyond plot summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 25 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} 02:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete — "The White Council" is mentioned in The Hobbit and used (as Tolkien himself said) as a plot device to explain why Gandalf has left Thorin's company to their own devises. Tolkien does not bring the idea in The Lord of the Rings. Fictional references to the Council are pretty scanty, even though it is supposes to be important. If it needs a redirect, redirect to The Hobbit.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the White Council is mentioned several times in the LotR, both in the narrative itself (by both Gandalf and Galadriel) and in the appendices. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Wikipedia is not a Tolkien encyclopedia. Kacper IV (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I saw this because I have a strong suspicion that Lord of the Rings (TV Series) will include the first White Council lead by Gilgalad. Of course, I could be totally off on what will happen in the LoTR TV series, but since it is not created yet, and even less has affected secondary literature, that is all idle speculation that can not be used to keep this article at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Here Lord of the Rings (TV series) is the correct link. I have no idea why my link I put in didn't work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Johnpacklambert: Capitalization of S in series. Probably not worth creating a redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering right now it is just a redirect, I fully agree. Since they have apparently not began production, there is no reason to create a seperate article. Yes, it is alleged this will be the biggest budget TV show ever, but at present my theory it will deal with the forging of the rings of power is not supported by anything but teaser tweets of maps and poems, which give us very little clear idea of what is occuring.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article takes an in-universe view of this thing, writting of it as if it is a real thing. This is problematic since Tolkien never wrote minutes of its meetings. To keep this article we need more transparancy on the sourcing, and to distinguish what is said in The Hobbitt, LoTR, what is said in the appendices, and what is said somewhere else. That transparancy, or even the admission that in the Hobbit this was a plot contrivance with little meaning to what was actually going on, is lacking in the article. These articles have huge lacking in real world acceptance, including accepting the fact that with a mention in the first version of "policeman", the world that the Hobbit was set in was not orginally the world of Lithien and the Hobbit changed. We need real-world coverage, not just fictional world coverage. This is probably an even bigger need in our comic book articles on everyone from Superman to Batman, but it is also needed here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gandalf#The White Council. Goustien (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gandalf#The White Council as per Goustien. It's covered in a more encyclopedic tone there anyway. But if it redirected, The Lord of the Rings: The White Council should be added to the "See also" section. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - The topic fails GNG. TTN (talk) 14:58, 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. But if folks want to reuse the content in the US Roads Wikiproject, they can ask so at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of highways bypassed by Interstate Highways[edit]

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

This is very similar to the situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of temporary Interstate Highways. The list isn't sourced, and it hasn't been sourced for the 13+ years it has existed. The list is not well done in terms of scope. In several cases, the highways haven't been bypassed so much as they were overlaid with the new designation.

In short, I find this list to be roadcruft, and I question whether or not the topic is notable. Imzadi 1979 → 02:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 02:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Interstate Highways/Bypassed highways as a starting point for further research, but I agree that it doesn't merit an article. --Rs chen 7754 02:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any sourced information about routes bypassed by a particular Interstate can and should be discussed at that Interstate's respective article. As it stands, this is unwieldy, unsourced, and not a worthwhile topic for a list. No objection to moving it to a subpage of WP:USRD per Rschen7754 if others believe that it would have value to that WikiProject. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spinster (film)[edit]

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

Article about a not-yet released film, not yet the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:NFILM. The film appears to be lost in the production pipeline, as production concluded a year and a half ago yet it's still in post according to IMDb -- but if post-production is taking this long on an indie comedy film with no complex special effects work to speak of, then something has gone very, very wrong. And the sources here are just two pieces of same-day coverage in two different film publications of the same single casting announcement, and an Instagram post that is not a reliable or notability-supporting source at all, which is not enough coverage to exempt it from having to actually get released and receive critical attention. Obviously an article can be recreated in the future if and when this actually does come out, but the existence of one casting announcement is not enough coverage to make it permanently notable without regard to whether it ever sees the light of day at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The game at issue has been subject to two earlier AfDs before this (one with the 'game' moniker, the other with 'video game' in the title), both which resulted in a consensus to delete. Based on the discussion here, that consensus appears to be unchanged. There's a lot of debate on this AfD itself, but only 1 non-sockpuppet account is arguing to keep the article, while several others have offered serious challenges to the secondary sourcing available under WP:GNG. I feel the policy arguments are far stronger with the delete position and have closed this accordingly. As this remains the same consensus view as previous AfDs, I'm also going to salt the article. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aardwolf (video game)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aardwolf (game)

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

No new reliable sources since the 2016 AfD. Save for Engadget, none of the other article sources are reliable and independent. There are no suitable redirect targets since List of MUDs only includes independently notable entries (i.e., with their own articles). czar 01:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 02:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Aardwolf is one of the most popular games in a dying genre. There are few articles because the genre is dying. MUDs at this point cater to an audience of at most a few thousand people, so there are not going to be many new articles on it. I disagree with calling the sourcing unreliable and un-independent. Calling them unreliable just because they are niche is doing a disservice to the community. I just added multiple more sources to the page, including two published books. That should satisfy the requirements. Bluedude588 (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity does not automatically make something notable on Wikipedia. There's also a lot of obscure, "niche" subjects covered on Wikipedia but that's because they meet the notability criteria, which Aardwolf doesn't. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 04:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just edited the article and added two published book sources. Bluedude588 (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

INFO. I added a bunch more sources to the article and expanded upon its relevancy. I believe its notability is well established now and as such should be unmarked for deletion. Additionally, the critiques of the article up until this point I believe are now outdated and should be rewritten to reflect the changes made within the article. Also, please let me know if this is not the correct way to inform you all of the changes I made. I wanted to make sure that this would be seen, but if there is a more proper place to put this, just let me know. Bluedude588 (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the addition of the sources you mentioned, nearly all of the other references are unreliable and there's not enough reliable ones to make this thing stand on its own. I still feel it fails the notability criteria. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 14:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you feel like there are specific references that do not belong, then you can edit them out. As it stands the article has clearly been established as notable. I'll list out the reasons why. 1. It uniquely has incorporated graphics. 2. It has been the subject of both a master's and PhD thesis. 3. It is in the top three most popular MUDs. 4. It has been featured in multiple magazines. I don't know what else you could ask for with a game in a niche genre like this. I just went back to searching for more sources and found another (the PhD dissertation and art magazine reference). At this point my article is better sourced than many of the non-contested MUD entries, and is probably better sourced than many stubs on Wikipedia in general. Here's some examples. JediMUD, Darkness Falls: The Crusade, Holy Mission, Muddy Waters (video game). An example of a random other stub that is way less notable and well sourced than this one is the Kenneth Peppiatt article. If that is allowed to be on Wikipeida, there is absolutely no reason for my article to get deleted, especially now that I have added in like five more sources since it was flagged for deletion. Bluedude588 (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because those pages have not been deleted does not mean that consensus supports keeping them (looks like almost all of those have the potential to see deletion, from a cursory glance). Almost all of the sources in Aardwolf are unreliable or are primary, and until you can find significant coverage of this game in reliable, independent, third party sources, I do not support keeping this. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except what you are claiming is simply not true. Out of the 14 sources, there is only one primary source, and that is the game's website. If we can settle this by deleting that one source and the one sentence it is attached to, then I'm fine with that. As for unreliability, I think that claim is untrue as well. There are two published books, two academic papers, and three articles/projects from magazines. Again, if you have specific issues with certain sources lets tackle those. But on the whole there are plenty of reliable, independent, and third party sources in this article, and I have gone above and beyond to demonstrate this. The fact that my article is still being called out is honestly starting to feel like harassment. It does not appear as if you are giving this article a fair shake. Instead of wasting all this time over deletion, how about we just fix the article? Because there are definitely enough legit sources here to justify an article. Bluedude588 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep. What makes Aardwolf unique is that it is one of the last video games of its kind. I consider it a real shame that there are not enough articles about MUDs on Wikipedia. Just because it is "niche" does not make it unworthy for Wikipedia. Additionally, the sources are not unreliable. JohaNepomuk (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Striking !vote from editor blocked for socking. Woodroar (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- That means nothing. It fails the notability criteria by a long shot. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep saying that it fails the notability criteria without providing an actual explanation. I'm looking through what Wikipedia defines as notable, and this article has it. "Significant coverage" is easily covered by the articles and PhD dissertation. "Reliable", again is covered by the published sources here. There are multiple secondary sources. All by one of the sources are "independent of the subject". You might want to take a look at WP:GNG because my page does fulfill what they list there. Bluedude588 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also I peaked through the articles you have created, and some of them have even few sources than mine. I'm going to question your ability to judge gaming articles on their notability if you think Aardwolf's is unacceptable but your Space Chaser one is. That article cities StrategyWiki for crying out loud. Aardwolf is demonstrably notable, end of story. Bluedude588 (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sole source that meets our requirements is Engadget. Here's the rest:

A literal appearance on a table in Games and Rules: Game Mechanics for the "Magic Circle"

A few trivial mentions (amounting to 3 sentences) in an opinion piece on an unreliable game site (Veteran Gamers)

Some more unreliable sites (Mudstats, Mudconnect, TopMudSites)

A primary source (AardwolfMUD)

Some trivial mentions in Playboy

A thesis that doesn't appear to meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP

A literal mention in Vintage Games 2.0: An Insider Look at the Most Influential Games of All Time

A guest article on an unreliable game site (keithburgun.net)

A review on what appears to be a spammy SEO content farm (Explosion)

A film school project that uses screenshots/text from the game

A thesis mentioning that film school project

That's it. Oh, and this WP:IDHT behavior, ref stuffing, and apparent sock/meatpuppetry or canvassing is ridiculous. Woodroar (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- The appearance on that table sources the one claim it is attached to, so I fail to see why that is wrong. Explain how those are "unreliable sources". They establish basic facts, like how many people are connected to a website. The Playboy article constitutes as more than just a trivial mention, and you know that. It includes what makes the game notable and has interviews. That is not trivial. A thesis publish by the second ranked university in Turkey, so that merits something. And the PhD thesis does a bit more than just mention the art project, and if you actually looked into it you'd realize that. The mere fact that such a niche game is in a dissertation establishes notability. Again, how about you fix the article instead of wasting time complaining on here? That's much more ridiculous than anything else going on. 22:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Bluedude588 (talk)
  - Most of the sources you used also just make a bunch of passing mentions of the game. Just because a reliable source mentions a game doesn't automatically make it reliable, there would need to be significant, in-depth coverage of this game from third-party sources to make this pass the criteria. You lobbying a bunch of weird accusations/insults at other editors and myself also does not help your case if you ask me. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh and for the record, I created Space Chaser like three years ago. If you look at something like Starblade: Operation Blue Planet that I wrote like a few months ago, you can plainly see that it passes the notability guidelines. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately i couldn't find anything about this game from known sources.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

**Per WP:NOTABILITY, this page should stay. Have you even taken the time to read that policy page? Because it seems that you have quite a restrictive notion as to what is considered a "known source". JoeLeboe (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Looks like this is a sockpuppet ~~of Bluedude588~~, per this discussion. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm inclined to believe you haven't read it either considering that meager mentions of something in a reliable source do not make is automatically justify any kind of notability. It's real tiresome to see you and several other editors make the claim that "reliable sources for this exist" yet have made no attempt to show anything. I really do not see this thing being kept at this point. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*STRONG Keep There is p-l-e-n-t-y of coverage about Aardwolf. Here, I'll clean up the "references section" and replace some of the not-so-reliable sources with more reliable ones. If this page is deleted, then we're losing one of the only articles on Wikipedia about MUD games. Ergo, this page should NOT be deleted. I will be upset. JohaNepomuk will be upset. Bluedude588 will be upset. The whole MUD community will be very upset. JoeLeboe (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Looks like this is a sockpuppet ~~of Bluedude588,~~ per this discussion. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so you're participating in slander now? That ain't my sockpuppet. I'm done fighting for the article, but I still don't appreciate you lying about me. Bluedude588 (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This page does not meet the notability guidelines whatsoever. Whether it hurts you or others feelings means nothing if the page doesn't abide by policy. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note Participants have been canvassed from Reddit /r/MUD. czar 01:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
INFO I just stripped out all the unreliable sourcing from the article. It's leaner but more in tune with what I believe Wikipedia's requirements are. There are no more primary sources or unreliable secondary sources present within the article. It's a stub, but maybe it can survive on as a stub. As for the Reddit thing, I was asking for support on better developing the article and to raise awareness on its existence. Once I discovered that it could be construed as "canvassing" I deleted the post. I apologize if that was against the rules. Bluedude588 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This still doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines by any means. Three sources for an article that short is inexcusable. The PlayBoy source also just barely mentions the game, which again fails WP's notability policies (something you have already been told by another editor). There is no way this article is gonna survive a stub, or even survive this deletion discussion at all. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep implying that short articles need more sourcing. Can you explain why? Would three sources for a medium length article suffice? Bluedude588 (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I mentioned our general notability requirements ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") on my Talk page, but that is usually interpreted as technically only requiring two sources. But the coverage needs to be significant. It doesn't have to be a full book, but it also can't be a few sentences or even a few paragraphs. It needs to be enough to prove that (a) a reliable source thought the subject was important enough to cover in detail, and (b) that detail is sufficient for us to write an article around it. Of course, there's some debate about what "significant" means, but I feel like most editors would say something like "at least a few pages specifically about the subject". I could imagine cases where a very short source would qualify if it were extremely information-rich, or where an entire book would not qualify if it were extremely vague, or that we might even require more than two sources if they all basically say the same thing. What really matters is how much information there is. Is there enough to write a full article? With Aardwolf, I don't think there is, at least not at the current time. Woodroar (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any significant coverage from reliable sources of Aardwolf to warrant it having its own article thus fails WP:GNG. The references on the article at the moment do not provide significant coverage. I would not be opposed for it to be Redirected to MUD. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 15:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spy-cicle, such a redirect would be deleted because "Aardwolf" isn't mentioned in the text of MUD (nor would there be any reason to mention it there) czar 16:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Good point, I guess it would just make more sense to Delete the article. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:13, 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.