Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 November	27 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Gold[edit]

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

Although she has a famous sister, Carly Gold is not notable herself. She does not meet any of the criteria at WP:NSKATE. Hergilei (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable figure skater.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable figure skater. Although there are independent sources about her achievements and retirement, they are not strong enough to grant her an article in Wiki - Jay (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Essentially, nobody else agreed that the sources produced showed by the sole "keep" vote demonstrated that a suitable article can be written on this topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lap circle[edit]

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

This was kept (well, closed as no consensus) in the glorious days of 2006 when mere existence could be a sufficient grounds for voting keep. We've come a long way since then, so it's high time to re-evaluate this.

I was not able to find any in-depth reliable sources about this concept, and I searched reasonably thoroughly - I checked "lap circle" and "lap sit" on their own, then with +team, +game, and +trust. The most I found were primary sources providing rules - books with titles like "82 Games to Play With Your Kids" and similar things. These are not in-depth and are not secondary sources, considering that they merely provide instructions on how to perform a lap circle, without any analysis or commentary on the concept of a lap circle (which would make them secondary). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep referred to as Lap Sit or lap game or Human Chair. This is a team building exercise to foster trust and cooperation. Used in business setting or as a youth activity. I added sources and improved the intro, along with layout and added references, including formatting the existing reference. Lightburst (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The refs you added are hardly in-depth reliable secondary sources. The Game Gal is a self-published blog so it's not reliable for notability claims, the Ability Magazine article spends about three sentences discussing the concept while the rest of the article is substantially about something else, and the Jubed page is another primary-source instructional on how to do the game. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple team building/icebreaker used in retreats for business people. Used by teachers, camp directors or facilitators to foster cooperation or to break the ice among participants. There will not be any in-depth coverage on this subject - just as there is not in depth coverage of other such activities ie Human knot, Two truths, one lie, etc. I find that this is a relevant and notable team building exercise. Reasonable editors may disagree and !vote accordingly. Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And look! One of those articles you linked is a redirect to a different article, and one of them is tagged as "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline".ApLundell (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is merged. I can link to many more as I did below: I have already spent too much time on this but I accept your challenge. There is no in depth coverage for these team building games so perhaps you can AfD or redirect them as well? Hot potato, Hunt the Thimble, Dizzy bat, Questions (game), Musical chairs, Would you rather, Pass the parcel Lightburst (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. Surely, as veteran of deletion discussions you're aware of that?

But to answer your question : Yes. If there's no useful sources, there's no justification for an article. ApLundell (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There will not be any in-depth coverage on this subject - that is effectively an admission that we should not have an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable game. Redirect to "Icebreaker" (as was done with a similar article Lightburst links to above.) None of the sources establish notability, and none seem likely to be found. ApLundell (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is actually more of a merge since the "Two truths, one lie" is explained on the Icebreakers article. We have room for such articles. WP:NOTPAPER here are two more such games.

Egg tossing
Show and Tell Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big difference - there are in-depth sources abundantly available about show and tell. JSTOR returns 3458 hits about show and tell from all kinds of reliable academic sources focused on childrens' education. Even if we limit ourselves to the first page alone, we're well clear of GNG with plenty of critical analysis and commentary. The same simply cannot be said of the lap game (4 hits, all trivial), circle (2 hits, all trivial), sit (25 hits, all trivial). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cherry picked Look at totality and see the rule instead of the exception. Lightburst (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did I cherry pick? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use a different search term Lightburst (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No results found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly game - in practice it takes about five minutes. This is not War and Peace with academic interpretation and secondary sources. I think we have managed to spend too much time on this. I did my best in the article. I leave it to the other editors who find their way. Lightburst (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've actually noticed this one before while patrolling orphaned articles, and was never able to actually find any in-depth sources that would actually indicate notability. There is certainly stuff out there that shows that WP:ITEXISTS, but that is not a valid reason to keep an article. Even the sources introduced in this AFD are nothing more than instructions for how to do it. Rorshacma (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:19, 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 keep. Consensus that there is enough sustained coverage to overcome BLP1E concerns. RL0919 (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Cooney[edit]

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

BLP issues. This article is about a Youtuber of borderline notability, whose main claim to fame seems to be being anorexic. Essentially the entire article is about her weight and mental health issues. This article was previously deleted at AFD last year, then restored in September 2019 following a deletion review, as more sources had been found. I'm bringing it back here as it's a complete BLP trainwreck. I'm prepared to accept that this article might possibly pass WP:BIO, due to the number of sources; although most of them are not particularly reliable, with much of it cited to random blogs and self-published sources like YouTube itself. But even if she is technically notable, I'd say this is a case where we should WP:IAR and delete the article. A 'biography' of a microcelebrity that essentially exists to track their weight and mental health is an abomination we're better off without. Robofish (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying participants in previous AFD and DRV: User:Mz7, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Expertwikiguy, User:Andise1, User:Eventhorizon51, User:Jovanmilic97, User:Hobit. Robofish (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is largely sourced to Youtube videos and no-name clickbait sites like these [1] [2] [3], which is not acceptable for a BLP, especially one involving these sorts of issues. This from Paper Magazine is a good source, and there are a few ok-ish sources that are not in the article such as [4] and [5], but the RS coverage is sparse and usually brief, and I would argue that this still falls under WP:BLP1E, which is what the article was deleted for in 2018. All of the coverage is related to her health issues and recovery - there's very little about what she actually does as a Youtuber. This is a piece of internet drama that has attracted some cursory media attention but it doesn't justify an invasively detailed BLP on a young woman. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As much as I hate to say it, youtube stars are the new tv stars. Their self indulgent rubbish is notable because the viewers say it is by watching/subscribing. Eugenia Cooney has 2.4 million followers on Youtube and that is a significant number. Her videos get 5-9 million views - and that is a career. BLP1E is not an issue here: she is notable for her self reported condition, and then also notable for having 2.4 million followers. So a WP:BLP2E designation is not any disqualifier and is in fact a fallacious argument. Lightburst (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While we don't care about subscriber numbers, the media coverage still passes WP:SUSTAINED. ミラ P 01:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she certainly seems to have attracted a great deal of attention, and that's what notability is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has received lot of press coverage. Some examples: [6], [7] [8] [9] [10][11]. Clovermoss (talk) 02:43, 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, without prejudice against refunding to draft if any editor thinks they can fix the article's shortcomings there. BD2412 T 17:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lorven Public School[edit]

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

Despite the name, this is actually an organization that runs a group of schools. The individual schools appear to be private elementary schools, so they aren't independently inherently notable (and in any case, notability isn't inherited upwards). I'm not finding sufficient sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH that would enable us to keep this article. It's possible there are non-English sources, but since the article doesn't provide a non-English name, I can't even search for any. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment as John says above article lacks indepdent sources- in fact it lacks many other things too! Like content- I feel that is is worth putting a little effort into understanding the subject- there are many important Indian school articles that are getting similar comments, I think it is our fault that we don't know where to look. A school of 2000 that is described as

" A well-known educational institution, Lorven Educational Centre in Chandapura, Bangalore was founded in the year 2001. This Schools takes pride in the holistic and innovative learning methods which have helped them raise the bar in the field of education. The centre follows a well-researched curriculum that is based on the play way method of learning. This school offers education for children in different age groups." "There are a host of other supplementary activities that children can enroll in to enhance their skill set. In a populous suburb of bangalore, this centre is situated near Opposite to Vijaya Bank of Chandapura." "Schools listing Site". just dial. com.. As is sadly common with many schools there have been many name changes as it has grown- Lorven seems common in all the names. It is no longer an orphan- I have added it to List of schools in Bangalore, doing a comparison with other schools on the list it seems to differ only in that it is only 18 years old and being better than most. It is registered with the "CISCE (Council for Indian School Certificate Examinations) - Contact Details & Location". iCBSE. Retrieved 30 November 2019.- and from their self published material appear tto be doing notably well (again no independent source yet?. There is the argument of precedent- that all the other comparable schools qualify so what makes this the exception. cc Kudpung I am tempted to be bold and contact their IT teacher and ask- and ask him for verifiable sources! I am happier doing that than making a deletion decision on absence of knowledge.ClemRutter (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or optional Merge/Redirect: Fails any notability criterion. Attempts to rake through the leaves to find sources to prove existence does not advance notability per Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH. Satisfaction of even the barest notability standards requires verification by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Assertions "that all the other comparable schools qualify" is not a good argument and dubious without evidence of a "clear claim to notability" (#1). While listing all schools in the world might be a noble idea, lack of coverage would be evidence the subject might be better located in Chandapura (really in need of expansion and a fantastic place for a "School" section) where a single primary source (shown above) might be sufficient also adding substance to that article. It is my opinion that the creation of thousands of unsourced or poorly sourced forever stubs, possibly just for the sake of inclusion (or maybe even just growing Wikipedia), is not a good goal. If there is already coverage on Wikipedia then expand that article. If the content grows too big we can then consider splitting-off as not every subject in the world qualifies for a stand-alone article. Otr500 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with your absolutist binary interpretation of WP:notability, particularly when dealing with new unexplored areas. Look at the definitionm of sources, and the footnotes, including footnote 8. In saying there are no sources you must demonstrate you have made a significant attemot to find them. I am not against looking at expanding the Chandapura article- but that is not the question, we have the germ of an good article here- examining their selfpublished material and comparing that with properly WP:RS article it looks as if RS will be there all be it in Hindi! If all else has been tried, one looks for the auditors report on the public company running the organisation. Finding them is the way to go, teaching ourselves in the process of the best places to look when similar cases occur in future. (And it may help with the development of Chandapura!) ClemRutter (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non noted school and fails WP:GNG. Besides the article is stubby and there is no effort to expand it - Jay (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there doesn't seem to be the depth of sourcing necessary to justify an article on this. Reyk _YO! 07:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeni Semyonov[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NFOOTY as the RPFL is not a professional league by WP:FPL standards. HawkAussie (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:42, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Hassan[edit]

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

As an amateur boxer, I believe he does not meet the criteria set in WP:NBOX. The link provided for his boxing career says he won the 'All Pakistan National Tournament', but I can’t find any sources to suggest the tournament is affiliated with AIBA, and that is the only final – outside of military competitions – he has reached. Hassan now competes in MMA professionally, but also does not meet the criteria set in WP:MMATIER. He has only competed in PAK Fight Club. ².O.^Boxing 22:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 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) 23:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anime North Texas[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find this passing mention of the convention in an article about cosplay, but no actual coverage of the event itself. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find nothing substantive to suggest that WP:GNG is met. The only coverage appears to be directory listings, passing mentions, etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Events in general need the coverage to pass WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough to pass GNG Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe)[edit]

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

This is virtually the same article as Thanos and I see virtually no difference between the two. I attempted to redirect it as it's the same subject but was inexplicably reverted, so AFDing to delete and redirect. Praxidicae (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and redirect it to Thanos it until it’s done correctly. Right now it’s just redundant fancruft and there is no rush of it being an article since there is already an article on Thanos. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When and if this is ready for mainspace. This could be the place to redirect it to until it’s improved on. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jhenderson777 Why not to Thanos? I feel like I'm missing something here. There's an entire section covered about it there. Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s where I said to merge it to for right now. Just commenting that there may be a second option in the future. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft per Jhenderson777 - I don't think anyone would argue that this is not a notable topic, but as it stands, there is no reason for this to be WP:SPLIT from the main Thanos article. As stated by the nom, there is currently nothing here that is not already covered there. If the article were to be fleshed out to contain more than a list of appearances and plot summaries, it would be a valid Split article, but until that is done, it should be kept in Draft. Rorshacma (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify There was no reason to move this work in progress to mainspace when it's not done.★Trekker (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per the above. There is substantially more that can be said specifically about the MCU character, but despite his in-universe importance, this character also has very few appearances and very little development compared to other MCU characters who have articles that have survived objections like those raised in this process. BD2412 T 02:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft It's still a work in progress and should not be in the mainspace; move it there when it's finished. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this particular article. I actually agree with everyone on Draftspacing the article, but the draft is actually still there, and there is no attributable history carried over to this "new" article. This looks like a copy/paste job from the incomplete Draft, so it wasn't even properly moved. -2pou (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sources to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean that there aren't enough sources in the article, or that there aren't enough sources in the world? I'm pretty sure there are quite a few potential sources out there that have not made it into the article. BD2412 T 21:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are tons upon tons of articles about the MCU Thanos. Not sure how long you were looking but a Google search gives quite a few hits on major websites.★Trekker (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is redundant with Thanos. Perhaps some of the data (not too much) in this article can be copied to Thanos but I am not going to vote for "merge". Dont see the value of merging. - Jay (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Send to draft. WP:PRESERVE. Lightburst (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, everyone, there is still a Draft already in existence at Draft:Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) which is where this material came from.

Sorry, just trying to emphasize the point. -2pou (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see they didn’t even page move it (which I was probably thinking they were) so that’s taken care of. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:55, 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 10:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MolecularLab[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. apparently the major national website in the field. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at it, it seems to be. Worth an article. scope_creep^Talk 01:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my hope is that the nominator will slow down and do a proper WP:BEFORE - nom has been sending dozens of article to AfD without researching notability - this causes unnecessary work for editors. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleonica[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could perhaps be redirected to Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart. But unless someone else makes the case for that, as it stands, delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart, where it is mentioned. In the journals, I see only primary sources, of which the most highly cited is is an article on the Nuclide Chart. There are independent mentions in two books, [12] and [13], regarding the Nuclide Chart and their decay product calculator. The book mentions are enough verifiability to support a redirect to Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart, their best-known product and where the company is mentioned in context. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (edit conflict Mark viking above and I don't have time to re-jig): Some concern WP:BEFORE was not carried out on this and I was serious mulling if this was not a Frivolous or vexatious worthy of a WP:SCLOSE. Yes the article was lacking in citations and an an orphan seemingly through lack of some simply WP:COMPETENCY and I am desirous of letting ion particles flow till the hair stands on end ... but fundamentally we have a reasonable subject especially as J Bloggs can probably access it if they like. I'd respectfully oppose and suggestion of a merge to Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart (Acks to Headbomb for pointing out the linkage) as Nucleonica and the Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart are fundamentally different animals and the articles developed to different levels of maturity. I am convinced better strategy is to let the Nucleonica article develop on its own to wherever it gets and then consider a merge ... and Nucleonica may then be the prime article into which Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart needs to be merged. Otherwise Nucleonica would have to develop within Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart giving respect to WP:UNDUE ... its an additional constraint and may particularly affect any images that may be added. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have worked the article a bit. Obviously Magill et al. (2009) does not count towards WP:RS. Excelsior (2015) & Forschungszentrum Jülich (2017) show satisifaction of the training requirement per subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. at Wikipedia:NSOFT which are sufficient alone for survival. Also per WP:THREE for notability we have, with others available should one fall:

Cern (2017). "Nucleonica | CERN Scientific Information Service". library.cern. Archived from the original on 13 June 2019. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
EU Science Hub (9 August 2016) [2013]. "New JRC spin-off company to work on the Nucleonica portal". EU Science Hub - European Commission. Archived from the original on 13 July 2019. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
Masterson, Robert (2017). Nuclear engineering fundamentals : a practical perspective. OCLC 1048280746. 6.24 Online Decay Engine.

Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Re, the merge above, they are entirely different types of entities and bear no relation to each other whatsoever. There is sufficient reference to support an article. scope_creep^Talk 01:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NEXIST could have been found with a WP:BEFORE Lightburst (talk) 21:39, 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) 23:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unicru SmartMatch[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ican find no sources that would be good enough to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything about service. Most of it is ready mentioned in the Unicru article, but nothing at all. scope_creep^Talk 01:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aljazeera Publishing. RL0919 (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AlJazeera Jobs[edit]

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

Website is defunct. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see what specifically is not met in WP:NWEB. It may be that there is not SIGCOV but regarding the claim that the website is "defunct" - once something is notable it remains notable per WP:NTEMP. Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect. to alJazeera. bordrline refs for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aljazeera Publishing - Jay (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Aljazeera Publishing In regard to the site: WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 21:40, 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 10:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CareerStructure.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcesseem sufficient to showi tsa major company in the field. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep vexatious nomination. Lightburst (talk) 21:46, 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) 23:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtaboot[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking at the many sources, almost all of them are notices about specific job fairs; the others are PR. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 01:19, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JobServe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Weak delete. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. the sourcesseem a little marginal, but it nonetheless seems to be a major company. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes there are problems, but I again find myself at an article where the nominator should have read the previous AfD, looked for at least one stonewall obvious merge, and detected suitable sources exist. I am now too long at WP:AFD for the past couple of days ... but is this WP:COMPETENCY or Frivolous or vexatious? Yes as per the previous AfD the article is WP:UGLY so positively wade in and fix it. Luckily WP:NPP hopefully stops inadequate article coming through. I guess as I'm in the UK I know of the Company better and I'd better declare I've used their website .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can evidence a football connections. [14] indicates sponsorship of Premier League level shirt. Said player also played for Pompey later sponsored by Pompey compeititors Jobsite (loosely connected to a litigation in one of the references I recall and at LTP somewhat close to the National Cycle Route 22 just south of MtK bridge .... Hmmm ...). Anyway the player moved to Colchester where Colchester play and Jobserve now sponsor the Colchester Community Stadium. Should be sufficent in itself.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again it is on the nominator to do a WP:BEFORE - no compliance is vexatious. Lightburst (talk) 21:44, 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) 23:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jobs in Dubai[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article was created nearly ten years ago by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above comments. It is not wrong for a recruitment agency to have an article in Wiki provided it is being written as an informative article rather than introduction like this. This article looks more like a promotional site. Unless if someone plan to rewrite it, my vote for now is "delete". - Jay (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:45, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Me Help Desk[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete I see two minor 3rd party reviews in joint articles reviewing other sources also, which is usually not quite enough DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Stubby article with "weak" independent sources. Unless if someone can expand the article, my vote is delete - Jay (talk) 06:17, 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. Consensus is that individual instances of New Year's celebrations in a single city do not merit their own article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09[edit]

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

Are individual instances of this event notable? To me it feels more like fancruft and trivia. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — not notable. This even happens fairly regularly. Nothing worthwhile in article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what do you mean by "worthwhile"? Something that you like? If so, that's not a reason for deletion. Bookscale (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the event received notable coverage in the mainstream media (ie. more than trivial mentions), and is mentioned in reliable sources which are cited in the article. It does actually meet GNG. What's the issue? Bookscale (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Notability (events) this is routine coverage of an individual instance of an annual event. There is no doubt that the event itself as a whole is notable, but individual instances may not necessarily be. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except this particular instance (which is the only one nominated) did receive coverage which is cited in the article? Bookscale (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the event did not receive coverage at all. I'm saying that nothing especially notable/out of the ordinary happened, and all of the sources covering this specific edition were just routine coverage of it either as an upcoming or completed event. In this situation, routine coverage is not a sufficient basis of a claim of notability. Any notable detail relevant to this particular edition, with citations, could be covered in a table/list of sorts on the article for Sydney New Year's Eve itself. I do not see any other New Year's Eve celebration, or fireworks show, have articles for individual editions like this. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This is a difficult case because it did receive notable coverage, but there does not seem to be anything special about this year, over any other year, to deserve such notice. As Jack Upland says, there is nothing worthwhile in the article. --Bduke (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - except that "nothing worthwhile" is not Wikipedia policy supporting deletion. It's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What policy does it breach? Bookscale (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - What we meant by worthwhile is that there was nothing of significance in this specific edition of a routine celebration that makes it separately notable. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - This question was directed to Bduke (and Jack Upland, who hasn't bothered replying). Bookscale (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside of different fireworks theming and performers, generally NYE celebrations usually follow the same template every year; outside of millenium/turn of the century/national centennial celebrations, these usually shouldn't get callout with their own article. The main article already covers it well in summary form. Nate • (chatter) 08:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but it has notable coverage supported by reliable sources, it actually meets GNG. Saying "There shouldn't be a separate article" is just saying that you don't like the fact that such an article exists. You need to explain why. Bookscale (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Didn't say IDLI at all anywhere there; just said we already have a summary of it in the main article. I would support it here but if we can summarize it in another article, then it's much easier to retain than this article. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - "we already have a summary" is not an argument for deletion. Bookscale (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say Keep because no real argument of any merit has been put forward to justify deletion. At worst the page should be merged, not deleted. Bookscale (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This would have no traffic as a redirect (outside of professional sports seasons, we usually find historically very few "20xx-xy" redirects get any traction), and the 14th anniversary of anything usually doesn't merit much for a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 04:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - the article is sourced well and the sources can be used on the main article. It would be a waste to just delete the article. And there are other NYE pages as well. Bookscale (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The crux of my argument is that yes, there is no doubt Sydney New Year's Eve as an event franchise is notable, and other notable New Year's celebrations have articles. But they don't have individualized articles for each edition like it's a sporting event, since they are very routine and rigidly structured, and they often do not have enough variance to even have distinctive articles (any difference between editions, especially if it a specific tradition such as the bridge effects, can be easily covered in a relevant section of the parent article). The General Notability Guideline (GNG) is only a presumption of notability, and Events have their own specific notability criteria based on consensus. In particular, Notable events "usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle" and must receive "significant or in-depth coverage". It is clear based on other criteria that the event as an annual event meets the notability criteria. However, a specific instance of the event in a specific year does not, because it only receives coverage during the news cycle immediately around New Year's Eve, and this coverage only constitutes "routine" coverage that, alone, is not enough to justify an entirely separate article. It's like how television series often do not have articles for individual episodes unless they have been proven to be critically notable in their own right. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - read GNG - "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". If it meets GNG (which it does), then it does not also need to meet the event page. The sources cited in the article are not routine. The page is notable enough. Your arguments are just pretence that you don't like the article and want to get rid of it, but there's no Wikipedia policy that the article infringes. Bookscale (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment' Once again, neither ViperSnake or I hate this article. It's a fine article if you're really interested in this topic...but that's why Wikia exists. Here, we're describing a run-of-the-mill edition of the ceremony, the fourteenth version. You take out the extraneous information about what song they didn't use (the layman doesn't know this extra information and doesn't care), a modified version of the other (ceremonies have cute entendre versions of songs to go with their shows all the time), and a play-by-play of the telecast and the soundtrack of what played during the fireworks (perfect for a Spotify playlist, not needed here), we don't have a full-length article here. Unless there was some kind of tragic incident, the aftermath section of everyone leaving and going home literally happens after every ceremony in the history of humanity.

I repeat again, this is a paragraph or two of information we need, at most. It is covered in perfect, short and clear detail in Sydney New Year's Eve#2007–09. This entire series of articles needs to go as it is of interest to only a select few people, and is all easily summarized in a number of paragraphs of prose and tables in the main article. This is my last comment here, because you are getting annoyed about something nobody else is. Step back and stop taking every delete vote! as some kind of personal attack against fireworks in Sydney. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not taking this as a personal attack, and I don't care about the article one way or the other, I'm just tired of AfD after AfD which are just articles a particular editor doesn't like, with some poorly-thought out reason to try to justify it. If you think that the article should be merged, that's not a reason for deleting the article, and none of the editors who have posted here have really put forward anything justifying why the article should be deleted. At worst, the consensus is to merge the content into the above article, but that should never have been put forward as an AfD if that was the case. Bookscale (talk) 00:49, 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) 18:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe Telegraph[edit]

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

Defunct media outlet, no sign of any notable sources available. Page seems to have been created by someone connected to the organisation, who has previously had similar pages removed through speedy deletion Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in for the Zimbabwe Metro, something does not lose its notability if it is defunct. This is a topic that is completely worthwhile of staying in Wikipedia. SuperChris (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment SuperChris - never suggested that, in my opinion it doesn’t have notability whether or not it’s defunct. I cannot find evidence of substantial secondary sources. If you can then please can I urge you to add them to the article. Thanks. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable enough from a Zimbabwe context MenfesKidus40 (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep. A quick click on the Google books link above indicates that the Zimbabwe Telegraph is cited in quite a few books. Greenshed (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Greenshed states, the fact that articles from the newspaper are quoted in books shows that it is considered an authentic source. As a national newspaper, I think it is likely to be notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Greenshed. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:46, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icertis[edit]

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

Organization has been around since 2009 and the best sources are still about routine startup funding rounds? There's no demonstration of sustained, in-depth coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the purposes of references to establish notability, analyst reports are deemed acceptable. This company has been covered by both Forrester and WBR Insights and has also been written about by Gartner. Topic therefore meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Bonds (song)[edit]

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

The article only includes various publications where the artist, its record label, and producers advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability, as all the interviews and reviews talk about the album as a whole, therefore the material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts → bubbling chart and not notable Has won one or more significant awards or honors → no Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. → Only Drake is the notable one.

All of this according to WP:NS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are a lot of references in this article, and many are album reviews, but many are not, such as the article on baseball songs and the articles about the collaboration with Lil Wayne...Rlendog (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 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. Verifiability is not enough, on its own, to avoid deletion. Topic must also be notable and there has been no claim that this topic is notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Airdura[edit]

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

Not notable. Marketing term. The internetz has multiple copies of this nonsense, but nothing we could use Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merge into List of fabrics. Verifiable.- Altenmann >talk 03:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not more than a dicdef.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironhide[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. The reception is trivial. The previous AfD keep rationales were fairly nonsensical. TTN (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When I did a Google search for reliable sources, all I get is unreliable sources. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability, not even a section describing its real-world reception. lullabying (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. As it was @Drmies: deleted a large number of unreliable sources that were the basis of the original keep arguments. Some of the keep arguments may have also been a desire to retain information of interest to fans. In the end though.... we are not Wikia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. It will take us years to get all this Wikia material out. Standards have changed, and that's a good thing, but all the gamers and anime fans and comic fans have really taken advantage of the old anything goes way of doing things. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots, no? Maybe hundreds of unnotable characters in the franchise, but Ironhide has to be one of the relatively more notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found a notable review of the toy. [15] That's all I can find right now that is significant coverage in a reliable source. Everywhere else is just brief mentions such as "Ironhide was a fan-favorite of the Michael Bay films" [16]. If that's true I would think somewhere out there is more coverage of the character. Dream Focus 03:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 03:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet more fancruft with no interest in passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

René Artois[edit]

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

Pure fan-based article, incorporating biographical information on a fictional character that lacks no sources and is purely Original Research. Lack of proper notability for the character receiving a personal article at all; unlike characters such as Sherlock Holmes, Superman, and Bugs Bunny, all who have extensive backgrounds within their medium of media work, this character is only in one programme and is only notable for being a part of a notable British comedy sitcom. Parts of the information would be better suited to be placed within the respective section detailing the main characters of the programme 'Allo 'Allo, within List of 'Allo 'Allo! characters, but the rest of it should be deleted. GUtt01 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough WP:SIGCOV to show real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Robots in Disguise (toy line)[edit]

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

Trivial list of toys that fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poorly sourced and mostly full of WP:FAN with no notability. lullabying (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is pretty much only a toy catalogue. JIP | Talk 10:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTCATALOG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only sourcing present on this article is a fan forum, not notable in the slightest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable merchandise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very trivial. Orientls (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Transformers (toy line) where mentioned as one of the groupings. Nothing to merge though (do not merge the specific table entries). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional nannies[edit]

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

Unsourced, unfocused, and no evidence that fictional nannies are notable as a group. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unsourced article. There is a topic that would lend itself to an article nannies in fiction. I am less than sure we have adequate third party analysis sources to support such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Fictional nannies is all we need for this - the list doesn't add anything._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDUPE states that having a category already is not a valid reason to delete a list article. Also WP:WEDONTNEEDIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Dream Focus 01:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have found a few sources that discuss fictional nannies as a group. I am uncertain if it is enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. I agree with John Pack Lambert that this topic lends itself to a "Nannies in fiction" article rather than a list. I could also see this information being placed in the main "Nanny" article in a condensed format. Apologies for the length and I hope this does not come across as spam. Just trying to help with the discussion. Here are the sources I found with an explanation for each. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nanny Knows Best: The History of the British Nanny has a chapter on nannies in fiction and film. New Boundaries in Political Science Fiction has a brief sentence comparing the title character of "Robbie" to a common nanny type in fiction. A review of The Rise and Fall of the British Nanny says that it includes commentary on fictional nannies, though I admittedly do not have full access to the source to confirm this. This New York Times article talks about "the nanny novel", and this Jezebel source refers to "the nanny film" as its own group. There are quite a few lists on favorite fictional nannies by Barnes and Noble, Sylist.co.uk, and Refinery 29, and this Cleveland.com mentions how real-life nannies were inspired by some fictional nannies. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have Nanny#Fictional representations already, so whatever’s analysis from the above sources may be relevant can go there, not a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 19:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem appropriate to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reywas92. Reyk _YO! 21:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ten of the blue links have their own article and one is a redirect to a list of characters page. They are notable for being nannies, that is their defining characteristic. Dream Focus 13:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: It's still too short an article regardless. ミラ P 01:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being short is not a valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 01:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: But it's also a valid reason not to keep. ミラ P 02:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a reason I gave to keep, I having valid reasons listed above. Dream Focus 03:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I acknowledge the above's statement that "being a nanny" is a defining characteristic for these fictional characters, it's still too short an article worth keeping separately. ミラ P 01:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then are you suggesting it be MERGED? Not all entries here are listed there. Dream Focus 01:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: We'll just put them at Nanny#Fictional representations. ミラ P 02:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nanny#Fictional representations already sufficiently covers the topic, and the article is not so long that a WP:SPLIT is necessary. The sources found by Aoba47 above can be added to that article, but as this current list in unsourced, nothing needs to be preserved or merged. Rorshacma (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST Lightburst (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Nanny#Fictional_representations - seems like a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:29, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Sixsmith[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found several reputable sources in Slovene language: an article on the portal MMC (by Slovene national TV), and two national newspapers: Dnevnik and Delo, so no need to presume notability. I'm available for translating, if needed. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if those articles demonstrate sufficient notability - two are about the fact that he signed for the club and another one that he extended his stay. This sounds rather a routine coverage one could expect for sportspeople. --Tone 16:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they do contain data about his career up to the point of signing up. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources that meet GNG. Just routine trivial passing mentions. Also fails NHOCKEY though he is close only 18 games under the threshold to meet #2. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Media (band)[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable band. The only source is a simple track listing for one album. No evidence of the multiple, non-trivial, published works required for WP:GNG. Doesn't meet any of the criteria for WP:NMUSIC. Article was WP:PROD-ed but the tag was removed, so coming here for discussion. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have not been able to find any useful sources in Swedish. That English-language sources are scarce is not odd as they don't seem to have had an international career, but notability could have been shown if there had been significant coverage in Swedish sources. However, there aren't – I found one discussion of their work in a blog[17], and one trivial mention of them in a newspaper article about 70s nostalgia[18], and that's all except for some track listings like the one in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 21:45, 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Bourg[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, looks like this was written to promote the subject. While there are 13 sources, none are in-depth independent coverage; all are self-published, primary, interviews, passing mentions, etc. MB 14:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - probably enough for WP:A7 at this rate too. — IVORK _Talk
Delete - promotional piece for non notable person.Celestina007 (talk) 11:53 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete – Notability not demonstrated; cannot find much, if any, coverage. Eagleash (talk) 11:41, 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) 16:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Jalil Orakzai[edit]

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

Was deprodded with no improvement and the rationale, "Fixed typo". Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Junior officer with a third-level gallantry decoration. Fails WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given by Necrothesp Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hristak Mitev[edit]

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

Google search returns zero hits [19]. The name sounds Bulgarian, so I tried searching in Cyrillic script [20], but again nothing. Looks like a hoax. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete (EDIT: in fact, Speedy Delete seems appropriate here per WP:G3) - Whilst the lack of Google Hits is not decisive, the subject is obviously made up in some way, since this name is not included on the list of Mayors of Zurich. A reverse image search using the photo brings up nothing, which is somewhat odd. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per FOARP. --MaeseLeon (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this the Bulgarian-Swiss Forrest Gump? Agree it looks like a hoax. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete It appears at least the claim of being mayor of Zurich is a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5. Author's sockpuppet blocked. – bradv🍁 14:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Verma (musician)[edit]

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

need to be reviewed Rooptera (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rooptera (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable but needs cleanup. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 14:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy delete per g5, the sources are puffery and this is a violation of the TOU. Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FX Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT. Unsourced since creation 13 years ago, and attempts at speedy deletion and PROD have been reverted. The key claim to notability here is that the company has won an Emmy Award for studio set design [21], but it has been noted before that Emmy Awards are given out for almost everything in the television industry, and not all Emmy Awards are notable. In addition, this doesn't seem to have been noted outside of the industry – other coverage is just press releases [22], [23], [24], [25] and attendance at industry expos [26]. Richard3120 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my previous nomination of this article for PROD _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:34, 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Diabolical Dominion[edit]

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

Defunct website. No external references or claim to notability. Rathfelder (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Searching for sources turns up nothing substantial. There are a few mentions of it here and there, but these are largely not in reliable sources, and certainly not in depth enough to count towards establishing notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a GSearch turns up nothing at all on my end except for the Wikipedia page and mirrors, and unrelated topics of a similar name. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:GNG. Consensus was also that per WP:NOTCLEANUP, the article can stay. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh Grifter[edit]

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

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}}.

Came here from this Help Desk request to delete the page. The request is not reasonable, but I found no sources online so WP:GNG applies.

I am somewhat annoyed because I can find circumstancial evidence that it was somewhat known in the UK, but nothing allowing proper sourcing. For instance this Guardian gallery from 2008 about a local journal says Andy Burnham (...) sold his Raleigh Grifter though the Journal’s classified section (...). It is a passing mention so worth nothing for notability, but the reader is apparently expected to know what a "Raleigh Grifter" is. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added a couple of basic references, but see the nominator's point that there is a shortage of solid information, despite lots of Pinterest / Ebay / childhood memorabilia sites covering this. And a lot of the article detail (e.g. malfunctioning gears) feels like WP:OR needing sourcing. If Raleigh Grifter Forum or any other user has concerns about factual accuracy in an article, Talk:Raleigh Grifter is a good place to raise these and develop a better article. (Alternatively, a massively pruned text could be merged into the article about the manufacturer, at the end of the Raleigh_Bicycle_Company#The_Raleigh_Chopper section.) AllyD (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article written is purely fictious and is responsible for spreading false information during its time on the net. As a Encyclopedia, surely information needs to be sourced and referenced correctly? The two added sources are not useable as the first is a picture of a Raleigh Grifter, and it's incorrectly anotated. The second source is a magazine article and it doesn't even mention the Raleigh Grifter? The article written also offends Raleigh Grifter enthusiasts, as the article refers to the Grifter and a bridge between the Raleigh Chopper and the BMX?? Wrong too. It insults the Grifter by referring to it as "Its frame was very similar to the Raleigh Twenty Shopper bicycle, but with a front triangle which resembled an upside down Chopper frame." The rest of the article is also wrong on dates, production models, colours and incorrect terminology. It is guess work at its best and it really does need to be deleted. It's also worth pointing out that the Raleigh Grifter was made by Raleigh of England, Nottingham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raleigh Grifter Forum (talk • contribs) BLOCKED. Britishfinance (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3.3.3 of the second reference, entitled "First response to BMX" begins "The next follow-up to the Chopper was the Grifter, launched three years later, in June 1976...". AllyD (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh... ONE reference to the word Grifter. Still not a valid referenced source thou is it?~~ BLOCKED. Britishfinance (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP it existed, Cycling Weekly. The article needs a trim. But it also needs to stay. WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE. Instead of deletion there can also be a merge discussion with a likely target of Raleigh Bicycle Company Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't see the delete rationale here at all. AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My Google-fu was weak: I searched for "Raleigh Grifter" but this excludes sources that talk about the "Grifter" in the context of Raleigh bikes. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nom changing to keep: looking at the presented sources, I think the DK book plus [27] plus [28] makes it a pass for WP:PRODUCT (a merge would be unwieldy). (OTOH the cyclingweekly source is an ultra-passing mention: The brand is as icon of British engineering, widely known for the glory days of the 1900s which saw it produce bikes like the children’s Chopper and Grifter, plus the Burner BMX bike. and the bike is nowhere discussed later on). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SKCRIT is met: withdrawal of nomination. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could not close as SK because it requires that no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Maybe someone could WP:IAR-SK anyway but I would advise against it; if you read Raleigh Grifter Forum's post beyond the ranting thesaurus, it actually contains a policy-compliant argument (summary: "WP:GNG is not met due to lack of sources other than passing mentions, making it impossible to write a WP:V-compliant article"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and also noting that when Raleigh was sold to Accell in 2012, The Daily Telegraph listed (and photographed) the Grifter and the Chopper, as two of Raleigh's most iconic bikes. [29]. Britishfinance (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I am sorry to say that i agree with the complaint on this. The article is false and still no usable references that support it staying. All i can see are references to the company that built the bike. There's NO supporting references to the history of the bike e.g. Models, foreign market models, According to the article there's only MK1 and Mk2's Other models that are not Mk2's are grouped with Mk2's. The article needs to be rewritten and correctly sourced. WP:GNG Cotterpins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC) — Cotterpins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance (talk) 18:20, 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 moved back to userspace. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navybearcat2/Inuit religion[edit]

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

Seems to be a personal essay for a school project, but not actually in userspace. CoconutOctopus talk 12:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ or move to userspace draft, it appears that's what was intended but the namespace was omitted. Bolding delete as it's my first choice as we already have Inuit religion. SITH (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Opting for draftify given the WikiEd scenario mentioned below. SITH (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be happy to move this back to the student's userspace - it's not ready to be live for several reasons. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Seems fine to me. CoconutOctopus talk 15:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Are you OK with me moving the content and closing this out or would you prefer that a non-involved admin or user do the closing out? (I have admin privileges under my main account.) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Go for it :) CoconutOctopus talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was the subject passes W:NOLY and is thereby presumed notable. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Field (bobsledder)[edit]

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

I don't think this person is notable enough for an article and the handful of citations are self published links. Alligators1974 (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:NOLY athletes are "presumed notable" if they've participated at a Winter Olympics. I agree the sourcing is dire and a copyedit for tone needs to be done but better sources are out there (e.g. 1, 2, 3. SITH (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added two different sources but plan on adding the others I referenced in my !vote above, hopefully that, in conjunction with the keep argument is enough to satisfy Heymann. SITH (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOLY. He competed in two Winter Olympics in bobsleigh. That falls under the rules. Chris (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Competitor in the Olympics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 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. The main arguments in favor of keep were variations of WP:ITSNOTABLE without backup, and that this was a list with a lot of blue links. However, most of the bluelinks are redirects to other lists, some of them up for deletion themselves. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Forgotten Realms deities[edit]

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

Mostly "referenced" by primary sources. No independent significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While there is currently the start of an effort to restructure D&D articles, this really has no place on Wikipedia currently. These are simply plot elements without any non-primary context and can constitute game guide information under a certain light. They really provide no greater context to the topic. They simply exist here as part of this 2006 Wikipedia holdover. If notability for the grouping can be established, it severely should be culled similarly to the monster lists. If there are notable articles under this structure, I'd say they definitely number less than five, so a list even for those would be unneeded. TTN (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be fine with a very selective merge to the below-mentioned section, but only in the form of one to three paragraphs of summary style material depending on weight or a very key selection of the most important 5-10 characters to best illustrate the topic. TTN (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or selectively merge to Forgotten Realms#Religion. BOZ (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Forgotten Realms#Religion - I've heard it be argued that the subject of the overall concept of religions in D&D settings has potential for sourced content, and as the Forgotten Realms article itself is notable and in no danger of being deleted, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and have some of the content here be merged to flesh out the corresponding section. But, as BOZ said, this should be a very selective merging just discussing the overall concept and the most important deities that are unique to this world, as the majority of the content here is just primary sourced plot information. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TTN, Rorshacma, do you know what this is all about? Drmies (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No clue. Anonymous editors on obscure D&D articles is pretty common, especially reviving them. They'll often undo a redirect, update something, and then re-redirect it. I've always assumed it's an active user from the space logging out for whatever reason. TTN (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no idea. Given the dates, I can only assume those edits were prompted by this discussion, but to what purpose, I haven't a clue. As TTN said, anonymous IP editors undoing Redirects for minor D&D articles that had been previously decided in a discussion is fairly common (I run into it all the time when looking at the multitude of non-notable monster articles), but the purpose of this particular set of edits leaves me a bit mystified. Rorshacma (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as it has that many blue links then its a valid list article. Dream Focus 11:00, 20 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid list from a significant fantasy world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A suitable list article for Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TTN. Typical WP:ITSNOTABLE comments with absolutely no supporting evidence that it is a notable list. It's just pure WP:GAMECRUFT and the majority of the links are either to other lists or fancruft articles. I honestly do not see any content that can be merged here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of trivia is not encyclopedic. We have outsourced this stuff to wikias and such. This is already much better covered in https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Deity . Having such lists on Wikipedia is a disservice to the leader. I don't see arguments here that explain how such a list passes WP:LISTN (but I am open to consider them, ping me if you want me to review any new arguments). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell from the references, no secondary sources exist (I might be wrong, if I am @ me and I'll take a look). I have no idea how this passes WP:LISTN. SportingFlyer T·C 10:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of real-world notability, just as list of in-universe errata. ValarianB (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The purpose of this list is to centrally locate and collate the list of Forgotten Realms fictional deities, many of which have either gone through, or are going through, the deletion process already. All of these are legitimately things interested parties might search for, and most if not all of them are things which are not in themselves notable enough to have their own article. Keeping this article provides a legitimate merge and redirect target for all of them, provides an explain of what the subject matter is, and a limited explanation of each entry. Removing the article orphans multiple redirects which currently exist for valid search terms.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have an initial assumption that any of them are necessary to cover in the first place. There seem to be maybe two or three that are actually notable. TTN (talk) 00:43, 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) 12:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Thorpe[edit]

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

lots of dependent coverage and trivial coverage but absence of significant, in-depth, fully independent and reliable coverage on subject that develops general notability. Reviewing the article history revealed that it was created by an undisclosed paid editor who has since been blocked. Graywalls (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some of the sources are clearly not what we'd consider reliable and independent. This article for example, is credited "By Staff for Chrysler 200". The video clearly says "SPONSORED", and at the bottom of the page, Esquire clarifies that "Esquire participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites." Vexations (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: Yep. The article creator was banned for undisclosed paid editing involving multiple articles. All this aside, I don't find that this particular article subject merits enough notability to justify remaining in place hence deletion nomination. Graywalls (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is/was promotional. Almost everything I can find about this artist is promotional, even this bio on the (reputable) Corning Glass Museum web site. Even this independent souce ends up promoting a new glass series (i.e a product). No independent non-promotion coverage = no article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough indepth, relaible sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Olmi[edit]

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

As written, fails WP:NBIO and I don't see any sources in English that would help. French wiki bio is longer but similarly not referenced at all. Can anyone find French sources to improve this? (This was prodded ~5 years ago but nobody improved this since). Time to find sources or delete it, I think _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems just about notable enough within France. French wiki bio could be better referenced but appears to be notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Still no sources though. Appearances could be misleading (information could be incorrect) unless there are sources to verify it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NBIO/GNG. I looked for sources in French and did not find any. Kacper IV (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see a lot of bare mentions of having presented televison programs, but no actual coverage of the subject in my search. FOARP (talk) 14:07, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siroi Danmakukun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There does not appear to be sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to suggest this passes the general notability guideline. SITH (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: In addition to what you said, the article reads like an advertisement. WP:NOTADVERTISING No sources came up during my quick search. I see no reference to Japanese sources being ever found. Looking at that old discussion shows how much Wikipedia has changed, as they were defending it solely by how many hits Google brought up for it. Bluedude588 (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any significant coverage from reliable sources on the game thus fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 15:38, 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) 12:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoverboard ASDF[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm renominating as consensus wasn't gained in March. The rationale for deletion is that this appears to fail web and general notability guidelines due to a lack of independent, reliable sources giving the game significant coverage. SITH (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the fact that there has not been a single source incorporated into this article for 13 years speaks to its lack of notability. There appears to be no English sources about it at least. The Korean sources I looked at seemed trivial in nature. Seems to be a case of WP:E=N. Bluedude588 (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage of the game to be found. The only thing I found was this article [30] but it is not enough be significant coverage thus it fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 15:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Boomer Bible[edit]

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

Searches for references, citations or even mentions of the book on Google, WorldCat and JSTOR don't turn up significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and therefore I don't think this meets the general notability guideline. SITH (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NBOOK two reviews is enough. The article already cites one: [31] Here's another review (quite negative, so clearly independent), visible via ProQuest: Crumm, David (December 22, 1991). "Boomer Bible is big bust". The Province. p. C16. Along the way are thousands of Andrew Dice Clay-style jokes that seem determined to offend everyone about everything: Mexicans are called spics a lot; praying is called braying; a communion liturgy becomes a toast; and the opening line of Rock of Ages is recast as: "Rocks of cocaine, crushed for me, Let me wash my mind in thee." Are you laughing yet? Facing this mess could drive thousands of fallen-away Christians directly back to orthodoxy. Haukur (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Two reviews would be usually ok, but those reviews are on the very edge of what is reliable. Publisher's Weekly publishes reviews of a lot of books, and is not very picky. The other review is also very short (~300 words) and from The Province, "a daily tabloid newspaper published in British Columbia", a borderline quality source. So yes, two reviews, but of very borderline reliability. If someone can find a third one, maybe I'll change my vote, but for now, that's IMHO not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On newspapers.com there is a lot of coverage to be found. Here's some: [32][33][34][35] Haukur (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads more like advertising than an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book has received reviews from Publishers Weekly ([36]), The Province ([37]), The Philadelphia Inquirer ([38], [39]), Montreal Gazette ([40]), North County Times ([41]), and GayToday.com ([42]). This meets WP:GNG and exceeds WP:NBOOK criteria #1, having multiple reviews in independent reliable sources. MarkZusab (talk) 00:35, 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 speedy delete. Article deleted by User:Jimfbleak. – bradv🍁 14:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Monks[edit]

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

too promotional and lacks enough coverage to pass wp:gng, a clear case of wp:promo Rooptera (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Rooptera (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. 128.194.3.149 (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: this is unambiguous advertising per G11 and I've tagged it accordingly. SITH (talk) 12:51, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ekta Jain[edit]

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

Seem to have mere coverage, not enough to pass wp:nactor Rooptera (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rooptera (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:ENT. Andrew Base (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Sump[edit]

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

I proposed deletion back in 2011. My rationale then was "Non-notable comics character. No reliable sources cited." The template was removed and an encyclopedia of fictional characters was added in a references section (though not really cited). Eight years later, Piotrus proposed deletion again, writing " Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION." Though I agree that the article should be deleted, it is not eligible for proposed deletion, so I bring it here. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that Otto Sump has been meaningfully discussed by any academic or journalistic sources. It is also telling that many of the Google Books results contained references to long-dead people who shared a name with this character. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. There does not appear to be enough coverage to support stand-alone notability. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent, real-world notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:21, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asko Murtomäki[edit]

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

As written, fails WP:NBIO and I don't see any sources in English that would help. Finnish wiki bio is not longer and similarly not referenced at all. Can anyone find Finnish sources to improve this? (This was prodded ~5 years ago but nobody improved this since). Time to find sources or delete it, I think _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NBIO/GNG. I can't find any sources for Murtomäki. Kacper IV (talk) 09:15, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ann-Mari Lindberg[edit]

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

Just one line article. Sources are not that reliable. Brown Chocolate (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brown Chocolate (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Brown Chocolate (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the Swedish wikipedia has more info in their article but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tried to find more about her on the internet, nothing much that I can find. To me, this aritcle fails WP:BIO, her notability is in doubt. Swedish Wiki is also very short (stub level). Unless if anyone can improve it, my vote is Delete - Jay (talk) 06:11, 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 speedy Delete. (non-admin closure) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BiKi RoasTer[edit]

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

Non-notable. Has 216k subscribers on YouTube. Searching him on the news section of Google brings "8 results". There isn't anything about this YouTuber that is covered by any news source. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- G11. Delete per nom on AfD. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11 as unambiguous advertising. SITH (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TransRomantic Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB and WP:CORP: the current sources are both award listings (#1 from AVN, #2 a sketchy press release on a porn blog). Pornography industry awards are a dime a dozen. I looked for additional sources and found only passing mentions/namedrops/trivial coverage, PR content, and an interview with the ~~company's founder~~ brand's director on a "pornography review" website: nothing to fulfill WP:GNG. Cheers, gnu 57 06:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, to Nica Noelle, unless someone can find out more what is going on with the company, like name change(s), being sold, etc. Not sure why that wasn’t first proposed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gleeanon409: It appears that TransRomantic Films isn't its own company, but rather one of four product lines that Noelle has directed for AEBN. What content do you think should be merged? The sourcing is terrible and the awards are insignificant; I'd be opposed to adding this material to the article for Noelle. Cheers, gnu57 07:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Genericusername57:, as there is very little, I would merge all of it. The sources could easily be improved with better ones, the awards go in its own section. The film itself probably should be talked about a bit more. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nica Noelle. Lack of sources on the company, redirecting and merging to founder is prudent. I dream of Maple (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. Sufficiently obscure that a redirect is not needed. Nothing to merge, so it's a "delete" for me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per K.e.coffman. --NL19931993 (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed with K.e.coffman. It fails WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH - Jay (talk) 05:40, 6 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beatriz Pécker[edit]

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

As written, fails WP:NBIO and I don't see any sources in English that would help. Spanish wiki bio is longer but similarly not referenced much better. Can anyone find Spanish sources to improve this? (This was prodded ~5 years ago but nobody improved this since). Time to find sources or delete it, I think _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion as it has been PRODed previously.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NBIO/GNG. I don't see sources in Spanish. Kacper IV (talk) 09:13, 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. It looks like there are uncontested claims of notability here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mega-City One[edit]

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

Very well written piece of fancruft about a fictional location. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION. This type of content belongs on https://judgedredd.fandom.com/wiki/Mega-City_One PS. Great Cthulthu, help, I am suffering from fancruft overdose: Template:Judge_Dredd. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 26 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} 05:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ (Flip to Keep) - WP:NFICTION is a FAILED guide, which makes the reliance on it here odd. I can understand relying on an essay that might become a guideline in the future or is thought influential, but not on something that was rejected by the community ~~three~~ eight (!) times already.

This asides, at least this piece appears to treat this subject as notable though I think more are needed to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG (EDIT: maybe this one?). My instinct is that WP:GNG probably is met here as - other than Trantor - MegaCity One is one of the earliest instances of a fictional megapolis but the (very large) number of mentions in Judge Dredd-related works makes the search difficult, ~~so for the moment I am neutral~~. EDIT: Flip to keep - I think the two references cited above are just enough to get this over the line for notability, in that they discuss the impact of the subject on architecture/culture. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of FOARP's second suggested source, maybe this one instead: [43]. By the same person but not paywalled and focuses on MC1 instead of a list of ten locations, Richard75 (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the major setting of a major comic book series, this is as notable as such articles as Gotham City. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Move Judge Dredd to Judge Dredd (character). Create page at Judge Dredd about the franchise/universe by splitting off Judge Dredd#Fictional universe and Judge Dredd#In other media and merge this into it as well as Judge (2000 AD)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure that solution addresses the notability point, it just moves it to another article. However if others think it's viable then I'm not against it. Richard75 (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's independently notable (and nobody in this discussion has linked anything demonstrating significant coverage), but as part of the Judge Dredd universe it has some mentions. And the universe itself should be more notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish notability. I wouldn't be against a redirect to the proposed page above either. TTN (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments put forward by User:Necrothesp and the comment by User:FOARP. There's enough here to consider this notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's at least as notable as many other fictional places we have articles for. One source car has already been referred to above and there will be others which can be added to the article. Also, as discussed above, NFICTION isn't a policy or official guideline. The existence of other articles which may not be notable cannot affect or be relevant to the notability of this article. Richard75 (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another source (links to a .pdf file) is here: http://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/6093/ . Others: http://sparkarchitects.com/mega-city-one-shenzhen-pearl-river-delta/ https://www.filmcontact.com/news/south-africa/building-dredd’s-mega-city-one https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360814/14-814-future-cities-visual-history.pdf (.pdf file) Richard75 (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the "keeps" above. Actually a very notable element of the Judge Dredd world, probably the most notable bar the main character himself. Good faith search for sources will find them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:57, 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) 05:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holds of Pern[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional location. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Pure WP:PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION. AfD few years back was closed as keep with no prejudice to merge. Not sure what to merge, as almost nothing is referenced. And why keep, if it fails notability policies? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. No shred of analysis. Kacper IV (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure fancruft, fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely non-notable, trivial minutia. TTN (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Arguments in favor of keep relied on past AfDs and the improvement since, but this has little bearing for this AfD, which concerns the current (and projected future) state of this article. Despite some secondary sources, the article still largely fails PLOT, and consensus leaned towards that this topic shouldn't have a stand-alone article. Merge seems to be the best option under these circumstances. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruenor Battlehammer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional character. The entry is long, and that's about all that it has going for it - pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails NFICTION/GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AFD or merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. BOZ (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This article passed the previous AFD unanimously, and then subsequently passed a related deletion review sponspored by the original nominator, also unanimously. It has been substantially modified since then to improve the referencing and reduce the in-world/ploy synopsis issues. This nomination is part of a series of nominations for deletion of fictional characters/elements by a single editor, who, by their own admission, is "suffering from fancruft overdose" (see WP:Articles for deletion/Mega-City One); and WP:FANCRUFT does not qualify as a valid argument for deletion. The character referenced by this article is a major character in a fictional series of books and as such is inherently notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I mean, I actually disagree with flat out deletion for this, but most of your arguments here for a speedy keep is kind of a checklist of things that aren't valid AFD arguments, like WP:ATTP or WP:NOTINHERITED.Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The only source is a trivial Top X list. Previous AfDs are irrelevant if enough time has passed. Articles must be assessed by current standards. There's no real world information aside from the one irrelevant source, so it fails WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. I'm actually kind of shocked that there aren't actual useful sources on him, considering that he is one of the main characters of the Drizzt novels. But, outside of primary sources and plot summaries of those primary sources, I'm not really finding anything outside of things like brief announcements that he will be appearing in various video games or D&D adventures. The List of Forgotten Realms characters is currently a huge mess that needs some massive culling/cleaning, but Bruenor is actually one of the few characters that should probably be on it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep I reviewed the previous AfD discussion and found the keep arguments compelling. The article has arguably improved since then and GNG remains satisfied in my opinion. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does a single secondary source satisfy GNG? No other source provides non-primary information, so they are irrelevant in establishing notability. TTN (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By my count there are four secondary, independant sources on the article as it current stands (references 1, 3, 4, and 8), and four secondary but non-independant sources (2, 9, 10, and 11). As previously noted in the last AFD, the primary source material are Bob Salvatore's novels including this character (and others currently up for deletion); Bob Salvatore has specifically declared that he created and owns the characters, not Wizards of the Coast/TSR. That makes the Wizards of the Coast manuals and other game-specific publications secondary, non-independent sources (WP:Secondary does not mean independent would seem to be applicable here).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WAF and WP:PLOT, fictional articles must be geared towards a real world perspective. If a source does not provide real world information, it cannot be said to have significant coverage on the topic, so any source that fails to do so is irrelevant. You trying to wikilawyer for primary sources to qualify as secondary does not help regardless. TTN (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete true, secondary does not mean independent. Which is why to count towards GNG a source must be both secondary and independent. At best we have one secondary source. GNG says we need multiple such sources. So we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the arguments put forth by John Pack Lambert, TTN and the nom appear to be the most accurate assessment of sourcing, and as such fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. I've reviewed the sources in this revision. 5, 6, and 7 are direct from the novels, so can't establish notability. 2, 8, 9, and 10 are published by Wizards of the Coast. There's always been debate about whether they are independent sources, but I believe they're fairly substantial. 1 is a good source, but only a passing mention in the context of a brief description of the trilogy of novels. I can't figure out how substantial 3 is, but it seems like a good source. In the article it's only used to reference a minor detail (being friends with Drizzt) so there might not be anything else to it. 4 is the source that can most easily be seen to be decent, but it's still just a single paragraph. It's possible there are other profiles of the character somewhere, but I went through pages of search results and couldn't find any. There's enough sourced material to include some content in the character list though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Lightburst (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. I agree with Torchiest's comments - Jay (talk) 05:52, 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 redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters. History left undeleted in case anyone thinks there is anything worth merging across. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Entreri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional character. The entry is long, and that's about all that it has going for it - pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails NFICTION/GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure fancruft. Kacper IV (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AFD or merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. BOZ (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect based on current sourcing. If there is another truly notable Drizzt character, I'd imagine it'd be him, but the current two "Top X" lists are too trivial. TTN (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AFD and on the grounds that major recurring characters in a best-selling series remain inherently notable. (I will concur that the article is unnecessarily long and in need of a rewrite to remove the overly world-specific focus, but AFD is not cleanup.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Inherently notable" is not a thing and has never been a thing. TTN (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters - There really is not much in the way of reliable, secondary sources that discuss him much outside of pure plot summary. He gets a few mentions here and there, but generally he is not the focus of the coverage, and nothing in-depth is said about him. That said, he probably does have enough that he is one of the few characters that should actually be included in the character list of the setting. Rorshacma (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters, nothing cited of significance to merge. Fails WP:GNG for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Another one with nothing of substance out there that I can find. Possible search term. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters. I dont see anything significant to merge - Jay (talk) 05:55, 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 keep. There's a debate about whether the current sourcing is sufficient, and a large part of the conversation on both sides isn't fully responded to and discussed out. That said, my read of the discussion is that consensus exists to retain the article based on its current sourcing. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Menzoberranzan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence this fictional location passes WP:GNG/NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. And frankly, a disservice to Internet users, who should be directed to a much better https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Menzoberranzan anyway _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Fancruft, pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AFD and several sources added since the AFD started, or merge to Forgotten Realms. BOZ (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did find one seemingly reliable source that actually does some in-depth analysis of the location in this book, but a single source is not really enough to pass the WP:GNG. I'm actually having a bit of trouble deciding what is the best approach to this one. While the current article is nothing but pure, primary sourced WP:PLOT information on a fictional location that shouldn't be kept, the name of the fictional city was also used as the title of several books that I've found reviews for, as well as a video game that we already have an article on. So, should this article be deleted and have the video game's article be moved to its namespace? Should the article be kept and completely rewritten to be about the coverage of the products that share its name rather than pure, crufty plot info? Should the whole thing be nuked and start over from scratch? Should it simply be Redirected to Drow, where it is already covered? The only thing I'm certain on is that the current contents of the article should largely not be kept, but I'm still undecided on the actual process we should go about when taking care of that. Rorshacma (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - My gut would say it should be able to establish notability, but reality seems to differ. Unless there are sources available, it does not need to be retained. TTN (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The subject is notable and with a bit of work notability can be satisfied.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google Scholar search reveals additional secondary sources that mention Menzoberranzan specifically.^[1]^[2]

^[3]^[4]. Question: is it normally considered good practice for a deletion nominator to do a quick Google Scholar search for secondary sources before nominating an article for deletion? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Dungeons and Desktops". www.taylorfrancis.com. doi:10.1201/9781351273404. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
^ Zdanowicz, Jessica; Handzel, Matthew; Vuong, Elaine (October 2013). "The Factory Times October 2013". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Fleischer, Stephanie Owen; Wright, Susan A.; Barnes, Matthew L. (2007), Selfe, Cynthia L.; Hawisher, Gail E.; Van Ittersum, Derek (eds.), "Dungeons, Dragons, and Discretion: A Gateway to Gaming, Technology, and Literacy", Gaming Lives in the Twenty-First Century: Literate Connections, Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 143–160, doi:10.1057/9780230601765_9, ISBN 978-0-230-60176-5, retrieved 2019-11-26
^ Fleischer, Stephanie Owen; Wright, Susan A.; Barnes, Matthew L. (2007), Selfe, Cynthia L.; Hawisher, Gail E.; Van Ittersum, Derek (eds.), "Dungeons, Dragons, and Discretion: A Gateway to Gaming, Technology, and Literacy", Gaming Lives in the Twenty-First Century: Literate Connections, Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 143–160, doi:10.1057/9780230601765_9, ISBN 978-0-230-60176-5, retrieved 2019-11-26

Comment That first source is actually talking about the video game of the same name, which I talked about in my above comment, rather than the fictional city that this article is about. That second reference is also not about the subject at all. Its only mention of the city is stating that in the MMO Neverwinter (video game), one of the classes you can choose is a "Menzoberranzan Renegade", and that is it. It doesn't talk about the city at all. Its also from a student-run publication at a college, so I'm not sure if it would even count as a reliable source, in any case. Rorshacma (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Along with the video game, Menzoberranzan has been a the setting (or key location) for a bunch of Forgotten Realms novels & has been detailed in a few D&D sourcebooks. I'll try to list them here (but given the 30+ Drizzt books that I'm not super familiar with, I'll probably miss a few) Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC):[reply]

Novels: Legend of Drizzt series (Homeland, Exile, Starless Night, Siege of Darkness); Starlight & Shadows series (Daughter of the Drow, Tangled Webs, Windwalker (minor mention at the end)); War of the Spider Queen series (Dissolution, Insurrection, Condemnation, Extinction, Annihilation, Resurrection); Neverwinter Saga (Charon's Claw), Companions Codex (Night of the Hunter, Rise of the King, Vengeance of the Iron Dwarf); Homecoming (Archmage, Maestro, Hero); A Reader's Guide to R. A. Salvatore's the Legend of Drizzt.
Sourcebooks: Menzoberranzan (2E boxed set, 1992); Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (3E, 2001); Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide (4E, 2008); Menzoberranzan: City of Intrigue (Edition-neutral campaign setting published during 4E, 2012); Out of the Abyss (5E adventure book, 2015)

Keep per prior AFD it "Transcends a single work of fiction". It needs a lot of work to clean it up but we did that successfully for Neverwinter during its AFD and I think that can serve as a model for what needs to be done with Menzoberranzan. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources have nothing to do with Notability. I'm not sure if you're thinking of the wrong article, but Neverwinter appears to never have been nominated and has the same issues as this article. TTN (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AFD and additional sources noted above. (Normally for locations I'd agree with a merge to the appropriate list article, but as noted above there are sufficient external references to make this one independently notable.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vulcan's Forge: per my comment below, there is a problem with the sources (they appear to be in passing and worse, not about this topic at all...)/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With all due respect, I don't see anything in the keep rationales that goes beyond WP:GOOGLEHITS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Googlehits (I always love learning a new blue ink term) refers to citing the number of hits as an argument whereas I have posted links to sources. My comment about Google Scholar refers to the ease with which I was able to find sources rather than the number of hits. On an unrelated note, thanks to the editor for cleaning up my citations. Is there a reason why, other than gatekeeping,the visual editor doesn't work here? Are my settings off? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AugusteBlanqui: I am not sure about the code (but you can see how it was fixed in the history tab, as well as by whom). But Googlehits also refers to citing random sources that come up in GOOGLEHIT search, without presenting any evidence that said source is relevant. For example, I have reviewed your first source, [44], and not only it is a mention in passing, but it is about Menzoberranzan (video game), which is a separate (if related) topic. This suggests to me that you have not looked at said sources, just typed the search phrase into google, and reported here some reliable looking results without bothering to check what they say about this topic. The second source doesn't want to open for me (Google Chrome warning about potentially malicious website). The third source [45] is the very definition of a mention in passing (in fact, the entire sentence here consists of the mention of the city name, the location itself is hardly discussed outside maybe a single sentence). Sorry, but this is no different from "citing the number of hits" - you just cited four 'nicer' hits, as far as I am concerned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the sources and I disagree with your assessment of them. They clearly indicate the importance of the topic of the article as a fictional setting. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This lovely text devotes an entire chapter (chapter 9, "Menzoberranzan: A Perfect Unjust State," to Menzoberranzan^[1] AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given your prior sources were bad or worse, and this source doesn't appear in Google Books preview mode, can you provide us with either a quotation or a screenshot, to back up your claim? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're offering a subjective assessment of the sources with which I disagree; in terms of establishing GNG they are more than apt. As for this philosophy book, request it through ILL if you can or look up a review of it through a library database. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pop culture philosophy series that the book is part of, and the book is a collection of essays with an overarching editor - Chapter 9 is on the philosophy of this particular fictional place, written by someone whose only other citation is writing about Star Wars. I haven't seen the article but I've read the summary, and I cannot determine whether that source satisfies WP:GNG as I can't determine if it's reliable or independent, or if it represents WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-known series in the field. You can read about it here: https://andphilosophy.com/about/. William Irwin is the series editor and Blackwell is a well-known press. I'm not sure if this is behind a paywall or not but this review of the book is complimentary.13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)'

Yes, that's paywalled. I'm familiar with the series, I received a copy as a gift once of another book. I'm just not entirely convinced of its editorial standards - as you know they cater to fans of specific pop culture subjects, and I'm not sure how I would analyse anything written within those books on notability grounds - I'm not completely dismissing it, but I think there's a very good question as to where it lies on the "fan fiction to reliable source" scale. SportingFlyer T·C 13:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If considered a proper source, it definitely provides enough analysis when looking through the text of it. Though that is the only source so far I'd consider to be actually worthwhile, so I'm still of the opinion to redirect. The source definitely would be good to use on a Drow article. TTN (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's definitely a good source. From the paywalled review: "This is not a book written with literature scholars in mind. Nor is it a book primarily about literature. But for anyone interested in taking up the scholarly study of roleplaying games, Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy presents a number of interesting ideas and entry points. The essays are readable enough to work for undergraduate students; the best of them nicely demonstrate how popular culture in general and roleplaying games in particular could benefit from a critical perspective. Certainly, some essays are not brilliant and some authors seem more interested in teaching the reader better ways to play the game. I would also have much preferred separate bibliographies for each chapter, but, on the whole, reading the book was time well spent." Ekman, Stefan. Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom, Ekman, Stefan. Extrapolation; Liverpool Vol. 55, Iss. 2, (2014): 258-261. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment I don't have access to the Hummel piece but it receives a mention in a journal review: Canavan, A. (2015). Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, 26(3 (94)), 573-576. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/26321182

Quote: "Dungeons & Dragons and Philosophy is a new volume in Blackwell's long running Philosophy and Pop Culture series. [...] It appears that Dungeons & Dragons and Philosophy has two major goals. The first is the series' overarching goal of demonstrating that philosophy is not a dusty, dry subject. [...] The second is to use Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) to illustrate philosophical questions and to test philosophical theory [...]. In part four, Matt Hummel's essay, "Menzoberranzan: A Perfect Unjust State," uses the infamous Drow city to discuss notions of justice and injustice". Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just don't see this being notable. There's a lot of sources, but it's a fictional place and there's barely any significant coverage - it gets a couple blurbs in a couple book reviews, and there was a video game named after it which was a good sign - but I'd like those who want to keep this to answer, which are the WP:THREE best sources which support its notability? I've gone thru all of them and the reviews above (apart from the second one as my browser flagged me from continuing) and am strongly leaning delete, but want to see where the !keeps are coming from as I've never heard of this before, and there are a number of passionate contributors here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've added some of the content from Hummel to the lead. I'll supplement the article with additional content from this source over the next few days.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although some judicious trimming (such as the Houses of Menzoberranzan) is in order. The source Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy book already mentioned has some solid coverage. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added since the AFD started, or merge to Forgotten Realms. WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 21:54, 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 redirect to Bas-Lag. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Crobuzon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence this fictional location passes WP:GNG/NFICTION. Pure PLOT. Prior AfD is a wonderful keep triumvirate of WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:PRIMARY sources are sufficient, and WP:ITSIMPORTANT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Fancruft, no shred of analysis. Kacper IV (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bas-Lag. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bas-Lag per Necrothesp._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:26, 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, without prejudice against refunding to draft through the usual channels, if editors think that the deficiencies identified can be fixed there. BD2412 T 17:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. B. Buckshey[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF -- I am unable to find any highly cited work that shows him an influence on his field. The only claim to notability is the Padma Shri, but this is a 4th level award, and if his career is representative, is routine for people in administrative positions.

There are many other individuals in medicine in the same situation-- see . I am nominating two other individuals, considering this and the adjacent AfDs as test cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Padma Shri is a fourth level civilian award in India, a country of over 1.35 billion people, and the total number of awardees is only 2840 people in its history of 65 years. Another claim of the subject of the article to notability is that he served as the honorary physician to three Indian Presidents. The generally agreed norm is that if a subject satisfies one of the several criteria of notability, we keep the article in. Here, the subject satisfies WP:ANYBIO and applying another criterion is not called for. Further, WP:PROF does not apply here as the subject cannot be termed as an academic in the true sense of the term. Another valid point to note is that the WP:PROF advises This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (I've gandered at this as jojo@nthony/Tachs is on my watchlist probably from a long gone AFD/DRV). I've rescued various dead links to see what they but roughly speaking they mostly seem to be of directory entries all the information of note seems to be at [46] but maybe the best bits didn't make the article. The "Rajiv Gandhi Excellence Award 1994 for outstanding achivements in Pyschiatry & Neurology" may be relevant and I'd wonder exactly what Colombo Plan Fellowship meant (maybe a tad here [47]. I confess to being unimpressed by awards unless more solid reasons for the awards are given. I'd also not the appointment here: [48]. There a little about him on this ppt ... indirectly seemls to imply he has died (but by no means certain) [49]. Very likely associated with the "Buckshey Award" [50] which also has glimpse mention on 978-1600218569 P.216. Possibly not quite enough demonstrable at present but access to 1950s to early 2000s online can be patchy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning keep but it is very tight. He seem through the middle part of the transition of mental health provisioning in Dehli and seems held in high regard by the local Delhi Psychiatric Society. A good article on the HMD would be better but we dont have it and a couple more dates on his career. I've worked some things roughly into the article but it needs a tidy and I've lost the refs I need for the cn's. Unless there is some substance and story behind awards to explain why they are given I'd probably lean delete. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with jojo@nthony Rocky 734 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I've said on a similar deletion page, the fourth level Padma awards when given to Indians are as much markers of political connections as of the kind of notability Wikipedia considers for inclusion, i.e. a measure of whom you know than of what you know. There is nothing in the reference list that qualifies as a scholarly source. Wikipedia is not a phonebook of psychiatrists in Delhi. I say this as someone who has created a number of psychiatrists- psychoanalysts-, and psychiatry related pages, which even if they have only one citation are of people of such notability that I can without much work find dozens other scholarly citations: Dorothy Burlingham, Hampstead Clinic (Anna Freud Centre), Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, International Journal of Psychoanalysis, Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, Arnold Modell, Philip Holzman, San Francisco Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, Arnold Goldberg, Jerome Kavka, Training analysis, Lay analysis, Supervised psychoanalysis, and Phyllis Greenacre. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating my comment elsewhere, awards are given in many countries in the East and the West, based on political connections and India is no exception. But that should not stand in the way of impartially assessing an honour. There were people who thought the Nobel Prize for Literature given to Bob Dylan was an indiscretion, but that does not tarnish the highest literary honour in the world.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing that we obtain a list of all the fourth-level Padma awardees since 1954 and create Wikpedia articles on each of them? That would be the unmistakable inference of your argument. Like this gentleman, nothing else would be needed by way of establishing notability. If you have sources other than the fluff the article is currently bedaubed with, please produce them here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been created with the premise that, Padma Shri, being a major award, makes P. B. Buckshey, a recipient of the award, notable per WP:ANYBIO. I am semi-retired from Wikipedia and got involved in this discussion only after getting the notification regarding the deletion process. During my 14 years or more here at Wikipedia, I have seen someone developing the article in due course, like many of the stubs before, if the stub does not get deleted before that. --jojo@nthony (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tachs: This claim is virtually key to your defence and I would hope closes/relists give guidance. My best albeit imperfect thinking on this is given on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Prakash Singh test case. This article does not rely on that award in my opinion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per my comment above. While the subject has been awarded a Padma Shri the article is not majorly dependent on the award as per say Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla at this point. To be clear (and I may be wrong) Buckshey likely does not massively outstand in prowess ... it is more with the time period and dearth of provisioning that he worked and recognition by successors. I am somewhat minded of this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Battersbee, plays one game of cricket on one single and gets to have an article! (Given the travelling logistics at the time it does actually add to the value). For Buckshey one has to context of Delhi in the 1950s-1990s ... rather than Boston in the 20th century. Awards can at times be tainted anyway ... in the UK we have controversies such as [51]. So I am minded to be wary of an award in itself unless the article can demonstrate a little more behind it, as to an extent this one can.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to bend over backward for people who have nothing but fluff to recommend them. It wasn't just Boston in the 20th century, there were plenty of London and Chicago there. If you don't like the 20th century, I can produce the 21st. Here is an example of a 21st-century Boston psychiatrist who does not have a Wikipedia page. If you don't think he is notable, please take a look at some of the other people on the scientific advisory panel listed on the left, which includes two Nobel laureates. If you don't like psychiatry and Boston, here is a 21st-century historical demographer in England. He doesn't have a Wikipedia page either. My point is that when people are notable, it does not take a rocket scientist or a Hegalian dialectician to figure it out. If you are grasping at straws, then they are not notable. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Outrageous! You have just insulted those who award the Padma Shri of India as fluff let alone honorable members of the Delhi Psychiatric Society! Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't insulted anyone, only stated the obvious that the three people up for deletion do not have anything by way of scholarly sources to recommend them. The fourth-level Padma award is not a reliable scholarly source. There are at least a hundred psychiatrists in the US who are more notable in the field of psychiatry by Wikipedia's rules than any psychiatrist in Delhi, but who do not have Wikipedia pages. I'm not insulting anyone. I know the scene there. The best-known psychotherapist in Delhi (who has now retired and moved away), Sudhir Kakar, is a lay-psychoanalyst, i.e. with a Ph. D. but not a medical degree, and does not have the Padma award to my knowledge, though he is very notable. India is a conservative society. Going to therapy, acknowledging psychiatric issues is not yet a part of its culture even among the wealthy urban classes, let alone among the rural poor. Bharat Vatwani, the Mumbai psychiatrist, who recently won the Ramon Magsaysay Award, but who also does not have any Padma recognition, had this to say:

"Nearly 15% of Indian adults suffer from some form of mental illness. This translates to more than 180 million people in the country, though only a minuscule number have access to the necessary medical facilities. There is a severe shortage of psychiatrists, especially in rural areas. According to Vatwani, “Over 80% of the government hospitals in India do not have a psychiatrist. One of the main reasons being that many Indian psychiatrists prefer to move abroad, for better prospects. There are less than 4,000 practising psychiatrists in a nation of over a billion people!” Of the people who do have access to professional help, very few are willing to seek it. Mental illness continues to be largely a taboo subject in India." (See here).

I could go on, but what would be the point of it? But please do not feign outrage, and please do not attempt faux respect, i.e be paternalistic, by calling the Delhi Psychiatric Society "honorable." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS As for the "honorable" bodies, this is what the Indian Psychiatric Society does, in reaction to a recent Lancet Editorial on Kashmir. They will be rewarded by their government with the Padmas. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: You can't even keep focus on the entities and time periods mentioned, and appear to have a pro US bias that you cannot contain.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark It must be a small wonder then that with that lack of focus I managed to write so many articles on India, including the FA India. See my user page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler The FA may be grand but we're on the stub/start groundfloor here. I was looking more at Philip Holzman where there is little on article source or little use of source content, a failing somewhat akin to the DGG example three. However I won't test Holzman at with a [[WP:POINT]y AfD as I'd half to ignore the WP:BEFORE on the Professor/Emeritus if nothing else.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark But you can't. See the avalanche of sources, scholarly no less, not just reliable, that will come tumbling down your way if you do. I don't think you understood my point earlier, where I said, that I have written articles on psychiatrists that have only one source, implying that at a minute's notice they can be supplemented with the dozens that exist out there and that properly belong to the article, but that because of my laziness and inattention and others' lack of interest, are not there. Here, on the other hand, we have a monumental vacuum of sources, a nothingness. More seriously, this page does a disservice to encyclopedicity in Wikipedia, to India, to Indian psychiatry, for it lowers the credibility of those that properly belong there. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Of course I don't understand you. Credit or discredit is strangely irrevelant in the page entity. Multidimension and not tunnel is what I say. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark I gave you a restricted offering of sources on Holzman, confining the search to university presses, with "preview available." Otherwise, in fuller dimension, there are 305 sources for Holzman in Google Books alone. Please attempt that deletion discussion on Holzman. I'll eat my shoe if it lasts more than a few minutes, that is, if I am informed. Seriously, what the heck are you doing here, endlessly arguing with no content to the argument? This is not an ego issue; it has to do with lack of encyclopedic information in a bogus page, not about Holzman, one of the great psychiatrists of recent times. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: Tangoing takes two. Due process indicated to me a WP:BEFORE on Holzman would fail, it is therefore inppropriate to attempt it. I did consider doi. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark :) Well, even if all this does nothing for Mr Buckshee, it will help improve the Holzman article. What is doi? Do you mean WP:DOI? That is not a bad idea. Meanwhile, just a minute ago, I noticed that Holzman is the author of the article "Personality," in Encyclopedia Britannica. There was a long obituary (not paid) about him in the New York Times in 2004, and an even longer obituary in the journal Nature. The latter two will help in elaborating the biographical section. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. WP:India contributor here, so believe I can present more insight on the awards and subject notability. The Padma Shree is given to persons with large social contributions, which generally makes them notable for an article. There may be exceptions but this subject is not one. In addition he has also won several other prestigious awards. "Dr. Buckshey was honoured with Padmashri Award. Shiromani Award for outstanding achivements in Psychiatry and Neurology, Eminent Citizen of India Award 1994, Rajiv Gandhi Excellence Award 1994 for outstanding achivements in Pyschiatry & Neurology, Ati Param Visisht Chikitsa Medal 1997 etc." as mentioned in this source--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The is also the matter of the WP:PROF/WP:NACADEMIC sated by National professor of psychiatry and neurosciences. As in all these test cases can I ask for experienced closers/relisters only please and comments to be left in either case. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about other articles When I checked our category of those who had received the awards, at least 1/3 were unambiguously notable. So either we are getting all the notable ones, or the entire list does have to be checked to see if there are notable ones we have not covered. I would strongly support (and am willing to work on revising) articles on every one of them who do meet the usual standards. I have always advocated intensive work on all areas that are under-covered here to find the notable people. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sourcing I don't think the unavailability of sources for the modern period is actually a problem--the articles do document what the people have done. Where it would be a real problem is for the British period. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the contrary, the British period is impeccably documented. (Examine the naturalists of British India on my user page.) It is the post-independence period, especially the last 40 years, that are increasingly troublesome. Witness this physician. Please note the extraordinarily unreliable sources: a powerpoint of an informal annual gathering being dressed up to look like journal article, alumni group entries being used for sourcing, WP:OR in the form of looking up voter lists and directories of the Indian Psychiatric Association; WP:SYNTHESIS in the form of randomly throwing in a reliable source (the only one in the article) that does not reference Buckshey to piece together a sentence about him being active during a time in which Delhi (which is consistently misspelled) had few psychiatrists. What exactly is a neuro-physician anyway? It is not a term of English, nor of any regional variety of English. Such is the frenetic refurbishment, a snow job, that has been done on the article in the last few days. (Contrast with Philip Holzman that I expanded in a few hours last night, or Arnold Modell that I will also expand.) Whosoever attempts to close this will need to examine the sources with the eyes of a hawk. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fellowship in the International Medical Sciences Academy is not enough by itself (honorary fellowship might be enough). And apart from that, and apart from the protestations and special pleading above, we still don't have enough in-depth independent reliable sourcing about the subject for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need to be sceptical of articles that list a lot of minor honors and this is one of those. Colombo Plan, "records of giving psychiatry", assistant director of something, and fourth highest civilian award are all fairly minor. Large numbers of professional people can claim similar "honors" without being notable. More often than not, these things merely come with the territory. --regentspark (comment) 23:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be clear Jiloha & Kukreti (2018) is not claimed as a WP:RS for notability purposes. To quote Dorcas Lane "My on weakness ..." my spelling. I've addressed some recent comments about in the article. While recent comments trumpet Holzman and his article and need to start placing the emphasis of on some passing references that simply and rightfully are used to date parts of the biography to shift focus from Nacadmic claim which is ignored.07:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - agreed with argument above. Not enough in-depth independent sourcing - Jay (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A late !vote that completely fails to address the neither notability claim of WP:NACADEMIC (national professor) which is thus standing. It has also been presented that Padma Shree sating WP:ANYBIO is sufficient for notability; (my pragmatic but possibly unorthodox view on that honour is that it is a counter towards WP:SIGCOV however closer will also note that this point has been widely discussed across this AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Prakash Singh, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla).Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:34, 6 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merrill Shindler[edit]

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

Food reviewer with no evidence of notability. Sources are all examples of his work. Nothing with anybody talking about him. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Purely local, and no evidence of even local fame. --Calton | Talk 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:42 - while there might a lot written by him, there's very little about him. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Bearian. He's prolific, but not enough written about him to make him notable. ABF992 (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as writing newspaper articles and broadcasting on radio, he has also written books, including American dish : 100 recipes from ten delicious decades and El Cholo cookbook : recipes and lore from California's best-loved Mexican kitchen - and there are reviews of those books (eg in the Tampa Bay Times, Florida [52], so he might well meet WP:NAUTHOR. He has also written for the Los Angeles Magazine and the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, according to articles quoting him in the Boston Globe [53] and the Newark Advocate (Newark, Ohio) [54] - the latter from a film review, so he appears to be a film critic as well. I wonder whether the nom has done WP:BEFORE, and some of the !voters don't seem to have done much research either - Florida, Massachusetts and Ohio are hardly "local" to Los Angeles. The article is a stub which does not provide a good summary of this person's achievements or evidence of his notability, but there is evidence that he is notable per WP:NAUTHOR #1 and probably #3 as well. If no one else does, I will try to add more info and sources to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should perhaps have said above "extensive on-line searches found nothing with anybody talking about him". Please assume good faith, otherwise your arguments sound a bit ad hominem which I am sure was not intended. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Velella, and my apologies. Although I said "I wonder whether the nom has done WP:BEFORE", I do see that saying "some of the !voters don't seem to have done much research either " suggests that I was assuming that you hadn't. I didn't intend to convey that - I was really not sure from your wording (and while I do try to assume good faith, it does seem, from how they word their nominations, that some AfD nominators don't look beyond the article). It would have been clearer if I'd left out 'either'. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rebecca Green has located WP:RSs and this person is notable. Lightburst (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The few passing references that were dug up are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough evidence of notability, and stubby article - Jay (talk) 06:29, 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. (non-admin closure) Andrew Base (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shantala Shivalingappa[edit]

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

Not sure if this is a notable person. Only claim to fame is that "She is known for playing Solveig in Irina Brook's Peer Gynt" but one (minor) part is not sufficient. Otherwise, it all seems to be inherited notabilty (her guru, where she studied, "worked with prestigious artists", who directed her etc). Depsite "Her performances have been praised throughout the world", we have only two reviews from the US from 2010 and 2011. Way beyond my area of expertise, so brought to AfD. Emeraude (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Her dance has been detailed in the Washington Post, NY Times, New Yorker, The Nation, Financial Times, The Independent, Office of the Arts, Harvard University, University of Massachusetts Amherst Fine Arts Centre, sfgate.com, villagevoice.com, The Guardian, lemonde.fr, Yale News, Les Voix Du Monde. Changing from Weak Keep to Strong Keep. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on (a very small selection here)

Detailed review in SFGate, Shantala Shivalingappa review: Solo Allan Ulrich 18 April 2013 [55]
Detailed review in New Yorker, 3 November 2011 [56]
Detailed review in NYTimes, 2013 [57], NYTimes 2011 [58], NYTimes 2008 [59]
Detailed review in The Nation, Dec 2014 [60]
BriefEarly review of performance in 2001 India Today International magazine Vol 26, Pg 91 Kuchipudi dancer Shantala Shivalingappa plays Ophelia in Peter Brook's The Tragedy of Hamlet SHE WAS ONLY 14 WHEN chosen to play Miranda in Peter Brook's production of The Tempest. Now, 10 years later, Shantala Shivalingappa is ..., [61]

From what I notice, Shantala Shivalingappa has done participated in some well known dance performances and there is coverage all the way from 1992 to present. Although I understand some of them are a bit brief, however it is very rare for someone to be covered so consistently across 2 decades. I think this is definitely notable.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"across 2 decades"? Naughty use of language when you mean 12 years! But well done; I said when nominating this was not my area of expertise so I can accept there is coverage across a significant period of time. If that can be added to the article to show she is notable I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Emeraude (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude Actually it's across 2 decades because the earliest mention is in 1998 in Kultur Chronik The delicate Shantala Shivalingappa, who came as a guest to Wuppertal from India, is deployed with great restraint but otherwise firmly integrated in the ensemble. A tiny head movement at the start of one solo and some much slowed-down... Then 2001 (India Today), 2002 (Cahiers élisabéthains Shantala Shivalingappa's characterisation of Ophelia was also merely satisfactory. Since Laertes had been cut, she never had the chance to demonstrate Ophelia's wit or playfulness and, again, we were not especially interested in her or her..., 2003 (Hamlet in Pieces Shakespeare Revisited by Peter Brook, Robert Lepage and Robert Wilson) Shantala Shivalingappa sits on the floor as the mad Ophelia, with Toshi Tsuchitori seated directly in front of her accompanying her speech-song. Even this actual' insanity is evidently a piece of theatre. And think back to the pattern of action at, 2004 (Talking to the Audience: Shakespeare, Performance, Self) Still more frail is Shantala Shivalingappa in Brook's production, who speaks rather than sings Ophelia's songs over Tsuchitori's underscoring. Ophelia's madness cannot, it seems, be expressed as performance, despite the fact that perform with... Of course, not every one of these sources are detailed reviews. But given that she has been covered regularly over so many years, it is highly plausible that there could be more sources. which are possibly not accessibly online. In any case, I think the 5 or 6 reviews I linked in my comment should be enough for notability.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it's perfectly OK to bring articles to AFD :) In fact, were it not for AFD, perhaps this article would have languished in this state for don't know how many years. I will try to improve it by the end of this week.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DreamLinker A wider spread than you originally gave, but still stretching the use of "across two decades". I'm just after a bit more precision numerically. "Across two decades" could be applied to a career running from 31 December 1989 to 1 January 1990, though 31 December 1999 to 1 January 2000 would be an even more impressive "across two centuries". Be that as it may, well done on securing wider sources and thanks for your anticipated improvements to the article. Emeraude (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. 2000 and 1999 are in the same century. 2000 and 2001 you could go even further and say two milleniums... :) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:40, 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 no consensus. No agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mail & Guardian 200 Young South Africans[edit]

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

Doesnt merit its own article. Not independently notable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: seems like a positive award with some RS coverage. I am undecided. Wm335td (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep Looks like enough coverage to establish notability but I am not enough of an expert on South African media to give it much more than that. hewhoam areismyself 06:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Personally I would think that Editorofthewiki's additional sources push this over the threshold of notability, but my personal opinion doesn't matter here; the consensus is in favour of deletion at this time. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Parrish[edit]

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

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL, or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Player is not notable enough, checked over the WPs as well. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 22:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per significant coverage in reliable sources [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable basketball player. I dont see him deserves an article in Wiki for now - Jay (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough significant coverage per WP:GNG. Doing a search on sources, including those listed above, there seems to be bits of info in multiple sources, but nothing substantial to support an article. Per WP:WHYN: We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. Resorting to game-by-game logs or "crocodile hunter" tidbits would get into WP:NOTDIARY.—Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think the conservation part of him is important? All the sources I used were relatively indepth. I didn't even use any game logs, which would give even more info. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, you didn't provide an explanation to counter the policies and guidelines that I cited.—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

V-index[edit]

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

The V-index appears to have been published once, to minimal fanfare, and then never appeared again. The site listed as the index's home page is a dead link. There's additional info here [[69]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability at all. Mccapra (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only see sources for "Vindex",[70] which is probably a different company. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Dyer[edit]

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

Non-notable producer. I'm going through the list of Unreferenced BLPs with the intention of finding suitable WP:SIGCOV articles to see if they can be improved but for this producer I could not find 1 article via searches on the internet and by an offline articles search of Australian and New Zealand news sources in the ProQuest database. Fails WP:PRODUCER. Cabrils (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete producers do not get presumed notability, and we lack the sourcing here to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. Agreed with above comments - Jay (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). There's consensus that the Assassin class has significant coverage, but that it's best utilized on the Character class article. Several 'keep' votes support redirect as a second choice, and a handful are very light on any substantive argument for outright keeping the article as-is. For this reason, I've closed this accordingly as restoring the redirect. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Just a bit more fancruft. No real world notability. As per WP:GAMEGUIDE, this could be redirected to an appropriate list somewhere, but not sure where. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are several independent sources cited in the article, several sources added since the AFD started, and likely more to exist, but failing that restore the redirect that was undone earlier today rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect unless there are sources actually discussing things from a significant real world perspective. TTN (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TTN.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). I would restore the original redirect as this topic as received coverage in third-party sources, but I am uncertain if it is enough to support enough notability for a separate article. This is also a viable search term so I think a redirect would be much better than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Character classes are a major feature of a major game. Clear notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get why you constantly repeat this argument. You clearly know how Wikipedia's notability works. Major or minor are completely subjective terms. Sources are the only things that matter. TTN (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I clearly do. I've been here a long time. But I apply common sense to these debates instead of (non-existent) "rules". It's a great pity some other editors appear incapable of doing this. The apparent inability of some to get their heads around common sense and WP:BURO is one of the worst things about editing Wikipedia. Nothing here is set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that your definition of important is completely subjective, right? If there isn't objective criteria for inclusion, that opens it up for literally every minutia in every work of fiction. I'm sure you'd try to argue that it's "obvious" Tolkien and Lovecraft are more important than X video game or Y TV show released in the last thirty years, but many would disagree with you. TTN (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). Some sources seemed promising, but one is a non-notable blog, and one book was used to source the class being removed in 2nd edition. ValarianB (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons) as not individually notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary sources satisfy notability. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). The coverage really does not show any independent notability for the subject. Even the handful of non-primary sources are doing little more than saying "This was/was not a thing in this edition", which really isn't substantial enough coverage to establish notability, or to justify splitting this off from the main article on character classes. Rorshacma (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bee BOZ and AugusteBlanqui. There are already sufficient independent sources in the article to satisfy notability. It can stand to use more refs, but that's not a reason for deletion. oknazevad (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a Reception section to show coverage of the character class for notability. The publication history section needs to be cleaned up, but per Oknazevad that's not a reason to delete it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you’ve taken a bunch of minor mentions and given them vastly more weight than deserved. Even ignoring my opinion on the sources, you should definitely cut that down to a single paragraph. TTN (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Screen Rant article highlighted 20 D&D classes of all time and listed the 1E assassin as the 5th most broken of all time and then how the class became less broken in 3E.
Geek & Sundry and Game Rant both broke down the 5E rogue of which the assassin is a subclass - both articles explain why the assassin subclass is weaker than other rogue subclasses (compare and contrast isn't minor).
Diehard Gamefan is a minor mention of the class in 4E. I'm definitely struggling to find info on the class from 4E.
ComicBook breaks down a popular character (GoT Arya Stark) in terms of the 5E assassin (ie when we think about a TV character we then compare their actions to D&D character classes). Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

#1 is a Top X article from a site that has released 38 pop culture lists dated 11/26/19. #2 is yet another dime a dozen Top X. #3 has no commentary on the topic at all. #4 is a nonsense pop culture article. They are not of any quality, especially not so as to require a paragraph each. TTN (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment Geek and Sundry is hardly 'another dime a dozen top X.' It's a major media outlet in the industry and enough to confer GNG outright. Reading through these rake of delete nominations I'm left with the impression that some people WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT popular culture articles on Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top X lists are the bread and butter of lazy journalism. They are easy to pump out, easy to fake (as in the writer needs no real knowledge, they can just stop by Wikipedia for example), and require no editorial standards. They in no way an indicator of notability when these sites pump out list after list after list. It'd be like using Watch Mojo YouTube videos as a source. TTN (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laziness is picking swashbuckler as the #1 rogue archetype. Geek and Sundry is no starched Le Monde or New York Times (both of which have committed their share of lazy journalism to be fair) but as I said, it's a major media outlet for the industry and clearly contributes to WP:SIGCOV.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC) 19:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "just a bit more fancruft" is not a valid reason for deletion; neither is WP:GAMEGUIDE, as this article is neither an excessive description of game mechanics nor a walkthrough or means by which to play the game. Per User:BOZ above, sufficient sources exist to meet the threshold for notability.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sourcing to indicate a need for a separate article. Just finding lots of passing mentions in directory like listings of the characteristics of the game does not establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prune, merge and retarget to Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons), of which it's a subclass – a better target than the more general Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). It differs from the rogue class only in minor ways, and has developed in parallel with it. We don't need individual articles on every D&D subclass anymore than we need articles on every species of D&D troll (compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant two-headed troll) – that's wikia stuff. Narky Blert (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enought secondary sources. Wm335td (talk) 21:43, 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 keep. Consensus of the discussion is that although the article needs considerable improvement, there are enough sources to support keeping the article as one about a notable subject. RL0919 (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fake nude photography[edit]

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

An eclectic mix of press clippings tangentially related to a seemingly non-notable subject. Reads like original research. Suggest redirecting to nude photography or deepfake. DHN (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a social issues and media issues so serious Suy nghĩ mãi mà vẫn chẳng biết đặt tên là gì thiệt chán hết sức (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep: (oppose merge / redirect ). see new !vote below to alternate target. It may require cleanup but merging or redirecting to nude photography or deepfake might cause disruption of somewhat better articles with their specific purposes which perhaps should not be diluted .... (rubbish+good leading to one half rubbish). The advice for coding was ... don't optimize, if you still want to optimize then do it later. Same with merging ... don't rush into a bad merge. And if you want to redirect not copying any content do so and if the target would need work to accept the redirect seemlessly (possibly to a section/anchor) with no WP:SURPISE say so. Promotion of one product on the target is somewhat of an issue also but that's cleanup. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed nom has changed his text from merge to redirect which is clear but I would in future suggest when changing one's nom or vote apart perhaps from a trivial typo it is better to strike the old and introduce the new. I'd also note if one wishes to suggest redirects/mergte that should be explored prior to AfD really. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Korean Times, Washington Post, CNN, Mew York Times. Notable. Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is verging on WP:TNT territory, but this is probably a notable topic. I don't think it's appropriate to redirect it to deepfake since that's a more specific topic (the use of neural networks to create fake nudes/porn), and nude photography is too general. I'm used to this stuff being called "celebrity fakes", and that term redirects to Imagery of nude celebrities, which has a brief paragraph on the subject. There's probably enough coverage for a stand-alone article though. For example, a quick search found this: [71] I would look for more but I have to go to work now and I'm not going to google "celebrity nudes" on my work computer. If the article is kept it will have to be largely rewritten and trimmed to remove trivial examples, though. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has been cleaned up and sources added. The article is still not in the best shape, but the topic meets GNG, and it's a subject of enough popular interest that the article won't languish in obscurity forever. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough subject and plenty of RS available. Article needs to be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. --John B123 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, awful subject faking someone's head on a nude body, but there are good sources here. I dream of Maple (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: (to Photo manipulation r-printworthy, r-with-history not(r-with-possibilities)). Hunting around trying to improve this article came across the Photo manipulation which covers the content of this article in my opinion at first glance very well without some of the issues that are coming up and I think we are trying to work round. Much of the content here relates to Photographic image editing of humans ( per Figure study but not necessarily posed and where context is more important). A potentially faked human image does not have to nude to give problems out article is currently ... this topical image story for example, if faked, is proving problematic for the subject [72]. Out article doesn't really cover well photoshopping for improvement of a person's appearance, for example to remove freckles. I'd like to emphaise while we have found some useful sources i'd not want to disrupt the target article so I am advocate redirect and opposing merge. I remain opposed to merge/redirect to either nude photography or deepfake for reasons given above. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page is a bit messy and could use some more cleanup. I made some minor edits regarding phrasing and unverified claims. The subject is notable enough, but needs more English language sources. An expanded list of "notable cases" might lend further weight to the issue. Nimlhûg (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I revert some content that mr SpicyMilkBoy had been deleted, and I have to talk that thing with SpicyMilkBoy, but, maybe he accurate, hope any administer can reviews. Suy nghĩ mãi mà vẫn chẳng biết đặt tên là gì thiệt chán hết sức (talk) 02:20, 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) 02:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy 771[edit]

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

An incredibly short (5 minute) "experimental" film which has had no discernible coverage, no reviews, no awards, and generally fails WP:NFO and WP:GNG. If it wasn't for the (also presumably self-published) IMDb entry and creator's own website, there would be limited evidence of the film's existence. Not to mind any evidence of notability. Guliolopez (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence that this film qualifies as notable per WP:NFILM. In the 13 years since this film premiered, it hasn't even received 5 votes from IMDb users (as indicated by the fact that it has no average rating listed). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything resembling notability here. hewhoam areismyself 06:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The text in the article does not indicate notability and I am finding nothing better in searches, including title and director searches on the https://www.northernirelandscreen.co.uk website. The detail in this article is uncited and seems to indicate proximity to the subject. I note also that the biographical article on the filmmaker was deleted at AfD in 2011 and an article on another of his short films is currently flagged for WP:PROD with similar concerns. Fails WP:NFILM, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Spleodrach (talk) 12:55, 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.

^ Dungeons & dragons and philosophy : read and gain advantage on all wisdom checks. Robichaud, Christopher. Chichester, West Sussex. ISBN 978-1-118-39764-0. OCLC 881280343.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

[1] "Dungeons and Desktops". www.taylorfrancis.com. doi:10.1201/9781351273404. Retrieved 2019-11-26.

[2] Zdanowicz, Jessica; Handzel, Matthew; Vuong, Elaine (October 2013). "The Factory Times October 2013". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[3] Fleischer, Stephanie Owen; Wright, Susan A.; Barnes, Matthew L. (2007), Selfe, Cynthia L.; Hawisher, Gail E.; Van Ittersum, Derek (eds.), "Dungeons, Dragons, and Discretion: A Gateway to Gaming, Technology, and Literacy", Gaming Lives in the Twenty-First Century: Literate Connections, Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 143–160, doi:10.1057/9780230601765_9, ISBN 978-0-230-60176-5, retrieved 2019-11-26

[4] Fleischer, Stephanie Owen; Wright, Susan A.; Barnes, Matthew L. (2007), Selfe, Cynthia L.; Hawisher, Gail E.; Van Ittersum, Derek (eds.), "Dungeons, Dragons, and Discretion: A Gateway to Gaming, Technology, and Literacy", Gaming Lives in the Twenty-First Century: Literate Connections, Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 143–160, doi:10.1057/9780230601765_9, ISBN 978-0-230-60176-5, retrieved 2019-11-26

[5] Dungeons & dragons and philosophy : read and gain advantage on all wisdom checks. Robichaud, Christopher. Chichester, West Sussex. ISBN 978-1-118-39764-0. OCLC 881280343.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]