Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 November	29 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Adams (1920s footballer)[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY, having never played in a fully professional league or at full international level. No evidence of substantial coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - might his appearances for Dundee Hibernian (now Dundee United) mean he meets NFOOTBALL? Either way it doesn't matter as he fails WP:GNG. Could consider a redirect to List of Dundee United F.C. players instead. GiantSnowman 09:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- He wouldn't pass it as he only appeared for Dundee Hibs in the Second Division. WP:FPL only covers the current league structure at present; but under the pre-1975 setup with larger divisions (usually just two), only the top tier would ever have been substantially professional.Jellyman (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he passes WP:V [1] but based on a lack of sources and my inability to search Scottish newspapers this looks like it's on the Dundee United historians to save. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've found a source (and possibly a second one), but to me there isn't enough out there to justify WP:GNG. If more sources can be found I can re-evaluate my vote. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, User:Handoto, add your sources to the article, or at least the AFD, so we can all assess them, and not spend time digging out the same sources? Nfitz (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My gut feeling is he probably does not meet WP:GNG. The first volume of Gracie's history of Dundee United - "A Passion for Survival" - indicates (p.208) that he was a regular for the the club at the start of season 1921-1922 which was Dundee Hibernian's return to league football following the reintroduction of a Second Division and he seems to be in the photograph of the first XI included on p.46. However Gracie also suggests that he was not a regular in the second half of the season and his only appearance then was in a minor competition (the Eastern League). Certainly Second Division Football in Scotland in the 1920s would be considered to be of a high standard at the time, but not fully professional (although this was also true of the top division which had in Queens Park a fully amateur side). Unfortunately Gracie gives no information if he played for other league teams. I do not have my copy of the Dundee United Centenary History to hand - it is possible it has more details in terms of appearances. Dunarc (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there a way to search newspapers of the time from Dundee? SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- SportingFlyer the British Newspaper Archive has some Dundee newspapers from this time, but it is not a free service. A quick look shows that The Courier (Dundee) 17 may 1921 covered the signing of Adams and Dan Gibson by Dundee Hibs from Montrose. The same newspaper 1 May 1925 mentions Arbroath playing Montrose in a benefit game for Montrose player George Adams which would suggest he returned to his former club who for some of this period played in the short lived third division. As an aside Montrose Roselea F.C.'s chairman after the Second World War seems to have been called George Adams, but there is no clue if they are the same person. Overall I suspect there is not enough to demonstrate notability. Dunarc (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like we're not going to get to WP:GNG based off the work done by Dunarc. SportingFlyer T·C 23:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know anything about football, but, as well as finding the news about his signing to Dundee in 1921 and the benefit game for George Adams of Montrose in 1925, in April 1923 there is a report of presentations to two Montrose FC players, including George Adams the right back, on the occasion of his marriage. So it would seem that he did return to Montrose FC after leaving Dundee Hibernian in 1922. He was resigned by Montrose FC in/by August 1924. Does having a benefit game mean he'd left? He was certainly "a well-known Montrose ex-footballer" and "former left-back for the Gable-Endies" by November 1925, when he stopped a bolting horse and cart on Montrose High Street. Not looking like GNG yet, but will have a bit more of a look. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't find anything and it seems like although others have found much more than me that he doesn't satisfy GNG. A redirect isn't possible given the disambiguator. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:25, 5 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) 23:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Andreoni[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY, having never played in a fully professional league or at full international level. Several references but mainly WP:ROUTINE, so no evidence of substantial coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability as never played in a fully professional league. Dunarc (talk) 23:46, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Innermost Circle of the All-Highest[edit]

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

All plot + no sources = fancruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication that this subject has been discussed by reliable sources in a meaningful way. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article in my early days of editing here. It would perhaps be inappropriate to nominate it for deletion, but on re-reading it (I had wholly forgotten writing it) I am slightly ashamed of it and would not object to its deletion.----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just non-notable fancruft, that fails WP:GNG. Nowhere to really merge, or reason to keep._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional org. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and not even the usual list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing worth merging. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:03, 5 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. Contrary to one comment, we do delete articles related to major works when the specific subject of the article is not itself notable according to our guidelines. RL0919 (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squat (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

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

I cannot find any indication that the Squats have been discussed in academic or journalistic publications. It appears that the article is little more than a collection of plot -related information that would only interest a small segment of Warhammer 40,000 fans. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in this article is notable. Information about them can be added to Warhammer 40,000 if people can find some mention._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Squats main claim to fame is their removal from the game. Currently this section is unreferenced, but it is plausible that unlike most popular and existing factions there is actually some real world discussion because they are in fact one of few if not the only WH faction to get deleted from the universe. I'll try to look for sources later. But yes, even if there are sources, this would probably just warrant merger of that short para into the Warhammer 40k history of section in the main article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was with Piotrus on this that there may be some sources out there, but a search has thrown up nothing. Unless some sources are identified, I'm going to have to support deleting the article. A redirect to Dwarf (Warhammer) may have been appropriate, but that article's a mess, and doesn't mention squats anyway. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major race in a significant fictional setting. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable, as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 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) 04:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KZYY-LP[edit]

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

Simply doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find news coverage of it or other sources to support its notability. Its existence is verified, but Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists. Not a full power station, covers a small service are in support of a church's mission. Edison (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets NMEDIA, which is an offshoot of GNG. @Edison:, Radio stations enjoy inherent notability per GNG and NMEDIA and numerous AfD outcomes, plus via community consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:31 on November 28, 2019 (UTC)
- Update: @Onel5969: I updated the infobox, updated all the sources (some were out of date), I found three news articles in the Tyler Morning Telegraph, that reference KZYY-LP. One is a story about the station itself. How hard did you all look? Added a logo, updated all the infobox links (some were out of date). Got a webstream link, as that wasn't on the page. Page is now beyond GNG and NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:46 on November 28, 2019 (UTC)
  - Comment - and how hard did you study WP:GNG and WP:BROADCAST? There's not a single in-depth story about the story. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: @Onel5969:...and when did "in-depth" get added to GNG or NMEDIA? Also, what part of newspaper and "one is a story about the station itself" did you not understand? Perhaps you should less time being snarky and more time looking at the refs, cause you clearly aren't. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:17 on November 29, 2019 (UTC)
      - Comment - the snark was yours, my friend, being thrown back at you. Read the refs, not impressed, the newspaper article is a brief mention of the station. Half the article is about a food pantry opening. In-depth is part of WP:SIGCOV, which is part of WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: @Onel5969: This is a "brief mention"? If you took "How hard did you all look?" as snark, then you haven't heard snark. Believe me, that isn't snark. That was an honest question. You. Didn't. Look. Now you are fighting with me, snark fully included to cover that fact. You "reviewed" the article and immediately nom'd it for deletion. You didn't look for any SIGCON yourself, you left that WP:BURDEN to the community. I know a deletionist when I see one, a snarky one too. One who can't be faced with the fact that there is SIGCON in a local newspaper and you can't mention it because that would prove you wrong. Snarky enough for ya? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:34 on November 29, 2019 (UTC)
Keep: Subject is a licensed radio station that is an originator of its own programming, and thus meets WP:BROADCAST. This is verifiable through reliable sources independent of the subject. Furthermore, it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, as is evident by the article User:Neutralhomer linked to.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Neutralhomer. Has a lot of sources, ranging from FCC, Arbitron & news websites. Passes WP:NMEDIA. _SUPER ^ASTIG
Keep. Radio stations do have to have sources, which this does, but there is no requirement in WP:BCAST that the sources have to attain whatever standard of in-depth analysis Onel is applying here over and above what these sources already show. The principle at NMEDIA is that, and this is an exact quote from NMEDIA, "As media outlets are themselves a significant proportion of our sources for other content, however, it serves an important purpose for Wikipedia to provide neutral and verifiable information about those sources so that readers are able to evaluate their reliability and scope. Accordingly, the notability standards for media organizations and content are designed to be as inclusive, not restrictive, as possible within the bounds of verifiability in reliable sources." Would it be nice if every radio station on earth had at least one full book written about its entire history by a professional radio historian? Sure, of course it would. But the existence of such a book is not a core requirement for a radio station to be notable: the requirements are that the station has a broadcast license from the appropriate regulatory authority for its country, that it has originated at least some of its own programming instead of operating strictly as a rebroadcaster of another station, that it is actually on the air and not just a silent paper license or construction permit, and that all three of those facts are verifiable in sources independent of itself. And this station passes all four of those conditions. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Absolutely correct regarding BCAST, but SNG's supposedly don't supersede GNG. And GNG does require those types of sources.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources here which count toward GNG just fine. My point was that you're applying some standard above and beyond basic GNG, if you think the sources here aren't already adequate. I'll grant that not all of the references here are brilliant ones, but enough of them are good. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Maida 51 case[edit]

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

The user who made it has a bias POV on Joko Widodo and his former deputy Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, as he made clear in this Wikiquote edit. See also user's history on enwiki and idwiki. Flix11 (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Flix11:, is there a corresponding article on Indonesian Wikipedia?--Darwinek (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Darwinek: No there is not. If there is, it is probably made by the same user. Flix11 (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after a careful consideration. There are several issues with the article, bias and POV being the chief issue here. The fact that the article is included in "anti-Islam sentiment" category, speaks for itself. Long story short, the story is already covered in a better way in the Ahok and November 2016 Jakarta protests articles.--Darwinek (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Keep When you think that only because a Wikiquote edit from comment of Jusuf Kalla before chosen as Widodo's Vice President in 2014 that I have bias POV, then I want to ask you, who made the offensive statement against Widodo? I or Jusuf Kalla, is that true that the comment came from Jusuf Kalla? Yes, I even put a video link as the reliable source. Thus I don't think this a POV because the truth that you cannot make everyone talks positive about you, there will always be dislikes or something like that against you, such as Jusuf Kalla who raised doubt about Widodo before the 2014 election while he eventually became his vice president.

Furthermore, do not you know about the principles of deletion policy:

Verifiability (You can check to the references) No original research (my edit based on reliable sources) No Advertisement (Clearly not an advertisement) no Vanity (mass media covered it up) No Hoax (based on factual information on news)

Notability (of course this case is notable since the case closely related with Ahok's track record and led to two large gatherings on 4 November and 2 December 2016, moreover, you could find a lot of information on internet (google) about this case Find the sources. If the content in "Al Maida 51 case" article is shorter than other two article (Ahok and 4 November article) do you mind to make it better in a better way (e.g. not deleting)?)

If you are trying to delete a "non-eligible article to be deleted" in Wikipedia according to the principles, I guess that you do not have any good faith to another editor and only trying to despise article of another editor instead of helping to improve it. Qzxv5 (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is full of one sided-opinion, bias, pushing POV with seemingly bigoted-sentiments directed against Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, which might led to defamatory content problem. Possible conflict of interest, unfair and partial. Gunkarta talk 13:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response As for me, Al Maida 51 case is the notable event in Indonesia which shaped the Religious segregration among inter-religious community nowadays. If you objected about bias, controversial issue, etc. Any good-faith Wikipedian would use appropriate template ({{Template:Controversial}}, {{Template:Undue_weight}}, {{Template:Unbalanced}}) on the top of article while trying to improve and find the solution in talk page.
When you are accusing me about one-sided opinion, at the same time you are neglecting various references from various news sources that clearly supporting my edit and I think anyone could give contibution to present two sided POV (including you, but would you?)
When you talking about bigoted-sentiments and defamatory content directed against Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, aren't you considering that his slanderous accusation against the Quranic verse is an intolerance remark to the teaching of another religion and a subjective "bigoted-sentiments" and "serious defamation" against the Islamic Holy Scripture? or how should a convicted criminal against sacred thing be treated normally by the public? treated negatively or positively? thus surely normal when media coverage and public highly condemn his fatal mistake
In every action, there is always the re-action, you reap what you sow, If he did good thing he would receive good thing also and if he expressed a negative statement he would receive negative statement also.. That's law of the nature. At last, this article do not eligible for deletion policy principles Qzxv5 (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your response really feels like being in the midst of fundamentalist demonstration of Islamic Defenders Front.--Darwinek (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for NPOV or alternatively stubify. The subject passes WP:SIGCOV. AFD should not have been the first stop here. I notice there was no talk page discussion or tags done. Those should have been the first place to go to resolve this issue.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear breach of WP:NPOV, and is in any case covered in the Ahok article and in some depth in the November 2016 Jakarta protests article. Davidelit (Talk) 09:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rather than deleting articles which you not like. Fix the article. Post rebuttals. Use the Talk Page. Be constructive. This is Wikipedia, not some personal webpage.Koreangauteng (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Hi. It's not a case of "not liking the article", and rebuttals would not make it notable. Wikipedia does not have an Why Trump is wonderful article, and if it did, adding rebuttals still wouldn't make it right. In any case, the content is covered in November 2016 Jakarta protests Davidelit (Talk) 03:48, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitto Password Manager[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There is a need to massage the sources on the article back into life .... but in fairness the references on this one have been a right dog to (try to) recover and one I can't see from UK/Europe.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails on the notability ground. Does not clear either the WP:NPRODUCT or the WP:GNG due to the lack of wide and significant coverage in reputable secondary sources. Graywalls (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Primary sources, even if reliable, do not establish notability. No prejudice against creating a redirect or disambiguation page though the usual editorial processes, but I don't see a strong case here for one or the other. RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Von Carstein[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional bloodline. No primary sources cited, never mind secondary (article tagged for over nine years), and the article is almost entirely in-universe (article tagged for over a decade). A search throws up almost nothing particularly useful as a source... This journal article (from an extremely minor publisher) has a single sentence about the bloodline within a paragraph about the portrayal of vampires in the Warhammer universe generally. This is not enough to support an article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#The Undead This is yet another collection of plot -related information that would only interest a small segment of Warhammer fans. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional group. 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} 02:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Karnstein Trilogy. When I saw this come up, I thought this was what it was in relation to, or the original Carmilla novel. At any rate, it is a plausible misspelling for there, and the current subject lack notability. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a dab page would be appropriate? I'm not sure there's anything worth merging here, so we could create a dab page after it's deleted. Maybe it could be at Carstein, with Von Carstein a redirect? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* There appears to be a debate regarding sources, material and relevance, which while I can see your views as stated above, I must disagree. The novels referenced in the article should be the sources cited. Having read them, they were written with permission by the Games Workshop under the Black Library - and are treated as canon for the franchise. Additionally, the entire outline of the portions for Vlad, Mannfred and Konrad are a synopsis of those novels. Additional literature in print as given with the Armies: Vampires listing are relevant. If you are unfamiliar with this franchise, there is a "undead" segment for the fantasy game, the WFRP table-top, and the Total War: Warhammer (1&2) computer games that set the von Carstein bloodline separate from the Undead category. There is an explicit reason for this - the von Carstein bloodline and it's history starting with Vlad is an integral and separate faction that has special relevance to the WFRP game based on the atmosphere it is meant to evoke. An example of this would be the differences between the history of the undead starting with Nagash, and the evolution of the von Carsteins as a separate but related entity within the game canon. If you are having issues with citing sources, I suggest you start first with the listed novels, then with the listed game supplements, and then contact Games Workshop directly - you can also purchase or find someone who owns Total War: Warhammer 1 or 2 - as the game comes with an ingame encyclopedia that may contain additional information, again considered canon as the developers of the franchise actually wrote all the background information in each format for public consumption. If you feel that this information is only relevant to a small minority of the fans - keep in mind that this franchise is more than 30 years old (WFRP was first written in 1986 - has had numerous publishers and owners over the years and it now entering a 5th franchise market (WFRP, Novels, Miniatures Gamers, Cardgames, and now computer games), so I would hasten to point out that a "minor setting development only interesting to a small fan base" may be worth reconsidering.Soulheld (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Soulheld, thanks for your comments. The trouble with the sources you have identified is that they are all primary sources. While articles can use primary sources (novels, gamebooks, etc.) they can't be based on them. Instead, they need to be based on (in Wikipedia jargon) "reliable sources", such as peer-reviewed scholarly discussions or journalistic analyses published in reputable magazines, newspapers, and so on. Without evidence of these reliable sources, the article subject is probably not considered (more jargon) "notable" for Wikipedia's purposes, and thus does not warrant its own article. Are you aware of any secondary sources of this sort? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply (J Milburn - Depends on what format of the market you are looking to quote. The problem with most secondary sources is that you are dealing with multiple platforms here. So for instance, you can go to the Total War: Warhammer forums^[1] regarding von Carsteins for the cpu games, and receive a wealth of discussion regarding the von carstein play faction, tactics, decision trees specifically for playing the game. Conversely you can go to the Warhammer wfrp fandom.site ^[2] - and get on forums there, which will focus on mainly discussion in character builds, how to incorporate timelines and history into campaigns, etc. I am not saying there are no secondary sources to cite, I am saying that the secondary sources that are most easily reached will provide a lot of conjecture and supposition on the topic, and maybe 5-10% relevance to this post/article. Now that I understand the need for secondary sources, the debate I read above makes a little more sense - but with any fantasy fic project, this secondary source requirement is going to pop up frequently and in the same context as what I just outlined for the von Carstein thread and article. The easiest and perhaps best way to circumvent this (assuming we can find it) is to look for reviews on the novels and discussion regarding the franchise - since the novels are considered canon, and novel reviews may be easier than scouring a cpu game forum looking for canon material that backs up the current article. Warhammer (fantasy and 40k) operates through the Black Library, which is well known in the fantasy novels circle and really big in the UK due to it being based there, so it may be worth starting there for reviews and scholarly articles. Additionally, TSR/Dragon and Dungeon/Polyhedron magazines (two big time names that have followed virtually all rpg gaming releases in the US - TSR/Dragon 1976-2007, then online until 2013/ Dungeon/Polyhedron 1981-2005) may have a review when this first came out so we would need to look initially for 1986/1987 era magazine articles on that end - and there are other magazine titles that we can dig up for this - such as Phantasmagoria - a horror/horror fiction magazine that reviews movies, books, games, music and artwork that fit the genre, etc. This is what I came up with as a short list - I will do some more digging and see if I can get a more expansive set of possible leads in this category.2601:442:100:1A30:5C1D:5138:14A:2C81 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The format doesn't really matter; what matters for the general notability guideline is that the clan itself "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Posts on forums do not count as reliable sources; to repeat, paradigms of reliable sources would be published, peer-reviewed scholarly work or journalistic work published in reputable newspapers or magazines. Book reviews published in decent genre magazines are certainly the sort of thing that will probably count (as long as they're independent - discussions in White Dwarf probably don't count!), though, naturally enough, they're more likely to focus on the books and authors than on the Von Carstein clan. You're right that "with any fantasy fic project, this secondary source requirement is going to pop up frequently"; on Wikipedia, there's probably more place for articles about video games, tabletop games, novels, and so on than there is for articles on the fictional characters who appear in them. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Fails GNG. Real world information is needed. TTN (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:04, 5 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) 18:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grimgor Ironhide[edit]

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

Fictional character in the Warhammer universe. Long, in-universe article (and it's been tagged with {{in universe}} for a decade) with no secondary sources cited. A search throws up nothing that would work as a third-party source. Not notable. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Grimgor Ironhide is an obscure character who has not received any coverage from academic or journalists. While his article could be turned into redirect page, the only possible target, the List of Warhammer Fantasy characters, needs to be purged. I doubt that his section would survive such a reduction. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional chara. 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} 02:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — as per other editors.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:04, 5 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. Not redirecting due to the concern about the term being used in multiple works of fiction. RL0919 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primarch[edit]

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

Entirely in-universe discussion of a non-notable group of fictional characters. No third-party sources are cited, and while a search did throw up a couple of mentions in scholarly work, they were nothing more than passing mentions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000)#In-universe origins and history This is another collection of fancruft that is incapable of supporting its own article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Redirecting it to "Space Marine" would be a WP:SURPRISE. The term is relatively common in sci-fi, also being used in the Final Fantasy, and I believe the Mass Effect series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional concept. 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} 02:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per Susmuffin. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with ZXCVBNM about the redirect; probably better to delete outright. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn and Zxcvbnm: Disambiguation is always a secondary option. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is only worth it if there are more than 1 articles sharing that name. Otherwise it just becomes an index of mentions. Better for people to just use the search option in that case._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I got: Special:Permalink/928805058 –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get specific, the title of "Primarch" is used for the leader of the Turian race in Mass Effect, and is used for the character Primarch Victus in Mass Effect 3. But he is too minor to be mentioned on the encyclopedia. It's also used as the title of Galenth Dysley from Final Fantasy XIII, who is the main antagonist of that game._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:03, 5 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) 19:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old Ones (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional race; no secondary sources cited. The article is written in a very "in-universe" style, and has been tagged as such for a decade with little sign of improvement. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are a minor part of the setting's backstory. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a playable faction, just a minor part of the background. I would be very surprised if they have received significant out-of-universe coverage. the wub "?!" 17:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely minor and non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional race. 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} 02:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per other editors.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:03, 5 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) 04:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CloudLocker[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:37, 21 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) 15:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam, fails WP:NCORP, not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 5 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. After some time for investigation, we appear to have turned the corner on this to a weak consensus for notability. RL0919 (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akram Pedramnia[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. ubiquity (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. As an academic scholar she has zero impact on GS citations. See first AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - She has written and translated a number of books and is notable. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am tidying up the sources, which did not have their actual titles, nor dates, authors, etc. Of the sources in the article, The Globe and Mail is about her work. The BBC Persian News is in part about her work, partly about Nabokov and Lolita, and partly quotes from her - so the small part about her work can be considered. Publishing Perspectives also has a little about her work. The Asymptote source is actually on their blog, so less reliable than if it were in their journal - and it's fairly short anyway. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung is mainly an article by her, but includes a paragraph of information about her, so that is what I have named as the source. That's as far as I've got so far - I haven't yet looked at the Italian newspaper article. So far we have one reasonably long source, and 4 short ones. (As an aside, I am not sure where we would expect to find reviews of books in Persian that have been censored in Iran? I haven't tried searching using Persian names yet - now that I have two Persian titles of her own books, I will have a go.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG are the standards to judge this by rather than WP:ACADEMIC. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to hear back from RebeccaGreen before this AFD is closed. Suggest relisting in order to give her time to evaluate and search for RS. @RebeccaGreen: have you made any progress, and are you leaning towards keep or delete?4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow time for discussion of updated sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I have been away on a work trip without internet access. Now I'm back, I'll try to do more searching this weekend. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends and ubiquity (talk), thanks for your notes. I know there are lots to be mentioned in Akram Pedramnia page but it will be done soon. She is a writer and translator and one of the most famous novels is translated by her called Ulysses written by James Joyce. This translation is the only one done perfectly up to now. This translation is banned in Iran and she had to publish it somewhere outside Iran. It is done now. She is against censorship in Iran. I hope you understand the importance of her wiki page in English. Her Farsi page was under lots of misunderstandings which is clean now. I wish your ideas on keeping her page and removing deletion notes on top of the page. Best wishes for you all.Morteza Bemani (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP. If she were notable as a translator, I would expect to find reviews in literary journals and interviews, which I do not, and I have looked. I found her own discussion about her translation. "Better World Books is an online for-profit bookseller of used and new books" so their review of their own product is not independent. Likewise, "AbeBooks is an e-commerce global online marketplace with seven websites" that is a "subsidiary of Amazon" so their review is likewise not independent. Lots of scholars give lectures at various colleges and universities, so she fails the prof test. There are lots of Ghits about her, but they all seem to be social media and the non-independent sources of the type I've linked. She thus fails WP:NAUTHOR, and more generally WP:GNG. The writers of her article are no doubt well-meaning, and her translation of Ulysses might be a delight to read, but we are not a free web host for translators. I would not object to a relisting to allow another few days for others to find sources that I might not have found or that might be in languages other than English. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, I gather that the non-independent reviews you mention were ones that you found in your search? They are certainly not in the article. What do you think of the sources in the article, eg in The Globe and Mail and the BBC? Not every notable writer/translator is in the New York Times. I am not sure that we would expect to find reviews in English-language journals of translations into Farsi, and given that the translations are banned in Iran, and Iranian media is also censored, and in Afghanistan, according to Media of Afghanistan, "penalties are still in place for defaming individuals and running material contrary to the principles of Islam", I am not at all sure where we are going to find reviews in reliable, independent sources. I still need to search for reviews of her own novels. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, that's fair. Admins, can you hold open this AfD for time to find Farsi sources, or re-list the discussion again for another week for more discussion, please? -- Asking as a former sysop who used to itch to close up debates. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist in search of Farsi sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm seeing something resembling WP:SIGCOV or WP:NAUTHOR C3 from the three Farsi articles + Globe and Mail. I'm grading on a curve, for several reasons: it's hard to find Farsi sources; as what she's doing is illegal in Iran, reviews are less likely than "crime stories"; and she's doing something relatively academic (contributing to the world of ideas), even though she's far from WP:NPROF. After the work of RebeccaGreen, the article is now well-sourced and fairly non-promotional, although the quotes from newspapers should probably go. Overall, I think the article makes the encyclopedia a tiny bit better. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the NZZ, BBC, and Globe&Mail coverage is enough for WP:GNG, despite some qualms about these sources above. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a few more sources in Farsi - review of her 3 novels. I think there is enough coverage of her own novels, and of her translation work, to reach WP:SIGCOV and/or WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Matharu[edit]

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

Matharu does not appear to have garnered significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and therefore fails to satisfy the biographical and general notability guidelines. Please see the attached source assessment table. Much of the article is not supported by the citations provided and appears to be written like a curriculum vitae.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
^[3]	Matharu co-authored the book.	Online shops are not reliable sources.	It is a book co-authored by Matharu, but it isn't about him.	✘ No
^[4]	Published by a professional organisation, however it is one he is a member of and "involved with" its activities.	No red flags in this instance.	One of Matharu's publications is mentioned once in a further reading section.	✘ No
^[5]	Fundraising page operated by Matharu.	~ For basic details, yes. For corroborating achievements, no.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
^[6]	Does not appear to be affiliated with the school.	It is a transcript of a speech he has given and it is cited in the article to back up his own claims.	A transcript of a speech is not significant coverage.	✘ No
^[7]	Ditto.	Ditto.	Ditto.	✘ No
^[8]	Appears to be unaffiliated.	Internal news article of an reputable institute.	Matharu is mentioned once in passing.	✘ No
^[9]	As with source 2.	More red flags than the source 2. It's a documentation of several workshops, one of which Matharu ran for APM, with no indication that the press office was a separate arm of the association.	Mentions his name, but the paragraph about his workshop is dedicated to the workshop content itself.	✘ No
^[10]	Clearly published by an affiliated organisation: "MEET YOUR COURSE MANAGER".	~ For basic details, probably. For claims of notability, especially in a prospectus-like publication, no.	The column dedicated to Matharu does cover him in detail, by virtue of being affiliated.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

SITH (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack enough reliable, indepdent secondary sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the list above, there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources. The essay would have to be re-written extensively; for example, every mention of his first name would have to be changed to his last name according to our style, and new sources would have to be found and added, while trivia excised. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 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 keep. The opening rationale was not a suggestion to delete; any other options including merging and redirecting can be done by ordinary editing away from an AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Master (Meher Baba)[edit]

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

Redirect to Meher Baba (preferably to the Teachings section). Not seeing any significant coverage of the concept apart from trivial mentions in independent sources. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the University of Chicago journal article in Signs and Society alone should duplicate the last RM and save this topic-important page. There is also an independent book listed as a source. Please notify the participants of the last RM, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD for a starter .... ∯WBG^converse 14:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Sometimes the light bulbs burn out and wandering the back halls of Wikipedia brings me to the wrong room. Then please notify the participants of the last AfD. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to issue a ping to all non-blocked participants of the last AfD... FWIW, there's no significant coverage about the subject in the linked journal piece but then, arguing with you is a waste of my resources. Also, Purdom was one of the closest Baba followers and his memoir is non independent source. ∯WBG^converse 15:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. THe article is mostly routed in primary sources. What few independent sources there are support very little of the article's content. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as redirect but asked to relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 13:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Option: move to Teachings of Meher Baba, merge Mast, Mandali there. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? And is the teachings article in the process of being written (can't move to a red link, unless you are suggesting a rename of this page). This article, which is well sourced by a peer-reviewed academic article (which fulfills the definition of a notable topic), also fulfills a key spot in the overall topics Wikipedia collection. Please expand on your reasoning, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, rename. Keep all together, coherent whole separate from bio. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that would work, and supportable. A renaming and then a transfer of the other pages sounds like it would make an interesting page as long as the information stays as is and isn't deboned during the merge. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be up to AfD to set post-merge editing. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... You can't agree to a merge from other articles, over here, w/o following proper merge-procedures as to those pages.

Let this be redirected, which preserves the history and the content can be merged back anytime, once the destination article is created.

Frankly, I have strong doubts about whether the subject can be minimally sourced to any independent RS, at all and unless there's fair many (~2/3) of them, providing a foundation, we can't exploit non independent sourcing. But that's thoughts for another day ..... ∯WBG^converse 19:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, for the umpteenth time, the peer-reviewed journal article does not cover the topic, in any minimally significant manner. There are a mere couple of lines:-...(irrelevant stuff)... He explained that the Avatar comes to Earth every 700 to 1,400 years and that five perfect masters, who are present at all times on Earth, aid his successive manifestations...(irrelevant stuff)...One day in May 1913, Babajan beckoned Merwan and kissed him on the forehead.[a quote]Thus began an inner quest that would take Merwan to meet four other Perfect Masters: Sai Baba of Shirdi (c. 1840–1918), Tajuddin Baba (1861–1925), Narayan Majaraj (1885–1945) and, finally, Upasni Maharaj (ca. 1870–1941)...(irrelevant stuff)...

WP:SIGCOV, over independent sources, please. ∯WBG^converse 19:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for one last time, if there are no new comments, I will return to redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, another RS is Daniel E Bassuk's 1987 Incarnation in Hinduism and Christianity: The Myth of the God-Man (Macmillan) which devotes several pages to Meher Baba including a detailed discussion of the 'perfect master'.

It's clearly one of his core concepts and deserves coverage. I'm not against merging Mast and Mandali into the article (and renaming), that seems sensible too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:55, 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 speedy delete. Deleted by ST47 under WP:CSD#G5. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rohosyamoi Prachin Bari[edit]

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

I removed the A7 tag placed by Interstellarity only because A7 technically cannot be applied to books. However, it is clear that this book does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Total lack of adequate, substantial coverage in reliable sources. Hug^syrup 14:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as g5. This is just another one of the N K Mondal spam variants. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, I added the speedy deletion tag. Interstellarity (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As original nominator of the article for speedy deletion, I agree with the reasons listed by Hugsyrup 100% that the rticle should be deleted. Interstellarity (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Googam[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of monsters in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional chara. 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} 03:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; no third-party sources. I'm not opposed to a merge if that's what people support. I'm getting a few hits on Google Scholar, but just passing mentions... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:03, 5 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stone (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. BOZ (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No version is notable. Term is generic, so a redirect would be valueless. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional chara. 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} 03:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it seems that this is actually an article about several very minor characters who happen to share a name. It looks like none of them are even approaching notable. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:01, 5 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. Lack of independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clem Chambers[edit]

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

Many references to news articles cited in the article but every single one of them is a link to a quotation/interview with the subject (i.e., a primary source, not independent of the subject). There is some coverage of industry prizes but these appear to be minor prizes the awarding of which did not involve any significant coverage of the subject. Could not find any reviews of their books in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO/WP:AUTHOR.
Additionally, this article is obviously a WP:PROMO article and as such fails WP:NOT. The article creator (and largest contributor) appears to be essentially single-purpose-account that edits almost exclusively topics related to the subject of this article (i.e., him and his company). Even when this account has edited topics other than articles related to Clem Chambers, it has been to add links to the books of Clem Chambers. As such this also appears to the the subject of a potential undisclosed WP:COI. There does not appear to be an earlier point in the edit history that could be reverted to that is free of these WP:PROMO problems and as such this is a WP:TNT case. FOARP (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reeks of just being promotional. The account that created and updated this page is probably him or someone close to him. Very little turned up when I searched his name. Seems not that notable. Bluedude588 (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this wasn't 10 years old, it'd be G11 material. Delete - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A number of edits have been made. Clem Chambers is CEO of two publicly listed companies and is an authoritative and valued commentator on financial markets; a quick Google news search verifies this. Keep - Francescad Francescad (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases are not RSes - David Gerard (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delte a non-notable businessman. Just because we can find press releases on him does not mean he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi John Pack Lambert, I meant the appearances on news channels discussing the markets as opposed to press releases. Also his Forbes pieces attract a lot of attention suggesting he is well regarded by the general public: https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2019/09/25/bitcoin-has-crashed-what-now/#fde1e9f63ab4 Francescad Francescad (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview with the subject, the information provided is not independent of its source, and hence not an independent WP:RS for the subject. The same goes double for articles by the subject like the one linked above. Also, the person voting keep in this case is the WP:SPA referred to in the nom.

Furthermore I have reviewed the new references added to the article since this AFD opened. None of them goes any further towards substantiating the notability of the subject. They are either blog articles and other non-reliable sources (e.g., the additional book review and the Fantastic Fiction profile), or they do not mention or barely mention the subject (like the new FT reference), or they are from companies owned by the subject (e.g., the ADVFN article). The closest is the FT Adviser book review, however this does not contain significant coverage of the subject (it briefly mentions him in two sentences). FOARP (talk) 07:59, 5 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 redirect to Random (album). Clear G7 request, no reason for bureaucracy StarM 02:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Random (compilation album)[edit]

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

The sources mentioning this are unreliable and the article seems to not meet the SSN criteria WP:MUSIC. Interstellarity (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect (if such a thing exists) to Random (album)... it's the same album, and the article there is at least a basic stub and has a couple of reliable sources, though it could do with improving. Or delete, if editors feel the search term is not useful or likely. Either way, the article for this album already exists, and there's no point trying to improve this particular article. Richard3120 (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Random (album) per Richard3120's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 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) 04:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the blue (idiom)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I attempted WP:BEFORE but all I could find are definitions - does not seem to have much history attached. The article has been a dicdef ever since it was created. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, [WP:NOTDICTIONARY]].TH1980 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soumaya Keynes[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Lots of sources in the article, but no reliable ones discussing her directly in detail. A Google search for ""Soumaya Keynes is" doesn't yield any News or Book results. The main claim to notability in the article appears to be her role at The Economist. However that publication publishes all its articles anonymously due to a "a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it" and because its articles are considered collaborative works (detailed here). Due to this there is no reason why being a section editor at this publication should confer notability. --Pontificalibus 11:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 11:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am responding correctly. I am new to Wikipedia, and based on the deletions page this was my understanding of how to express my view. I apologize if this is incorrect.

I believe this article should remain. I oppose the deletion because Wikipedia's general inclusion threshold is "whether the subject is notable enough for someone to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source" (taken from the Help: my article got nominated for deletion!). I believe that source 8 on the wikipedia article meets this criteria, as do others on the page. The source talks directly about Soumaya Keynes at great length and is from a reliable source (the Mercatus Center at George Mason University).

Furthermore, I believe that the article is both significant and interesting. While I agree that The Economist not crediting their journalists with authorship creates issues, the article highlighted in the "select scholarship and works" section, for example, is attributed to Keynes in multiple reputable sources (such as NPR) which can be seen in the citations. This piece is significant because it led to further research on the topic and media coverage of the piece. Furthermore, it led to further research that confirmed what had been stated in the article making the article's topic more significant. Beavinlake (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Passing WP:BIO is a different matter. At the moment I don't think she could pass WP:ECONOMIST or WP:JOURNALIST. Essentially the same criteria but applied to those fields. I can't she has done anything of note in either field. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While many of the references are indeed to primary sources, several are from valid secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: I do not understand why really this nicely written notable biography is Afded now but the article was created way back in 2008. Abishe (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was created as a redirect to Keynes family in 2008, at which state it remained until 3 days ago. It is a new article. ---Pontificalibus 15:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. Holds what seems to be a notable journalistic role, and is clearly identified as an expert in economics and gender, cf. reference 66 & others, amounting to WP:SIGCOV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. I believe this article should stay. There are secondary sources included, and even though the Economist's articles are anonymous, that doesn't mean being a section editor is not notable. Her name doesn't need to be on the articles for her title to mean something. Ia Mantecon (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Ia Mantecon[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Greatly improved. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see Ia Mantecon's contribution above. MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:44, 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 turned into a disambiguation page. There was consensus that the fictional topic should not have a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terminus Est[edit]

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

Fictional item (and not even from a super popular series like D&D or SW...). 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. Deprodded with a request for AfD discussion, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Book of the New Sun#Plot summary While I can find no indication that Terminus Est is notable, it is still mentioned in the potential target article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; generic Latin phrase. I am opposed to a redirect for that reason, but a dab page wouldn't be unreasonable. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have boldly turned this into a disambiguation page to give a rough impression of what it would look like. If I'm reverted or consensus is against me, so be it! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the total lack of actual encyclopedia entries on the disambiguation page, says that this is probably better off as a search term if people want to look for it, rather than a disambiguation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This is just a Latin phrase.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:00, 5 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 for failing PLOT and the GNG. In the future, any sourced analysis of the character (if found) can still be added to the articles of the works he appeared in. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gharlane of Eddore (character)[edit]

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

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. Deprodded with rationale best summarized as WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Can we do better, please? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Can we do better please"? Yes, and that doesn't begin by just finding as many articles as possible to delete. Also, "not a shred of analysis" isn't true if you look in the Ellik book, which is at least noted here, if not used in any substantive way. That's one of the first (1960s) meta-commentary books on any fantasy or sf novel. Common enough today, but just that was rather exceptional back then. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doc Smith's writings may have been analyzed, but this particular character? I don't know, but I suspect not, and there's only one potential source put forward. I'm also going to nominate the related Innermost Circle of the All-Highest for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION - Jay (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. TTN (talk) 12:40, 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 and redirect to Vala (Middle-earth)#Varda. Keep arguments based on primary sources are discounted as usual, and the remaining appear to be well refuted. RL0919 (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Varda[edit]

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

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. Deprodded with a rationale WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Who can do better? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Character referred to numerous times in Tolkien's work and the literature based on it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter how many times an author mentioned his creation. We need evidence that others have done so in a substantial way, and this both lacking and not provided by you outside of an assertion that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major creator figure within Tolkien's legendarium, even though "wasn't in the film / video game" is a telling criticism for WP's standards. Appears, and is discussed, in any of the standard commentary works on Tolkien, such as Drout, which is already cited here. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your 'arguments' would make more sense if you actually read the sources and cited them properly. Here's a newsflash for you: Drout (Tolkien Encyclopedia) does not have an entry for Varda. This character is only mentioned in passing in some other entries, but was not even deemed important enough to warrant a dedicated entry. I don't see why we should do better, given no better sources have been found so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referenced several times in Lord of the Rings. Beginning with Chapter 3, Three is Company.

And the Encyclopedia that does not reference her sounds dubious. Is not one I have ever heard of, as a Tolkien fan. Mainstream references are clear: see | Tolkien Gateway for how it should be done.--GwydionM (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes her name is used in the Lord of the Rings. But these are only invocations, not at all descriptions. The fact that the Tolkien encyclopedia lacks an article on her should show we have no reason to. Unless we can find reliable secondary sources with titles such as "of Elbereth Githoniel, Mary and Tolkien's Catholicism" we lack the sourcing we need to adequately create this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vala (Middle-earth), where she is already covered. Being mentioned within the text of the fictional work itself is not really sufficient to indicate any sort of real world notability. And sources regarding her in reliable, secondary sources is scant, and not nearly sufficient to maintain an independent article. That said, we have a valid Redirect target where there is already an entry on the character. Rorshacma (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — only a background character.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vala (Middle-earth) per Rorshacma. Devonian Wombat talk 06:10, 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 merge to Galadriel. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celeborn[edit]

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

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. Deprodded by User:Hog Farm who suggested a merger but without a clear target. Let's discuss: keep, merge (where?), or delete? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of Middle-earth Elves. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on Galadriel. He is a shadow to his wife, even if she calls him "the wise". This may change with his likely appearance in the upcoming Lord of the Rings (TV series). However until that might happen, he is not a truly notable character and is best covered in the article on his wife.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per John Pack Lambert and per WP:PRESERVE. And just in case anyone wants to randomly bring up WP:V, clearly verfiable based on the book from which this character originates. FOARP (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Galadriel. Best available merge target. Hog Farm (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Galadriel.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION. No objection to soft delete via redirect.Kacper IV (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only keep recommendation argued with in-universe notability and inherited notability, but this has no bearing for the GNG and also WP:NOTINHERITED. No significant scholar analysis was found for this fictional race. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easterlings[edit]

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

Fictional race (nation). 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. I did look in the Tolkien Encyclopedia, and they do have an entry there. But setting aside it seems to be the only non-primary source that discusses them in-depth (and GNG requires multiple sources), the problem with that entry is that it does not contain a shred of analysis outside being a plot summary: it does not contain an ounce of relation to the real word, nothing about possible Tolkien inspirations, meaning, influence, etc. As noted in the entry on TE (which I recently expanded), quality of entries in this work varies, and some don't go beyond a plot summary that one would expect to find at wikia or such. While I usually lean towards keeping anything that has an entry in another encyclopedia, this is because usually other encyclopedias contain a summary of scholarly analysis of a topic. For this one, there is no such analysis anywhere, so, with the note that this topic has an entry in TE, I am still nominating it for deletion as essentially pure fancruft. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major race in the works of one of the most famous writers in history and the literature based on them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not a valid AfD rationale. Feel free to point out how it meets any of our policies such as GNG etc. Outside WP:ITSIMPORTANT, that is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no Easterling characters in LotR. We see more orcs than Easterlings. I am surprised we do not gav ed a whole slew of articles as sources linking easterlings serving Sauron to Arabs serving Mohammad or Allah. Not ccx that I think such an argument would be valid. With Ghan-buri-ghan we get discussion linking him into the framework of a novel savage. Numenor is the true story of Atlantis, the true west af least according to some of C. S. Lewis's writing. There is not enough 3rd party coverage to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree with John. The Easterlings are only mentioned a couple of times.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, I was expecting to find an absurd number of independent sources for the Easterlings. Instead, I found one undergraduate paper. Apparently, the Easterlings have not received any coverage from academics. Their coverage from professional journalists is similarly lacking. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:09, 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) 12:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CourseGem[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing much of any secondary sources related to this subject. It fails WP:WEBCRIT as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: none of the six sources meet the golden rule of independence, reliability and significant coverage, thus it appears to fail the general notability guideline. SITH (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tampermonkey[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this passes the notability guideline. It's one of the most popular software of it's kind and has articles that are written by non-affiliated press. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Doesn't have much in-depth coverage, but 9to5Google has an article where it is in focus, and it has multiple minor mentions in larger sources such as Forbes and The Verge. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9to5Google is a biased source towards Google. Source should be independent to pass WP:GNG/WP:NPRODUCT. Also, mentions in Forbes and The Verge don't add much as WP:SIGCOV is required. Störm (talk) 07:27, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easterlings (First Age)[edit]

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

Fictional race (nation, etc.). 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. While it can be argued that a simple solution is to merge this to Easterlings, it is not clear that the target article is notable itself. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Not prominent in any of Tolkien's popular novels.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just, somewhat sarcastically, referred to another of the Tolkien AfDs as "wasn't in the film / video game" is a telling criticism for WP's standards. And there we have it, someone actually using that as a reason for deletion. Are you aware that Tolkien wrote slightly more than just The Hobbit? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware that AfD are WP:NOTAVOTE and you are supposed to provide a valid rationale? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Simirilion is not a major work of literature. Even if they were this would not justify the truly in depth level you have to go to to find anything on this truly obscure topic. Nothing here is even remotely close to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Faolin42 (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources that discuss the Easterlings of the First Age. Furthermore, they are distinct from the Easterlings in The Lord of the Rings. This difference makes it impossible to properly merge the two articles. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:58, 5 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) 00:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erling Hauge[edit]

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

Non-notable academic who has not received coverage in third-party sources. Only an associate professor and not a professor, Hauge's bibliography does not distinguish him in particular, the typical scientist publishes at least ten times as many articles. The articles currently has three sources: (1) a book without page number (2) OK enough, but not really discussing Hauge's person. Would be better suited for an article about spider research in Norway. (3) an obituary in shape of a forum post, a type of source I have never seen in Wikipedia and hopefully will never see again. I searched for obituaries in actual media outlets without finding any. A search in the database Retriever for "førsteamanuensis Erling Hauge" yielded 4 hits between 1988-2006, none of which are about him, but are about spiders with a couple of comments from Hauge. Many people will comment in the media from time to time, for instance a police lieutenant about criminal cases. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some associate professors are notable, but usually not those who end their career that way. Doesn't look to meet WP:NPROF, no sign of other significant coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In what way did his death relate to his lack of notability? He "died in September 2012 after a long illness." Seems ordinary for an academic. Edison (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article quite satisfies WP:PROF. Edison (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations not good enough for WP:PROF#C1 (not unusual for taxonomists) and no other notability apparent. (However, unlike the nominator, I would be willing to accept a forum-post obituary as a source, in other circumstances. Specifically, the subject would have to be otherwise notable, as that kind of posting does not count for notability, and whoever made the post would need some credibility as an associate of the subject.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saturn in fiction#Literature. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cykranosh[edit]

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

Fictional location. 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saturn in fiction#Literature While I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this subject, it is still a valid search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saturn in fiction#Literature. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:58, 5 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 merge to Demogorgon. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demogorgon (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons per above. BOZ (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fancruft that fails WP:GNG. There is no merge target that isn't also failing WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll point out that the first two keep votes contain no valid rationale. AfD WP:ITSNOTAVOTE, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demogorgon, the article on the supposed mythological figure that it is named after. That article could use some work at organizing the information a bit better, but the D&D version is already mentioned there as a depiction of it in later works. While the non-primary sourcing on this isn't the greatest, the fact that Stranger Things popularized the creature's name probably warrants it having some brief information and redirect there as a likely search. Rorshacma (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep or full merge Demogorgon article (not the list). Stranger Things among other recent appearances confer significant coverage and notability on the specific D&D Demogorgon. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Current sourcing fails GNG. The appearance in ST would most likely amount to little in terms of significant coverage in sources, so I don't think that holds much promise of improvement. TTN (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demogorgon. I've said it before: I think some of these articles would be better served as add-ons to articles for the original mythological creatures, with something like a modern interpretations or representations section. I can only find passing mentions of the creature in independent source books like Dungeons & Dragons: Art and Arcana. The Stranger Things connection definitely boosts notability a bit, but perhaps not enough for a standalone. The discussion in Uncovering Stranger Things (see "Monsters and Moral Panics" starting on page 60, especially pages 63–64) is a little meatier, but it's still not quite enough. I think it would be a good addition to a D&D section in the main article though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment added another citation for the physical description of the specific D&D Demogorgon to the article. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:58, 5 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 organizations in Judge Dredd. Clear consensus for no standalone article. Redirecting to a list as an ATD; should not be reverted without substantial secondary sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Law[edit]

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

Fictional location. 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of organizations in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted.If you want to keep as an independent article, please demonstrate independent, real-world (not "in-universe") notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:58, 5 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 minor characters in Judge Dredd. Clear consensus for no standalone article. Redirecting to a list as an ATD; should not be reverted without substantial secondary sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mean Machine Angel[edit]

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

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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd or Angel Gang. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted.If you want to keep as an independent article, please demonstrate independent, real-world (not "in-universe") notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 06:02, 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 redirect to List of organizations in Judge Dredd. Both "keep" and "delete" !votes suggested merge / redirect as an alternative Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Gang[edit]

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

Fictional group/organization. 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of organizations in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted.If you want to keep as an independent article, please demonstrate independent, real-world (not "in-universe") notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The characters have appeared prominently in multiple mediums including comics spanning over 30 years, a major film, a video game, tabletop miniatures, and boardgames. The claim that the article contains no analysis is incorrect; the publication history section discusses the popularity of the characters and the response to the decision to resurrect characters, which influenced the wider editorial direction of the comic 2000 AD. McPhail (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The publication history is referenced to WP:PRIMARY sources and any analysis based on this is WP:OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also in-universe notability only. Real world notability not demonstrated. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some third party source citations for the inclusion of the Angel Gang in other works and for the popularity of the characters. McPhail (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 06:02, 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 merge to Lothlórien. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caras Galadhon[edit]

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

Fictional location. 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lothlorien. There is no justification for two articles on this subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lothlorien, as per John Pack Lambert.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lothlórien. No reason why there should be 2 articles about fictional location - Jay (talk) 06:23, 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 redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Clear consensus for no standalone article. Redirecting to a list as an ATD; should not be reverted without substantial secondary sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chopper (Judge Dredd)[edit]

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

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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Significant character in the stories. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep. Titular character of his own stand-alone series in 2000AD and the Judge Dredd Megazine, and a couple of graphic novel collections. Potential for independent notability there. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd as a plausible search term (despite disamb. present). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 05:56, 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. No indication of coverage in independent sources. RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cursed Earth[edit]

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

Fictional location. 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very significant location in the Judge Dredd universe, covered in multiple storylines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted. If you want to keep as an independent article, please demonstrate independent, real-world (not "in-universe") notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid AfD argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:57, 5 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Judges[edit]

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

Fictional group/organization. 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of the most notable characters in the Judge Dredd universe covered in multiple storylines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's "in-universe" notability. You need to demonstrate independent, real-world notability. 'Delete. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources in the article are used to establish notability. In-universe presence is not an indicator of notability. TTN (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:57, 5 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esgaroth[edit]

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

Fictional location. 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly notable location in The Hobbit and the films and literature based on it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter how many times an author mentioned his creation. We need evidence that others have done so in a substantial way, and this both lacking and not provided by you outside of an assertion that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only thing that would persuade me otherwise is if we could find reliable 3rd party sources that used the way Tolkien wrote of Lake Town as a way to understand his political philosophy. If these articles are only going to be plot summaries they can be covered well enough in the Hobbit. All the more so because some of the assertions here, like the Lake Town/Numenor connections go far beyond anything actually said in the Hobbit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Faolin42 (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment people are supposed to explaintheir views, not just baldly assert them. I would say if we were to keep this article, we should move it to Lake Town (the Hobbit) per the common name rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Johnpacklambert: I have added a new section with interpretations from two reliable sources. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. People are too quick to dump a couple times where a topic is mentioned and call it a day instead of placing it in a more suitable place like an overall analysis of the author's work/views. TTN (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added more reliable sources mentioning the background and etymology of Esgaroth. The subject has been studied by several authors in connection with analyses of The Hobbit, so it is not trivial. A standalone article is merited also because Lake-town is a major setting in the Hobbit films. De728631 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably sourced, with sections pertaining to actual philosophy. Though the middle-earth narrative section needs to be trimmed drastically it is not a reason to delete the article. Devonian Wombat talk 22:00, 5 December 2019

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 minor characters in Judge Dredd. Clear consensus for no standalone article. Redirecting to a list as an ATD; should not be reverted without substantial secondary sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Goodman[edit]

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

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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted. If you want to keep as an independent article, please demonstrate independent, real-world (not "in-universe") notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd as a plausible search term. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 05:58, 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 redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Clear consensus for no standalone article. Redirecting to a list as an ATD; should not be reverted without substantial secondary sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Giant[edit]

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

Fictional character (well, actually this discusses two fictional characters; if kept should be split...). 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted. If you want to keep as an independent article, please demonstrate independent, real-world (not "in-universe") notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd as a plausible search term. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 05:58, 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hall of Justice[edit]

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

Fictional location. 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:55, 5 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 minor characters in Judge Dredd. Clear consensus for no standalone article. Redirecting to a list as an ATD; should not be reverted without substantial secondary sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Griffin[edit]

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

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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted. If you want to keep as an independent article, please demonstrate independent, real-world (not "in-universe") notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd as a plausible search term. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 05:57, 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 redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Clear consensus for no standalone article. Redirecting to a list as an ATD; should not be reverted without substantial secondary sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Solomon[edit]

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

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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted. If you want to keep as an independent article, please demonstrate independent, real-world (not "in-universe") notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd as a plausible search term. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 05:57, 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 redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Clear consensus for no standalone article. Redirecting to a list as an ATD; should not be reverted without substantial secondary sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge McGruder[edit]

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

Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability, despite a lengthy in-universe fancruft fictional character biography. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and (lengthy) list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted. If you want to keep as an independent article, please demonstrate independent, real-world (not "in-universe") notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd as a plausible search term. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 05:57, 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 redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orlok the Assassin[edit]

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

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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted. If you want to keep as an independent article, please demonstrate independent, real-world (not "in-universe") notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd as a plausible search term. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 05:59, 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 redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Shimura[edit]

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

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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst fully merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Possible keep~~. Titular character of his own series in the Judge Dredd Megazine and at least one graphic novel. Potential for real-world notability there. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having done a bit of research, I haven't been able to find any significant media coverage, so I no longer think the character has any real-world notability, and I'm changing my comment to delete. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OR fully merge. This is an odd nomination. "Fictional character" is not a disqualifier. "Analysis" is not the point of a Wikipedia article. WP:PLOT does not apply as the article is not a plot summary, and WP:FICTION is barely a guideline, beyond pointing to WP:GNG. Vizjim (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to keep, please demonstrate actual real-world notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but description of the character’s appearance and a list of appearances, fails WP:GNG Devonian Wombat talk 21:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 06:07, 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 speedy delete. Vanity spam - Michael Dabhi has been deleted and salted — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael dabhi[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Chairman of a local youth branch of a major party. Fram (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt ~~as an a7 because the claim is clearly not credible and borders on a hoax.~~ I misread that he is the president nationally, but as the nom said, local youth branch presidents aren't notable. This is nothing but continued vanity spam. Praxidicae (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt. An article by the name Michael Dabhi was deleted four times. Twice under A7, and twice under G11. But Mike still fails WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:52, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Self-Storage[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Generic self-storage company.scope_creep^Talk 10:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This is a totally run of the mill business. We are a charity, not a free webhost. No encyclopedic content nor significant coverage, just ordinary store openings and zoning news. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in the article are connected to the company or are PR-announcements of moves/openings on industry/neighborhood websites. I looked for other coverage and didn't find anything better. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 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. Discounting the socking. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farm collie[edit]

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

Fails GNG. None of the sources are reliable, two are actually for other dog breeds. Google search reveals nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another "we saved this special breed/landrace to sell to you at a special rate". Google books shows a number of entries for "farm collie", and states that it is also known as the Scotch Collie. Wikipedia does not need 2 entries for the same dog. William Harristalk 10:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first sentence in the lead confirms that it may be suited for Wiktionary or possibly as a DAB for collie breeds...an informal term for a class of herding dog, of the broader collie type. Fails GNG and V as a standalone article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion. Cavalarious (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~To clarify, Cavalarious means that the article is written like an ad. Therefore, delete at ALL costs. Artillericious (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. This "breed" is not recognized by any real organization. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have the Collie article for the type of dog, that’s enough. Brunton (talk) 20:48, 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. Discounting the socking. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old Time Farm Shepherd[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL also, please fix the category)

Fails GNG. The last three sources are potentially reliable, but are used to cite trivial information, such as a single dog used to hunt raccoons. Google search reveals nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This breed appears to be promoted by friends of the "farm collie" promoting people. Google Books shows one book on their training by someone that writes on many subjects, calling into question their expertise on this subject. Fails GNG on the "multiple sources are generally expected" criterion. William Harristalk 10:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG & V. The few sources cited are SPS, non-independent or unreliable sources. None of the long established, reputable breed registries recognize it as a true breed or have it listed in their FSS where records are kept and true breeds are established for V. This is not a case of independent RS being out there to find with further research. Typically, when a dog breed is referred to as “rare”, there’s a reason for it and that reason is usually because the breed never existed as a true breed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion. Cavalarious (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~To clarify, Cavalarious means that the article is written like an ad. Therefore, delete at ALL costs. Artillericious (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~I fully agree. Delete. Infantry-ician (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Clear consensus for no standalone article. Redirecting to a list as an ATD; should not be reverted without substantial secondary sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Grice[edit]

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

Fictional character, fails WP:NCHAR. No stand-alone notability. Unencyclopedic: WP:FANCRUFT, WP:PLOT only written in in-universe style, no analysis from a real-world perspective. No obvious prospect for an encyclopedic article to be written. PROD added but removed. Nicknack009 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Nicknack009 (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Nicknack009 (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Nicknack009 (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst Fully Merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Necrothesp. Subject appears verified but not notable per WP:GNG based on my search. BTW - Nicknack009, WP:NCHAR is clearly a failed guideline so I have no idea why you're relying on it. FOARP (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no objection to soft delete through redirect). 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} 10:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to a merge, but it is surely up to those who want to keep to demonstrate some kind, any kind, of real-world notability. I agree NCHAR was the wrong policy to link to, but Wikipedia's rules on notability are clear, and Judge Grice has none as a stand-alone subject. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, regarding deleting information, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION. Not a shred of analysis.Kacper IV (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd -Jay (talk) 06:05, 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 redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morton Judd[edit]

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

Fictional character, fails WP:NCHAR. No stand-alone notability. Unencyclopedic: WP:FANCRUFT, WP:PLOT only written in in-universe style, no analysis from a real-world perspective. No obvious prospect for an encyclopedic article to be written. PROD added but removed. Nicknack009 (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Nicknack009 (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Nicknack009 (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Nicknack009 (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst Fully Merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Necrothesp. Just as in the Judge Grice AFD, subject appears verified but not notable per WP:GNG based on my search. BTW - Nicknack009, WP:NCHAR is clearly a failed guideline so, again, I have no idea why you're relying on it. FOARP (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no objection to soft delete through redirect). 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} 10:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to a merge, but it is surely up to those who want to keep to demonstrate some kind, any kind, of real-world notability. I agree NCHAR was the wrong policy to link to, but Wikipedia's rules on notability are clear, and Morton Judd has none as a stand-alone subject. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, regarding deleting information, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As a plusable search term with incoming links. Fine with Merge though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no objection to redirect). Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 06:06, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

José Otoniel Salinas[edit]

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

Footballer who fails NFOOTY as he never played outside of El Salvador league (not fully-pro). I believe he also fails GNG: despite the number of references, pretty much all of them besides maybe one (elsalvador.com piece) are routine match reports and transfer updates --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. If anyone has different views on sources and can persuade me GNG is met then please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. G3'd by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cantabrigian Green Library[edit]

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

No actual sources, possible hoax, possibly related to WP:Articles_for_deletion/Rome_2.0 MB 05:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax. I have nominated it as such. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double-nosed pointer[edit]

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

Unsourced orphan, fails GNG. This seems to be a recessive trait found in some breeds of pointer, not worthy of an article. Cavalryman (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on GNG. Although Google Books lists 8 books that have a passing mention somewhere in a sentence, there is no actual material further on them. The article has gone nowhere since its creation in 2013 because further material does not exist. William Harristalk 07:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a bifid nose is an anomoly (aka birth defect) typically resulting from a cleft palate. WP is not in the practice of promoting WP:FRINGE. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:43, 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 and redirect to Gun dog#Flushing dogs. RL0919 (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flushing dog[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Flushing is a single aspect of a gundog’s purpose, interestingly two of the the photos in the article of spaniels retrieving, a separate aspect. Cavalryman (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on WP:TITLE. There are a number of references referring to flushing dogs, however the context shows that these are descriptions of what they do - among other things - rather than what their name is. William Harristalk 08:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a dictionary. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate section of gun dog. Brunton (talk) 20:02, 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. czar 04:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perdigueiro Galego[edit]

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

Only a single source cited, could not find anything attributable on Google and as far as I can work out (their website has no search function I can find) this is not recognised by the Real Sociedad Canina de España (Spanish kennel club. I suspect this is a largely unknown localised breed, but without attributable RS it is TOOSOON. Cavalryman (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is only one source for the "Portugese Galician" from which the entire article has come from, and that is the Galician Ministry for Agriculture. Although I assume that this is a reliable source, the article fails GNG because "multiple sources are generally expected". There are a number of websites that reflect what the Wikipedia article states, however these are unreliable. William Harristalk 08:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too early to be recognized as a breed, fails GNG and V - quite a few of these types of articles appear to be using WP to gain recognition for a beloved pet, or possibly for a new breed-type that is not yet proven to be purebred. When a reputable breed registry recognizes a new breed as purebred or accepts it into its FSS where credible records of ancestry, DNA testing, breeding records and breed standards are verifiable, there will be more RS writing about the breed. Until then, it is an unverifiable crossbreed, or mutt, but a loved one, nonetheless. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 03:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pranoti Nagarkar-Israni[edit]

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

A puff piece for someone whose claim to notability is being the founder of a company that already has its own page (which by the way, suffers from a biased POV). Paul 1953 (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination at this time. @Paul 1953: If you with to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 00:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a quick search after reading the poorly written page and found few sources regarding this person. In my opinion, they do not meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AssadFin (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Rotimatic; WP:BLP1E. - Yeah, that one also would merit a hard look. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more opinion on the redirect proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable entrepreneur. Ashleyuwc595 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete without any redirect. That will just encourage the promoters/spammers. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:54, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Lee (Judge Dredd)[edit]

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

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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion as per Piotrus' reasons. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. 08:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. 08:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep or at worst Fully Merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept" - with this argument we wouldn't be deleting anything. I could write an article about my pet armadillo and use this argument to defend it... see also WP:ITSHARMLESS, WP:ITSUSEFUL. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please try not to be obtuse. Your pet armadillo is not known to many thousands of people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non0-encyclopedic information should be deleted. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that this character has been discussed by journalists or academics. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kleggs[edit]

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

Fictional race. 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion for Piotrus' reasons. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. 08:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. 08:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete There are no reliable sources that describe the Kleggs in a meaningful way. Honestly, I am surprised that we have such a massive collection of articles on obscure elements in the Judge Dredd stories. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Africa (comics)[edit]

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

Fictional location. 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion for Piotrus' reasons. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. 08:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. 08:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete I cannot find any non-primary sources that discuss this topic. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:21, 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 redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Clear consensus for no standalone article. Redirecting to a list as an ATD; should not be reverted without substantial secondary sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Silver[edit]

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

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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion for Piotrus' reasons. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. 08:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. 08:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep or at worst Fully Merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Deleting information serves no useful purpose even if a standalone article is not kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Non-encyclopedic information should be deleted. If you want to keep as an independent article, please demonstrate independent, real-world (not "in-universe") notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I struggle to find even passing mentions of this character in reliable sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 06:26, 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sprawl[edit]

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

Fictional location. 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete non-notable fancruft that fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable location only about appearances and plot. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 20:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:FANCRUFT is equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is not a valid argument for deletion. "Understanding William Gibson" (Gerald Alva Miller, Jr, University of South Carolina Press, 2016) devotes an entire chapter to the Sprawl Trilogy; I found several other reviews and analysis of Gibson's work with significant attention paid to the Sprawl Trilogy and the megacity in which the novels are set. The article may need to be edited to reflect this (I can't; JSTOR access required for the sources I found and I don't have it), but AFD is not cleanup.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vulcan's Forge: You may be interested in knowing there is an article for The Sprawl trilogy, and this is about the location itself. Different things entirely._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing is insufficient to pass GNG. TTN (talk) 12:39, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanelorn[edit]

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

Fictional location. 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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep or at worst Fully Merge to Multiverse (Michael Moorcock). Significant location in Moorcock's works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain which part of GNG fits with your logic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article contains only a single reference, which does nothing other than confirm the existence of one of Moorcock’s books. Pure fancruft. Devonian Wombat talk 02:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real world information. TTN (talk) 12:37, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter the Wobot[edit]

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

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. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion for Piotrus' reasons. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep or at worst Fully Merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Significant character in the stories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's only "in-universe" notability. To have an independent article, the character needs independent, real-world notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No rationale given for keep vote above. AfD WP:NOTAVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find two brief mentions of this character. All other discussions of Walter were either written by the 2000 AD writers or were written by fans. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 06:00, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melian[edit]

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

Fictional character. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep or at worst Fully Merge to Maia (Middle-earth). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No rationale given for keep vote above. AfD WP:NOTAVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no secondary sources. Which means this article is built by taking things directly from reading Tolien's works. This is not how an article is developed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:50, 5 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. Could be created as a redirect if there is a suitable target. RL0919 (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hordes of Chaos[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (books). Deprodded by User:Necrothesp. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. 08:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources come up which makes me think this is close to notable. Only source is a now-archived link to the book. Fails WP:GNG and the book notability guidelines. Fine with any redirects per the PROD if a suitable target is suggested but there's no sourced content to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 09:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Elves where the concept is already covered. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Elves (Warhammer)[edit]

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

Combination of in-universe plot with 'how to play a game' strategy guide based on WP:PRIMARY sources. Fails WP:NFICTION, WP:PLOT and in general, GNG. Yes, I know there are hundreds of articles about how to play with Wood Elves in various WH games, but that's all PRIMARY. If we cannot discuss the significance of this faction to real life (scholarly reception, etc.), there is little we can work with here. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. 08:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant race in a major fantasy world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? This is a subjective view not reflected in WP:GNG. WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, etc. Dark Elves are arguably more significant in that universe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Elves (Warhammer) just ended with a clear delete. COMMONOUTCOMES would be nice to consider before wasting time here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Elves as not notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Elves - Much like the above-mentioned AFD on Dark Elves, there are really no reliable, secondary sources discussing the race in any way that would establish notability, and there is absolutely no reliably sourced content currently in the article to preserve. A redirect to the entry to the main "Races" article is pretty much all that needs to here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a howto guide. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; a redirect is not appropriate as the title is disambiguated. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 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 and redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Lizardmen. RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lizardmen (Warhammer)[edit]

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

Combination of in-universe plot with 'how to play a game' strategy guide based on WP:PRIMARY sources. Fails WP:NFICTION, WP:PLOT and in general, GNG. Yes, I know there are hundreds of articles about how to play with Lizardmen in various WH games, but that's all PRIMARY. If we cannot discuss the significance of this faction to real life (scholarly reception, etc.), there is little we can work with here. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. 08:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant race in a major fantasy world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSIMPORTANT->Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It's_useful/useless... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Lizardmen as not notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. TTN (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect- to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Lizardmen. A vast, sprawling wad of fancruft that's got hardly any sources and the sources that it does have are primary. Reyk _YO! 07:41, 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 merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons goblinoid deities. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maglubiyet[edit]

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

Fictional character that fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not an in-universe fictional biography summary. Could be soft deleted by redirecting to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Prodded by me. Redirected by User:BOZ. Restored by User:Necrothesp with "rv; has been arround since the beginning of D&D; I think this needs to go to AfD". Ok, we are here, outcome obviously is going to be the same so what's the WP:POINT? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst merge by restoring previous redirect. BOZ (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons goblinoid deities, where Maglubiyet has a section. I actually did this a while ago, but the article was recreated. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. 08:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst Fully Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons goblinoid deities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No rationale given for keep votes above. AfD WP:NOTAVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This individual god does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. Non-primary sources regarding him are extremely lacking, which eliminates the possibility of maintaining this as an independent article. And, the proposed merge/redirect target mentioned above, on a quick glance, doesn't actually look like a valid list to keep either. The individual entries that compose it are not notable, and a quick look for sources for the grouping as a whole brought up nothing usable, meaning it probably fails WP:LISTN as well. So, I can't really endorse a merge/redirect of this article to another article that probably should not be kept either. Rorshacma (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into List of Dungeons & Dragons goblinoid deities, for now. If that article has issues, we can examine them separately later on. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional character, pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. But a redirect can be added at editorial discretion if the proposed target does not end up deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garl Glittergold[edit]

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

Fictional character that fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not an in-universe fictional biography summary. Could be soft deleted by redirecting to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Prodded by me. Redirected by User:BOZ. Restored by User:Necrothesp with "rv; has been arround since the beginning of D&D; I think this needs to go to AfD". Ok, we are here, outcome obviously is going to be the same so what's the WP:POINT? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--coverage is all in-universe or primary material. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst merge by restoring previous redirect. BOZ (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. 08:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst Fully Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome deities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No rationale given for keep votes above. AfD WP:NOTAVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero real world notability, fails WP:GNG. Belongs on Wikia, full stop._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome deities. I can't find any sources to show notability, but it's a possible search term. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has appeared in dozens of publications since the 1970s. Insofar as WotC owns the IP, establishing notability through secondary sources is less straightforward.^[1] However, whether it is Dragon Magazine, Volo's Guide to Monsters, or many of the other novels and publications that discuss Glittergold, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The non-primary sources that mention her are passing, at best, so this does not pass the WP:GNG. The proposed merger/redirect target is, itself, up for an AFD and as I stated there, fails WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Notability is not established. If sources exist, they need to be presented. TTN (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:48, 5 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. Options were split about equally between deleting, keeping and merging. A NC result allows for a further merge discussion to take place. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Fictional character that fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not an in-universe fictional biography summary. Could be soft deleted by redirecting to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Prodded by me. Redirected by User:BOZ. Restored by User:Necrothesp with "rv; has been arround since the beginning of D&D; I think this needs to go to AfD". Ok, we are here, outcome obviously is going to be the same so what's the WP:POINT? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst merge by restoring previous redirect. BOZ (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. 08:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst Fully Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons dragon deities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No rationale given for keep votes above. AfD WP:NOTAVOTE.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existing sources satisfy GNG but the article could be improved. There a recent philosophy text that discusses Bahamut specifically. I'll add it now.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, WP:INUNIVERSE, navel-gazing fancruft that fails WP:GNG hard. No indication of real-world notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. It is time to take a stand against fancruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a lot of great independent sources, but there are quite a few that briefly discuss the subject (e.g. Mythical and Fabulous Creatures A Source Book and Research Guide, Critical Role: Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting). Sources like "Bahamut and Tiamat", by Skip Williams is certainly in-depth and it is somewhat independent. The non-independent sources go into great depth and have coverage for years. It's not clearly over the GNG bar, but unlike a lot of the D&D stuff that's seen deletion, this one has seem non-trivial real-world impact (in other games such as Final Fantasy, https://sv.bagoum.com/cards/103041010%7Cthis card game], this bike, etc.) We should be covering the source of the name. Hobit (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Fantasy version merely pulls the name and the fact that it's a dragon, with no other obvious similarities. That, to me, isn't something worthy of note. All of that can be mentioned in Bahamut#In popular culture (after the cruft is removed)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to merge it, why are you !voting to delete? Hobit (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons dragon deities, and make it just a capsule description there like the other entries. There are also a few parts that could be migrated to other articles, such as what's mentioned directly above my comment. But I can't find anything new to keep it as a separate article. I also looked at the existing sources in the article. Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy looks like a great source, but it only mentions Bahamut in passing in a single sentence. Dragons: The Myths, Legends, and Lore is also a good source, but its coverage of Bahamut is only one page and pretty much purely descriptive. It could be a solid source for the merged content. Almost everything else after those is a primary source. The last three entries are promising, but one ("Mythological Accuracy") is just a list from a non-RS that no longer exists. The RPGnet review and the Gygax interview are both passing mentions. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does meet WP:GNG, but I think the merge discussion should probably be separate. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Current sourcing is insufficient. It seems like one of the more prominent of its subset of characters, so it probably deserves mention somewhere on Wikipedia. It does not, as of this time, need an article per GNG though. TTN (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION. Not opposed to redirect.Kacper IV (talk) 11:47, 5 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 Dungeons & Dragons orc deities#Gruumsh. Seeing as for many people "merge" appears to mean "redirect". I see the concern that the target may fail WP:LISTN and thus unsuitable, but if that so one expects that the redirect will be deleted as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gruumsh[edit]

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

Fictional character that fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not an in-universe fictional biography summary. Could be soft deleted by redirecting to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Prodded by me. Redirected by User:BOZ. Restored by User:Necrothesp with "rv; has been arround since the beginning of D&D; I think this needs to go to AfD". Ok, we are here, outcome obviously is going to be the same so what's the WP:POINT? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: no reliable, acceptable secondary coverage. Does not pass GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst merge by restoring previous redirect. BOZ (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. 08:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst Fully Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons orc deities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No rationale given for keep votes above. AfD WP:NOTAVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like many of the other D&D deities that have come up on AFD recently, the non-primary sourcing is extremely passing, and not enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. Additionally, the proposed merge/redirect target does not appear to satisfy WP:LISTN, so I can't endorse merging this there. Rorshacma (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION. Not a shred of analysis. Not opposed to redirection.Kacper IV (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons orc deities#Gruumsh, where the character already has a sizable section. No need for a stand-alone article if it's just for PLOT and trivial publication info. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep orMerge to List of Dungeons & Dragons orc deities Lightburst (talk) 18:15, 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 redirect to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons#Juiblex. RL0919 (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juiblex[edit]

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

Fictional character that fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not an in-universe fictional biography summary. Could be soft deleted by redirecting to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Prodded by me. Redirected by User:BOZ. Restored by User:Necrothesp with "rv; Juiblex has been arround since the beginning of D&D; I think this needs to go to AfD". Ok, we are here, outcome obviously is going to be the same so what's the WP:POINT? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, essentially. Needs more coverage than just an in-universe manual. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst merge by restoring previous redirect. BOZ (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. 08:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Keep or at worst Fully Merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No rationale given for keep votes above. AfD WP:NOTAVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There really is not a whole lot of coverage about Juiblex is reliable, secondary sources. There's plenty of primary sources, of course, and a number of sources mentioning products/books that it appears in. But there is not any real coverage that actually provides any sort of real world notability. And, with no reliable sourced information, there is really nothing to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list page. Nothing of substance to merge, and is already on the list article, so a redirect is warranted.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons, per Onel5969. There's nothing out there about this one. But it is getting hundreds of page views per month, indicating it's a search term. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:25, 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 The Mound (novella)#Plot. RL0919 (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K'n-yan[edit]

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

Fictional location that fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. BEFORE does not show any analysis, only in-universe style summaries. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no helpful rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. 08:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to The Mound (novella)#Plot K'n-yan is a obscure fictional location that is primarily associated with a single story. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Mound (novella)#Plot - Fails WP:GNG for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Philippines polio outbreak[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing especially noteworthy about this particular outbreak of vaccine-derived polio, with its 4 cases, in the context of ~20 outbreaks, and 150 cases of vaccine-derived polio across 16 countries in 2019 (so far). Any more than any particular severe winter storm, there is no reason to believe that this particular outbreak of vaccine-derived polio, among all of them that the world has seen this year and over the past few years, will uniquely have the enduring notability that is described in WP:NOTNEWS as being a critical consideration (it is 'just another outbreak' - it sucks for the handful of affected people, but is unlikely to have historical significance as a stand-alone epidemic), such that it requires special detailed coverage above that given the overall polio eradication effort (which article briefly mentions this Philippines outbreak). Agricolae (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it's the first outbreak in 19 years with coverage in multiple reliable sources I say keep. And many particularly severe winter storms ARE noteworthy especially if they're the first in a country in nearly 20 years. Plus (at risk of being labelled with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Wikipedia has decided every time there's a mass shooting in the US there should be an article about it. Just because a tragic event is "common" does not make it fail the criteria for notability, especially considering that Polio outbreaks in the Philippines are not common at all. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess:: And a few years ago Ukraine had the first outbreak in the all of Europe in more than a decade, and last year it was the first outbreak in Papua New Guinea in a long time, and this year China had its first outbreak in ~~over~~almost a decade. All of these outbreaks get a flurry of reports when they happen, and then the coverage disappears - the end of the outbreaks don't even get reported because by the time they are sure it is over, it is already old news. As to the amount of coverage, there are quarterly national vaccination campaigns in countries that get just as much coverage as this event has. Again, this is WP:NOTNEWS territory - it may not be fair that many of the mass shootings in the US get such coverage, but Wikipedia was never intended to report every time a few people gets sick, even if they get sick of something so unusual that a few newspapers report it and the WHO makes an announcement. As tragic as it is for those affected, it is just another outbreak of the 20 that have happened this year. Agricolae (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the brief mention in Polio#Southeast Asia is quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep/or redirect to Polio#Southeast_Asia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a major, dangerous health crisis. Our millions of readers in the Philippines will be looking for this article. There's no question this will meet WP:42. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But will they be looking for it two years from now? I see no indication that there will be "enduring notability" (WP:NOTNEWS), just like there hasn't been for the parade of other outbreaks of VDPV over the past decade. Are the millions of residents of Ukraine clamoring for news about their 2015 outbreak, or the billion Chinese about their 2012 one?Agricolae (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage in reputable sources. Rathfelder (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I get plenty of results when I Google it. Of course, keep. Dpm12 (talk) 22:02, 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. If anyone would like the article restored to draft to work on, ping me and I'll sort that out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gurlez Akhtar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Too many contradictions and too few references to check them against. For example, the lede mentions three films she has "played a role in", but the Wikipedia articles do not mention her or mention her only as a singer. The "Music Career" section says her debut song was in 2012, but her discography starts in 2004, and does not include the one song cited in "Music Career". The two awards (unlinked, so difficult to check) are for songs that do not appear in the list. It's very difficult to estimate her impact based on this information.

Previously discussed in Articles for deletion/Gurlez Akhtar, which has a comment relevant to this discussion. ubiquity (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could this be kicked back to AFC as a draft? The article has been created once before, obviously there is interest in this person, but the sources in the present version seem not-great and the grammar/style is lacking WP:TONE. Shearonink (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TNT. Like the nominator said, there are many contradictions in the article itself. I am not even sure if the subject passes WP:NSINGER, and or WP:GNG; as I cant be sure if the sources are talking about the same person or different persons with similar names. If thats the case, all the persons fail GNG, including the subject. It is better to have no article than having a faulty/factually incorrect one. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SVP Worldwide[edit]

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

I am only seeing three references, two are broken/expired links and one is a primary source. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a couple of book references. This may point to Keep but to the extent that the most detailed of these (the Buckman book) describes the subject as "a Kohlberg entity", I wonder whether there is enough to justify maintaining distinct articles on Kohlberg & Company, SVP Worldwide and VSM Group or whether some consolidation may be more appropriate? AllyD (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. If a different article should be deleted, file a separate AfD for that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quaid-e-Azam Public School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Adding following related page:[reply]

Thanks. Störm (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative Keep~~ - WP:CORP is the wrong guideline for this as this appears to be a non-profit educational institutional, which it explicitly doesn't cover. WP:GNG appears just about met best on the following references: 1 2 3. However, I think the article may be unclear/in need of a heavy copy-edit as Quaid-e-Azam appears to now be (possibly?) a network of schools - or is this just a common name for schools in Pakistan? FOARP (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, the article which is AfDed is different from one in Karachi (i.e. which is notable.) This one is located in Azad Kashmir and has no connection to school in Karachi, Pakistan. Please, review your vote. Störm (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For a notable school in Karachi, see Quaid-e-Azam Public School, Karachi. Störm (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, happy to flip to redirect to Quaid-e-Azam Public School, Karachi for Quaid-e-Azam Public School, and delete for Quaid-E-Azam Public School and College Paniola Poonch A.K. Guess I was tricked by the multiplicity of schools with this name. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Closing admin may please delete both article and then redirect first one as suggested by FOARP. Störm (talk) 17:19, 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. czar 04:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1918 Wisła Kraków season[edit]

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

Some more pages that fail WP:NSEASONS much like the 1906 Afd and the 1911 Afd as the only references are to a fan wiki. I would also like to nominate these articles for the same reason.

1919 Wisła Kraków season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1920 Wisła Kraków season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1921 Wisła Kraków season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) HawkAussie (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wisła Kraków as standard for non-notable individual seasons. Hog Farm (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent GNG sources for the same reason as the prior AfDs cited in the nom. Despite NSEASONS strong recommendation, I don't see the benefit in creating redirects for every season. – Levivich 06:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and recent AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 10:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index of India-related articles[edit]

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

An alphabetical list of India-related articles. It might have made perfect sense when it was started in 2003, and possibly its existence might have still served a purpose in 2007, when it was kept in this mass nomination of country indexes. Twelve years on, however, it's painfully difficult to see why this should continue to be lying around in mainspace.

The index is not maintained: it lists about 5,400 articles, which is only 2.5% of the 210,000 articles tracked at WP:INDIA. And it is not just villages or other minor topics that are missing from it: it doesn't link to the state of Telangana, or to the prime minister Narendra Modi, nor does it have an entry for what you'd imagine would be timeless topics like Brahmin and Brahman. So it can't even serve as a nominal guide to the more prominent topics, a job that's anyway done much better by Outline of India.

The index is neither complete nor representative, so its very existence is misleading to readers. And it's a magnet for editors' busywork: the regular edits it receives either disambiguate links, or insert links to obscure articles to be then claimed as "successfully de-orphaned".

If this particular list of articles is of any use to any editor, it should be moved to the project namespace. And if its title is deemed to be a likely search phrase, then it could be redirected to Outline of India or to Category:India. – Uanfala (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure what the value of these index articles are, especially when we have categories that serve a similar purpose. And we have loads more of them: Category:Indexes of topics by country. Ajf773 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated my vote to Delete. And I would go further to say every other article in that category should be considered for deletion as well. Ajf773 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to Wikiproject I'm tired of people saying "Indexes are recognized to exist and are therefore immune from deletion until we have an RFC on the concept." This and other indices serve no purpose to the reader whatsoever. There is no reason someone would hunt through a massive unmaintained list of names without context to find something related to India – This is the internet and we have a search function (and a find in page function)! This is not a print encyclopedia where you need an index in alphabetical order to find what page something is on, you just type it in! The network of Category:India is much more relevant to users in navigating and organizing topics and much more likely to cover all pertinent topics since this is clearly quite incomplete. A number of people in 2007 mentioned monitoring related changes: If people use these then wikiprojects should maintain them (and a bot can even keep them updated) but they don't belong in the mainspace. This is what is done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics articles (A). Reywas92^Talk 03:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to outline) per nom. I've tried deleting pages like this in the past (example), but had pushback. These pages may be "useful" in reducing the number of bad edits made (to other pages) by de-orphaners, but that's not a good reason to keep. If the wikiproject want it then move it there, but the wikiproject would be better off creating a new index from scratch. DexDor^(talk) 12:35, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lejla (Elvana Gjata song)[edit]

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

Non notable song failing WP:NSONG Ceethekreator (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is one of a string of articles about this singer created by the same editor, and almost entirely sourced to music streaming sites. She does appear to be notable, but it might need someone who can read Albanian and knows something about reliable sources from the country to determine whether any of her songs and albums are notable. Even Elvana Gjata discography is almost entirely sourced to streaming websites. Richard3120 (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey @Richard3120, I can read and speak Albanian. In general, Elvana Gjata is among the most well-known musicians in the Albanian-speaking world and her song "Lejla" was her last release before working on her international studio album. However, it is difficult to find good sources in the Albanian language because there are very limited official Albanian websites of the musician's music labels, companies and so on. Therefore, international websites such as Tidal, Discogs, Apple Music etc are quite good sources on articles of Albanian musicians because they often publish everything on social media such as Instagram, Facebook or Twitter.--Lorik17 (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iaof2017: I know you can speak Albanian, as you are the creator of these articles. However, Tidal and Apple Music only prove the songs/albums exist, they don't show any notability. And Discogs is simply a listings database generated by users, so it's not considered a reliable source. What we are looking for are reviews or discussions of the records in independent, reliable publications such as newspapers or music magazines, or established music websites with professional journalists and editorial oversight. You can see the likely notability requirements for an article on a music recording at WP:NALBUM and WP:NSONG. If it can't meet at least one of these criteria, with verifiable sources to back this up, the article is likely to be deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure if I fully know how the notability of a song is established on Wikipedia. I am not involved in this or similar topics while editing. However, regarding the sourcing issue, there is a relatively large number of Albanian sources that have discussed "Lejla". Such sources as [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the reliability of those sources, but the problem is they don't say very much – the first five are just announcements that the single is being released or has been watched a lot on YouTube, the sixth is a short story that a girl in America posted a YouTube clip of herself singing the song, and the seventh actually comes from before the song was released, noting that Elvana was teasing a possible new song on her social media. From everything I've found so far, Elvana Gjata really does appear to be a popular singer in Albania. But is there enough coverage for each of her records to make them individually notable enough for their own pages, that's the question. Richard3120 (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120:, the sources are reliable. The song fulfills one, if not more, requirements of WP:NSONG:

1.Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.) [9]

The song, as can be seen in the link, has set a record in Albanian music. However, merging this and any other similar article with Elvana Gjata discography or even Elvana Gjata itself would be, in my view, a more appropriate action. As I said in my previous post, I am not experienced in music articles, and I am just trying to help interested editors create a clearer idea about Elvana Gjata and the song. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added new material in the article anyways with the song release she also released a collection in collaboration with Valdrin Sahiti which marked a step further into her fashion career.--Lorik17 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the "Top Awards" list? Does it meet WP:GOODCHARTS or is it a non-notable listing? And the fashion collection has nothing to do with making the song notable, it's just a convenient publicity tie-in to the song's title. Richard3120 (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top Awards should be the most important music chart in Albania. It is a product of Top Channel, member of Top Media, the largest media company in Albania [10]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does makes it sound like it fails WP:SINGLENETWORK, in which case it wouldn't be a valid chart. Richard3120 (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albania is a country with some three million people so this is not surprising, and it actually passes WP:SINGLENETWORK on the grounds of these stipulations (per policy): Similarly, some charts representing the home country of the artist or composer... can be included if no other suitable charts can be located.--Calthinus (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Give the AfD more time to work through the complexities of Albanian RS and music charts
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not reliable, and some are not the right sorts of coverage, per comments above, especially Richard3120.. OK, she has released songs. That is not adequate. Discogs is user-generated, Youtube and the other are inadequate. Too much hand-waving assertions that editors are sure the singer in very notable. Edison (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firearm (tool)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is heavily WP:SYNTH in how it tries to show various devices are "firearms", despite the definition of "firearm" being a weapon, and not a tool. At worst it's misleading and confusing to readers. Also seems like largely a copy paste job from other articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm stuck between Rename and Delete See my comment below for updated !vote. One issue with renaming is that I don't know what it should be renamed to, even after some research. I'm not against the concept of this article, as the main firearm article does not overlap with the content, and it does represent a coherent category of tools. I also agree that the title is confusing, as the "arms" in firearms refers to weaponry. The terms "utility firearm" and "utility gun" are regularly used to refer to guns that are simply versatile weapons. Guns as tools are also problematic, as that would include non-projectile examples (e.g. heat gun, glue gun). What do we call these things, then? Even if we think of a title, the article is still written like an expository essay and needs thorough overhaul. WP:TNT may apply, especially if the content is heavy in copy-paste.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletor3000 (talk • contribs)

Do we really need articles just to group things that are shaped like other thngs? This article could be better summed up as "gun-shaped objects that aren't guns", but I'd hesitate to even call a flare gun a tool since it's more of an actual gun, just one that isn't used to shoot at *people*. Overall, it seems a bit nonsensical and definitely would need a 100% rewrite if it were to actually be elaboratedo n._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're all guns— projectile guns that aren't weapons. A flare gun is certainly a tool. It's also a gun used to aim and deploy an airborne flare. I do see your point, though. I think a list might be a more appropriate format if this were to exist on Wikipedia at all. Regardless, it's problematic to have an article without any accurate term available to describe the contents of the article. "Firearm (tool)" completely misses the mark (pun incidental). I'm leaning toward this falling into WP:TNT, with the option for someone to compile a list of guns that are tools if they're so inclined, including projectile and non-projectile varities. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems appropriate to me. This article is an ancillary article describing a specific role of firearms that is not well served as being part of the main page. That's precisely why we have subpages like this one. For example, a flare gun (which is a firearm) is clearly not a weapon and so it would certainly belong here. The same goes for concrete anchoring tools like the Ramset. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 20:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that I'm being pedantic, but I disagree that these are firearms, based on the inclusion of arms in the term, which implies a weapon since it literally stems from "armament". Mirriam-Webster defines a firearm as "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder." Including all barrelled projectile devices in the overarching firearm category also includes things like Roman candles and blow guns as firearms. I feel that the article needs to be renamed at a minimum. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends very much on the chosen definition for firearm. That being said, if you could think of a better name for this page then perhaps a rename might work. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been spending a stupid amount of mental idle time churning this one... my best solution so far is 'Gun (tool)' with an expanded scope to include non-projectile guns that are tools (heat guns, glue guns, etc) in their own section. I know that words can expand away from their etymologies, and maybe I'm being too rigid in my definition of a firearm. @Yaf: I wish the article's creator was here to chime in. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Firearms as tools. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ I might be able to make a case for a rename to something like "projectile tools" but I need to give the SYNTH argument some more thought. --mikeu ^talk 23:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was tempted to suggest rename and convert to "List of firearms that are not weapons" but I can't justify per WP:LISTN. --mikeu ^talk 23:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the title debate, this article would be more appropriate as a list linking to individual tools. Its current form leaves no room for expansion except through WP:SYNTH, which as the nominator pointed out, already makes up the bulk of the text. Skeletor3000 (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Concern of the positioning of this article versus Head Articles like firearms, and also whether it should more closely follow a LIST format (e.g. List of. firearms that are tools), to avoid perceived WP:SYNTH issues; other concerns that it just can't avoid TNT-territory; need a further re-list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fails WP:ESSAY written as a WP:SYNTH based on WP:OR, appears to be a WP:TNT case. FOARP (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conference on the Future of Europe[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL, primarily. Only source cited is Ursula von der Leyen's manifesto, and most of the article is literally a quote from this manifesto. Also appears to be no significant media coverage (at the time of this AfD) to meet WP:GNG. No opposition to this article being re-created if and when the Conference becomes more than a suggestion in a campaign document. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 23:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 23:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 23:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 23:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this has no violation of CRYSTAL, since it is an EU organisation. Deleting it just because of a speech is not relevant since other RS can be found. There is also no implication of predictions, thereofre the crystal-ball arguement doesn't stand.WikiAviator (talk) 00:41, 21 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) 01:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the topic is gaining traction - and that neither WP:CRYSTALBALL, nor WP:GNG are violated. I just added some information with more links and verifiable information, which do show, that the topic does have an importance for the European political discourse. On WP:CRYSTALBALL - I assume you argue that the first bulletpoint (neither notable nor almost certain to take place) applies? If so, I'd say that the event has notability (European leaders and politicians are talking about it and discussing its structure at the very moment). On WP:GNG: At this point of time, there is plenty of international coverage mentioning the conference - whether it is pan-European media, German media (Deutsche Welle, Deutschlandfunk), Italian media, Dutch media or others. Sorry for any possible mistakes in this comment! I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia and this is the first AfD discussion I participate in, but I hope that these arguments show, that the article should rather be improved (because that's necessary for sure ;-) ) instead of being deleted. SalmiakiShortbread (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it's fresh yet, a Franco-German intention, Mrs von der Leyen included in her 'to do list' both as a candidate (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf – A greater say for Europeans in 6. A new push for European democracy) and at her 'inauguration'. The 'non-paper' (http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Conference-on-the-Future-of-Europe.pdf) concludes: The final document with recommendations should be presented to the EUCO for debate and implementation. and:

We suggest the following rough time table:
• 12th/13th December 2019 – First Discussion at the EUCO
• January 2020 – Conference concept / Interinstitutional mandate
• February 2020 – Kick-Off of Phase 1 (in particular transnational lists, lead candidate system, issues related to citizens’ participation in EU institutions/matters)
• July 2020 – Kick-Off Conference of Phase 2 in Brussels
• 2nd half 2020 – Launch of EU-wide expert meetings and citizens dialogues (by EU institutions and member states)
• 2021 – Thematic and midterm review conferences
• 1st half 2022 – Closing Conference
wiki-vr.mp (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More sources have been added since the AfD was started. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 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. Although there is substantial support for deletion, there is greater support for keeping this content. The deletion rationales appear to center on the triviality of individual instances, but do not override the evidence that the subject in general is notable. Specific concerns about what columns or information should be included on the page are matters for editorial discussion, not for AfD. BD2412 T 17:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal dog attacks in the United States[edit]

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

WP:NOPAGE it isn’t notable enough to have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneciaTaylor (talk · contribs) 22:48, 26 November 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Added Template:afd2. Cavalryman (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Per request(s) below, nominating subordinate articles:

@JaneciaTaylor, William Harris, RadioKAOS, and Spirit of Eagle: notifying other contributors. Cavalryman (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – just like the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks, Wikipedia is not a obituary noticeboard. At a minimum this needs to be retitled as a list. Cavalryman (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. William Harristalk 01:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As is typical, this was a half-assed attempt at an AFD. List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (before 2000) and List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s) are not included despite serving the exact same purpose as this list. So would the editor who did everything wrong in nominating this for deletion care to explain themselves? It appears you're taking the stance that lists exist to collect wikilinks and not to collect information and reliable sources on the topic stated at the top of the page, but that's not entirely clear to me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect observation; this is a serious AFD process. A bit of care and research would have shown that the list template was in place long ago and has absolutely nothing to do with the AFD nominator. William Harristalk 05:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No biting, please. – Levivich 06:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – Not notable lists, and not a notable intersection, per lack of sources providing in-depth coverage of the list as a whole (as opposed to individual members). – Levivich 06:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see lots of in-depth as well as fleeting coverage of the topic in reliable sources. The nomination and discussion thus far is shallow. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In short, the article has lots of merit and interest to readers and researchers, is a popular oft-read article, has previously been AfD'd as Keep, and this nomination for AfD is a kneejerk reaction by Nom.
- Reason this article has value: (1) It is a list of events, not a memorial to people killed by dogs (you could remove the names of the people and the list would still have value), and (2) it is a subject of intense interest in many sectors. This year alone there has been a fatal dog attack once every seven days, on average. Each year the count rises. Each fatality is accompanied by several news articles and some fatalities are getting over 100 articles covering them. The public passionately comments on every death. Academics, scholars and medical personnel are churning out several high-value studies each year on the subject of 'fatal dog attacks'. It is safe to say that the topic is very much followed by a wide audience. In support is Wikipedia's own page view stats averaging 600 views per day of that article. [11]
- The article has been AfD'd before, on 22 August 2010. [12] The takeaways from the discussion can be summarized as:
  - The list is of EVENTS, not PEOPLE. The events, as a collection, are notable.
  - The earlier title of the article started "List of People..." and it was suggested to focus instead on the EVENTS of the deaths, and that the "the people are merely ancillary information to complete the description of the fatal dog attack, rather than the main point of the list," per Astro$01. This change was made. I agree that the person's names are ancillary, but they are helpful in order to "match" up with news articles.
  - "The overall concept of humans being killed by dogs is notable, the individual entries on the list of course need to be properly sourced but do not need to be notable in and of themselves," per Beeblebrox. I agree that it is the composite collection of fatalities, with its variability as well as patterns, that makes the collection notable.
  - "I've noted that some of the concerns here refer to the insufficient notability of individual events listed in the table. ... The topic - deadly dog attacks in the USA - is what we should judge. It is a notable topic, as is confirmed by the cited studies," per Vejvancick˝. Indeed there are quite a collection of studies on the subject of fatal dog attacks, and many more added each year, meaning that the topic itself is of interest to the scientific and academic communities.
  - "People wanting to research this topic, such as myself, find this list very useful. If you want to see what a "memorial site" article looks like, see Diane Whipple, this is not a memorial but collection of important information," per Chrisrus. Like I said, you could remove the names and the information would be just as valuable. The names, of course, are important for matching event entries with their citations (news articles).
- Reason this nomination is flawed: The Nominator just had her own hard work decimated through AfD "concensus" [13] after a month of discussion about it and 35 other editors involved. Per edit histories, I see that Nom created and worked on an article called People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks. Her last version is here [14]. Someone nominated it for AfD with the result "merge". The final result can be seen at Animal attack#Notable deaths. Someone "pruned" the work from around 150 entries to a measley 13 entries. [15] Nom wrote several times in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks that if her work is destroyed she would nominate for AfD Fatal dog attacks in the United States. And here we are. I posit that the nomination effort is a reaction to earlier events and this AfD would not have been nominated otherwise. Perhaps, also, the flaw in her article was the focus on the people (People Who Were Killed...) and not the events themselves or the collection of events and tie them together with its significance in today's society. But I digress.
- In response to Levivich, the "in-depth coverage of the list as a whole", or rather the glue that discusses the subject of fatalities from dog attacks was moved to the article Fatal dog attacks. The article Fatal dog attacks in the United States was not just a simple list until recently. There was a Talk page discussion earlier this year [16] where the participants seemed to agree to move the non-list info, the studies, to an international or non-country-specific fatal dog attack article, and rename the remaining list as "List of...". The move happened; the rename did not. So if there's any "in-depth coverage of the list as a whole", it would now be in the "umbrella" article Fatal dog attacks which, along with its own collection of fatality events, has links to other break-out articles for Canada, United Kingdom and United States.
  Rosebud0214 (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebud214 your not being truthful. I didn’t say I was going to nominate this article for deletion somebody else did. I kind of regret nominating this article for deletion; I should of let that person do it. The article was going to be nominated for deletion anyway because that person said they were going to do it after the Afd discussion about my article was done, hopefully this article doesn’t get deleted after this, it just that other people would want it deleted off of Wikipedia, and would agree about deleting this article. It is a great article that shouldn’t be deleted. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be side-tracked by other articles, past history, nor rhetoric. This article will stand or fall on its own merits and nothing more. William Harristalk 11:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:LISTN, a list meets notability requirements when the list topic has substantial received coverage by reliable sources. Fatal dog attack in the United States is a subject that has received a lot of coverage and analysis; here are some secondary sources I found after only a rudimentary search: [17][18][19][20]. I believe that WP:INDISCRIMINATE may be a bigger problem: the list size is massive, and I expect that a reasonably complete list would have several thousand listings. However, I think the article does a good job contextualizing the information, and the list is broken up into three sub-articles. Given the extensive academic interest (largely medical and legal) in American dog attacks and the fact that every listing has received coverage in reliable sources, I do not believe indiscriminate is a good reason to delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that a business journalist writing in the business section of Forbes magazine counts as a reliable secondary source, and certainly not an expert one. Certainly the 3 research or professional journal articles do. None of the 3 research articles list dog attacks across the years - one of them lists dog attacks for 1974-75. The article Fatal dog attacks in the United States bases its references on media articles - I do not regard media articles as reliable. There was one Sherrif's Office official report; I do regard that as reliable. The issue is "where do we find a list of dog fatalities in the US spanning years with Significant coverage?" WP:SIGCOV. So far nobody has provided one, yet " multiple sources are generally expected". William Harristalk 11:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LISTN states that a list is notable if it has been covered as a "group or a set"; it states that the "entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources" to meet notability requirements. Here, just about every database you can think of will have several entries on fatal dog attacks in the United States. Many of these sources analyze the dog attacks in detail and examine trends and data points over time. While not every listing needs to be covered in reliable sources, every entry here does in fact seem to be cited to independent sources (meaning it goes above what is required by LISTN). (I'm unsure why local media sources are not considered reliable. They don't establish notability on their own nor would I use them for truly controversial claims. However, the local paper seems perfectly authoritative for information on local dog attacks). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Re "None of the 3 research articles list dog attacks across the years" and "Where do we find a list of dog fatalities in the US spanning years with significant coverage", here are six sources that do: 1979-1988, 1979-2005, 1989-1994, 1997-1998, 2000-2009, 2005-2017. Re "I do not regard media articles as reliable", Wikipedia does. Many Sheriff Office reports nowadays are posted on Facebook, which Wikipedia does not prefer and which have been passed over in favor of media articles for citations. I challenge you to find one single entry on the list that didn't happen. Re WP:SIGCOV, that policy relates to the topic as a whole, and does not govern that every paragraph, every sentence, or every list entry need also have significant coverage. The whole of the list is a topic, and the topic does have significant coverage. (See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article.) Perhaps some of the content from Fatal dog attacks should be brought back into this list article or bluelinks made to there to direct readers to where they can find more information on the topic. You are trying to assign (to lists) rules that do not exist. To wit are multiple other lists in Wikipedia that are similar or equally "no source to tie them together" including List of political self-immolations, List of unusual deaths, List of fatal shark attacks in South African territorial waters, and such trivia as List of fictional badgers. If Wikipedia had a requirement of lists to have some other reliable source to have discussed "the list", then almost every list in Wikipedia could be removed on that basis. In this case, we have scholars, publishers and journals discussing the topic as a whole. This list correctly follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists, "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." This list's entries correctly follow Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria, "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." A few other bits from Wikipedia:Notability: Notability requires verifiable evidence.

Notability is not temporary.

Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time.

I just don't see any downside to leaving the list article in Wikipedia and I see a lot of reasons it should be included in Wikipedia. Rosebud0214 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect conclusion. What you have provided are 4 references about dog fatalities or attacks, which list the dog breed/cross involved and without listing the individual years of each, nor the people involved, nor descriptions. These look nothing like the Wikipedia lists. That dogs attack people and researchers are interested is not the issue here. A better argument would have been that Wikipedia already has an article on "Dog bite", and that these 3 lists provide an adjunct to that article.

No, Wikipedia does not regard media articles as "reliable", it regards them as WP:PUBLISHED, and WP:CONTEXT matters - let WP:BESTSOURCES be your guide. From WP:NEWSORG - "whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis."William Harristalk 04:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebud0214 (talk · contribs), the sources cited above summarise dog fatalities (with some selected case studies) and draw conclusions from those summaries, they do not list each case individually as this list article does. You are correct pointing to WP:LISTN, specifically a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, the sources provided for this page do not discuss the deaths as a group or set, they discuss each individually. Cavalryman (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Response to two previous comments: None of the policies cited by William Harris support the claim that local news sources are inherently unreliable. To the contrary, the policies provide support for the claim that local sources are reasonably authoritative for local dog attacks and other local events. As for the LISTN argument, nowhere in the policy is there a requirement for the reliable sources to be lists themselves; it merely requires that they be discussed as a set or group (which is met here). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Contributions for newly created User talk:Rosebud0214 indicates it is a SPA that was created in October, at which time they added 2 deaths to this list. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - agree with the reasons above, and will further add that if we summarized the numbers as a statistic for inclusion in a medical article about leading causes of death where WP:MEDRS is the prevailing guideline for citing sources, it would fail inclusion. Another issue I've run across is WP:V with regards to corroborating the accuracy of events in some of the cited sources. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think MEDRS applies here, as none of the listings are medical. While dog attacks are certainly of interest to the medical community, the date, location and details of specific dog attacks are not the type of information I would describe as biomedical; mere reliable sources should be enough. There is some biomedical information in the lead section about the dangers posed by dog bites, but these seem to either be cited to reliable medical sources or are claims for which high quality medical sources certainly exist. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, misidentification is a problem per RS, and when visual IDs are used in the coroner's report, issues arise: National Canine Research Council, Michigan State University article. This list plays right into the hands of misidentification. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is a really good point and one that made me reconsider my vote. After thinking things over, I think the list is salvageable if it de-emphasizes the dog breeds. Specifically, the list should not contain a column of dog breeds, note that the reported breed is only a claim by non-knowledgeable parties, and describe in detail the inaccuracy of visual determinations of dog breeds. I agree, based on the sources you provided, that accurate breed identification requires medical or scientific knowledge beyond what can be expected of most journalists. However, I don't believe that this is fatal to the list and that this is an issue that can be resolved through editing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see people don’t have have a consensus about this. This Afd discussion is going to last more than 7 days. This is between keep and delete, hopefully they will decide to keep it. It is a great article that has reliable sources. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Compilation of obituaries/news events of non-notable people. There are certainly sources that let us discuss the topic but such a listing of individuals is not notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be an attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, there are issues at times and occasional inaccuracies, but by and large this is a valuable resource. The solution is to follow WP:PRESERVE and improve, not delete. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's bull, Bull! (Do you get that a lot? ) WP:ITSUSEFUL is a classic argument to avoid. That's not a reason for a stand-alone list. WP:PRESERVE is satisfied by our article about Fatal dog attacks. That's where the baby is; this list is all bathwater. As far as we can tell, no reliable source has ever published a list of all fatal dog attacks in the US. As a set, it's not notable. RSes write about fatal dog attacks in general, and about particular fatal dog attacks, but not about a list of all fatal dog attacks. – Levivich 00:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! No, that's the first time. By your argument, we cannot have any lists here. Otherwise, you may or may not be right about that article being sufficient, although they serve very different purposes, so I'd still miss this list. I'll put the article on my watchlist. I wasn't even aware it existed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could still have lists here, like List of US presidents, for which there are many sources (entire books) that are lists of US presidents. List of black quarterbacks has sources that are lists of black quarterbacks. My view is–and I don't know how widely it's shared–that if an editor is putting together the list by amassing individual entries (rather than basing the list, or most of it, en toto on lists published by RSes), then that's WP:SYNTH. In the case of these fatal dog attacks, all those news reports about dog attacks are primary sources (reporting contemporaneous events), and so the list that collects them together is a secondary source, not a tertiary one, and therefore it's SYNTH. – Levivich 05:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, per WP:NOTSYNTH, "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition". SYNTH is when you put two facts together to arrive at a novel conclusion. Simply listing those facts, one after the other, does not do this. Andrew 🐉(talk) 00:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The encyclopedia benefits from having informative articles like this. All entries are referenced. Whenever a dog kills someone, it makes the news somewhere. One of the founding policies of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Also WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY Dream Focus 02:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN – see Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994 or Fatal Dog Attacks, for example. Andrew 🐉(talk) 15:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN Paisarepa (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTIINFO WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate memorial for victims of a specific death, especially as almost every victim is non notable, including infant children (some not even named), and referenced by a single news report. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN - a quick search for news sources shows several hits that talk about the topic of US dog attacks as a whole, as opposed to individual incidents. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain why we need to list every single victim of a fatal dog attack. Ajf773 (talk) 17:24, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ant-Zen[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a source search, though perhaps I'm missing some directory of German sources? No worthwhile redirect targets, as the list of record labels requires independent notability for its entries. Unsourced since 2011. PROD'd in 2011. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 00:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 00:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:28, 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 redirect to Madina Lake. WP:ATD-R czar 19:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo Camargo[edit]

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

Non-notable member of a band. No reliable sources in the article. Andise1 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Madina Lake. Zero independent coverage outside of band. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was tagged for nine years as having inadequate sourcing. Camargo is not notable indepdent of the band he is in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madina Lake. That band is notable but this member's activities outside the band have received no reliable coverage. His side projects could be mentioned briefly at the main band article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 5 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 Madina Lake. WP:ATD-R czar 19:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Leone[edit]

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

Non-notable member of a band. Sources are weak and more about the band than this member. Andise1 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not seem to exist to support notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madina Lake. All sources are within context of being a member of the band, including RS coverage of his assault, an unfortunate thing that got attention but it's inclusion here really falls under WP:NOTTHENEWS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madina Lake. I agree entirely with ShelbyMarion above. This musician did indeed make the news for an unfortunate incident, but that does not necessarily make him more notable because he got media coverage only for that reason. That incident can be briefly mentioned at the band's article. Otherwise this individual article has little more than non-notable personal facts and adds nothing to what is already covered at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:36, 5 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 Madina Lake. czar 19:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Leone[edit]

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

Non notable lead singer (on his own) of a band. The band is notable, just not this member. Andise1 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the autobiography may help us get over the hurdle of notability. If his life story was worth publishing (although by an independent publisher), he probably warrants a WP bio.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Madina Lake. No SIGCOV outside of band (arguably, no significant cover within the band either, but that's another discussion). The autobiography cited above is self-published--through kickstarter, no less. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Madina Lake has reliable sources coverage such as Exclaim, Alternative Press, Absolute Punk and others so its notability is not in doubt, imv. Regarding this article anything reliably sourced can be merged there and then redirect, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madina Lake. The article is a basic biography of non-notable and un-referenced personal facts, saying little that cannot be said at the band's article. Even the fact that he wrote a Kickstarted biography can be mentioned (briefly) over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pornstar Pets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM: I have not found any reviews by established critics or other significant external coverage or recognition for this independent documentary film about pornographic performers who own animals. It was kept at AfD in 2005, in part because its IMDB entry was taken as proof of notability. Cheers, gnu 57 00:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 00:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 00:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 00:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of a credible claim of significance as well as verifiability and notability. @echo off 03:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent coverage (based on what I can see from a number of rather painful searches...). Interesting how AfD criteria have evolved in the last decade and a half; virtually none of the Keep arguments from the first AfD would hold any water today. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage in reliable sources as for example there are no rs reviews in the external reviews section at IMDB and no critics reviews at its Rotten Tomatoes listing, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previously mentioned reasons.--NL19931993 (talk) 13:47, 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.

^ "15 Craziest Classes In Dungeons & Dragons (That Are Actually Extremely Powerful)". ScreenRant. 2018-05-24. Retrieved 2019-12-03.

[1] ttps://totalwarwarhammer.gamepedia.com/Von_Carstein

[2] ttps://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Vlad_von_Carstein

[one-3] ttps://www.amazon.co.uk/Practical-Benefits-Realisation-Management-Delivering/dp/0993294707/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468144283&sr=1-1

[two-4] ttps://www.apm.org.uk/sites/default/files/apm_sig_brochure_september%202015.pdf

[three-5] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20160820171422/http://archive.bmycharity.com/judgedredd/

[four-6] ttp://sme.bit.edu.cn/Home/enxw/enxzbg/20888.htm

[five-7] ttp://sme.bit.edu.cn/Home/enxw/enxwzx/21721.htm

[six-8] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20160807222547/https://www.tradingstandards.uk/extra/news-item.cfm/newsid/636

[seven-9] ttps://www.apm.org.uk/news/benefits-summit-2015-pragmatic-benefits-realisation-management/

[eight-10] ttps://issuu.com/iirmeconference/docs/benefitsmgmt

[11] "15 Craziest Classes In Dungeons & Dragons (That Are Actually Extremely Powerful)". ScreenRant. 2018-05-24. Retrieved 2019-12-03.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]