Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 5 November 7 November >

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. Consensus is that the sources are inadequate to establish notability for the reasons described by Insertcleverphrasehere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Frost (skysurfer)[edit]

Mike Frost (skysurfer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any reliable sources about this guy, or verify any of the claims about world records or gold medals. He definitely exists, but doesn't appear to be notable. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In addition to failing WP:GNG, it appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO who has been trying work in mentions of himself in related articles as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry as I'm quite new at Wikipedia and have removed most of the bio detail. The internet did not exist when i first started skysurfing and as such find it difficult to secure all the sources so have removed much of this although i can assure you it was exciting. I have been asked by the British Parachute Association to conduct a live web-strem and seminar on skysurfing in January to re-introduce the sport to the global community and would like them to have a point of reference and contact for them so they can undertake this safely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped skysurfing following a major accident and have only re-started in the past few years, now my children are much older and not so reliant on me. I would appreciate any support to make my bio better - please do suggest any changes you think i should make? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skysurfer Mike: Wikipedia is not a webhost for people to post bios about themselves in order to help there public image. You should not be writing about yourself at all per Wikipedia's policies. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again and thank you for the advice.

I've read the policy on self promotion and whilst it is permitted, i believe the amended page maintains a neutral point of view and is no longer an auto-biography, it is not intended as a means of self promotion. I will continue to update to improve and would appreciate any further input you have.

I have published on the topic of skysurfing (in particular 3-ring release systems) as the information contained on the page was either not available or inaccurate. With limited information available to anyone looking to undertake such a hazardous activity it is vital to be accurate. I will continue to edit this page with further detail of the systems which our small but global community are supporting.

Best wishes mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 10:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Jmertel23

I have amended the page considerably and believe this does not contravene the self promotion policy.

I have also read the policy regarding GNG, and believe the page is impartial, with no links to web sites, no auto bios, advertising and sources are all independent. I am more than happy to make any further changes you suggest?

Best wishes, Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 10:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skysurfer Mike, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, as you have put a bit of work into making the article less promotional. I'll have a look at each source on its merits. We need at least 2, preferably 3 sources that discuss the subject in significant detail, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The numbering below is as of the writing of this comment:
Source 1 contains an article that Mike Frost wrote in a magazine: Not independent.
Source 2 is an article for The Independent, written by a third party, it contains numerous long quotes directed at the author; While not in interview format this makes me think this was more of an interview, which doesn't count towards notability because of non-independence (Borderline at best).
Source 3 contains a long piece on Frost, but is clearly an interview which can't count towards notability.
Source 4 is a blog with a passing mention and is not a reliable source.
Source 5 is a forum post which is not appropriate for use at all.
Source 6 another Magazine article written by Mike Frost. Not independent.
Source 7 is just source 2.
Source 8 is an interview. Not independent.
Source 9 appears to be an advertisement featuring a picture of Mike Frost. Not significant coverage.
Source 10 is another Magazine article written by Mike Frost. Not independent.
Source 11 is to a Wikipedia page revision edited by Mike Frost. This is not an appropriate source, nor is it reliable or independent.
Source 12 does not seem to mention Mike Frost at all, though I can't be sure as I'm relying on google translate. In any case, it is about 'extreme Ironing' not about Mike Frost.
Source 13 His picture appears on the cover of this magazine. Not significant coverage.
Source 14 Forum post. Not reliable, not independent, not significant coverage.
Source 15 appears to be a published book. Seems fine as a source, Probably reliable and independent, but is only a passing mention of Mike Frost, therefore not significant coverage and not suitable for contributing towards notability of the topic.
Source 16 is a couple sentences, a quote from frost and a photo and an announcement of winning a trophy. Not Significant coverage.
Sorry mate, but nothing here demonstrates that the topic is notable by Wikipedia's requirements for topics that have standalone articles. At best we have one very borderline source (source 2). We need at least 2 solid ones that satisfy the golden rule. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 13:39, 8 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. Tone 22:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juli Briskman[edit]

Juli Briskman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This woman flipped off the president and got a whole bunch of coverage. She has now been elected to a county level post. Neither of these confer notability under any SNG nor do they add-up to GNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I could never understand this policy of deleting articles that are useful for the final reader. In the end, shouldn't that be the final criterium - what's useful for the end-user? I was just listening to some international coverage on this woman I had never heard of. I got curious, and I looked her up on Wikipedia. I was lucky to find the article and get the context. Who cares if she is relevant according to some obscure criteria that is subjective anyway (to me, she is definitely relevant). What should matter is whether this article is sought and read by wikipedia users who want to have information on a subject. Under tha criterium, no person is too unimportant, as long as readers want to know about her.jlmalaquias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaquias (talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep I agree with the nom. Low level local officeholder fails WP:NPOL. WP:NOT applies. Lightburst (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was media establishing her notability twice: once for being arrested, now for being elected. Either one wouldn't establish notability but now she has been covered multiple times by multiple outlets for multiple things across multiple years. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I’m not even done with the article as it is (as I said in the edit summary I’ve only published the foundation of it) but anyway, for 2 years now the woman has gotten sustained coverage from the biggest reliable sources that exist not just in the US but internationally. If that doesn’t meet general notability then this is pure goal post moving. I mean for God’s sake, the New York Times isn’t good enough for you? The Washington Post isn’t good enough for you? The Independent isn’t good enough for you? Vogue isn’t good enough for you? USA Today isn’t good enough for you? The Guardian isn’t good enough for you? CNN isn’t good enough for you? NBC News isn’t good enough for you? TIME isn’t good enough for you? BBC isn’t good enough for you? That she flipped her local office is a continuation of her saga in the public eye. But as usual, as soon as a female gets an article the deletion machine goes into overdrive. Trillfendi (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not fair. female gets an article the deletion machine goes into overdrive. I reject that assessment. And basically she flipped off the president and the AP coverage was repeated out over and over. Can you imagine how many people have flipped off a president? This one? Now she is a low level politician, and that is it. For the rest of her life, she is the lady who flipped the bird to the pres. And they will run that same photo and bring up that AP article. Not encyclopedia worthy IMO. Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, she is the one who made international news for telling the president she thought he was number one (you get my drift). That act in itself wasn’t encyclopedia worthy, it would’ve been a paragraph in another article at best and she would’ve continued her life a normal working woman in Virginia. The difference is, she turned that notoriety into sustained coverage and a successful foray into politics, no matter how low people see the position, she won the election and once again is in the international news—and the nationwide elections happened on Tuesday weren’t even that eventful so that’s saying something—with facts to verify biographical details. For all I care she could’ve thrown rotten tomatoes at him. Trillfendi (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person flips the bird to the president...and later gets coverage for something not at all noteworthy. This woman has been elected to a low level position similar to an Alderman or even a School Board Member. The coverage she gets is from a liberal media establishment. From here forward all of her coverage will only be as a result of her one defiant vulgar gesture (see headline of every ref in article). If a WP reader or editor is liberal, the woman is referred to as plucky (see below keep vote) If a reader or editor is conservative, the woman is irreverent and not noteworthy. One !voter points out that her area (Loudoun County) is Republican as if her win was notable because of a flip - however her area voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And in 2016 Donald Trump was trounced in (Loudoun County). The state of Virginia also has a Democrat Governor (Ralph Northam) and voted Democrat (Hillary Clinton) in 2016. Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was born and raised in Virginia... I already know how it gets down. It wasn’t that long ago that they Bob McDonnell was governor (it was bloody 5 years ago). Virginia really isn’t the liberal bastion people try to make it out to be when we have teachers probably still using the Abeka curriculum in private schools because they can get away with it, but I digress. Personally, I have no bias for any political party when I edit, let the record show. What matters here is the notability requirements don’t change just because of the circumstances of how they got attention. One of the guidelines is Notability is not temporary. Essentially this woman struck lightning twice. Trillfendi (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. so pray tell how does that not apply to this subejct? Trillfendi (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject". Per Trillfendi. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trillfendi. Sharper {talk} 00:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Trillfendi and Tagishsimon. Notabilty comes in many flavors and from many directions and for many reasons. She has had multiple mentions in RS, ergo Notable Oldperson (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reporting on her election is substantially linked to the gesture she made — The Guardian even words it that way, as Woman who gave Trump the finger elected in Virginia. That The Guardian had to mention the first incident in order to relate the second shows that this is a single claim story. The coverage of her being elected is to a local position, which does not satisfy WP:NPOL, since I take "significant press coverage" to mean more than reporting on only one incident. Regards,  Spintendo  01:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how you can't count two events, magically see it as BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aside from the original media coverage due to the viral photo and her firing, there is now again international coverage of her due to her victory in the Virginia elections. I actually saw a report on her in the mainstream Germans news.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All of the coverage is due to her single act of flipping off the President. Without that, there would be zero coverage. Hence WP:BIO1E applies. Onel5969 TT me 01:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how you can't count two events, magically see it as BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s how it goes: Woman is photographed by White House photographer flipping off the president with face not shown, photo goes viral, woman makes international news, woman gets fired for ‘fessing up to it being her, woman sues, woman decides to run for office a year later rather than appeal for her job back (news covers it), woman wins office 2 years later, woman makes more news than she did the first time. Is it hard? Trillfendi (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Denial is the first stage of grief. Abductive (reasoning) 02:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Grieving... what exactly? The 30 minutes to conceive the article while chilling in bed on my day off? 5 editors are already in agreement with me on notability so try again. Trillfendi (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not you, the Delete voters. Abductive (reasoning) 02:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the largely Republican electorate of Loudoun County elected to elect a candidate who lost her job for exercising her 1st Amendment rights. That alone is astounding, and as multiple, independent secondary sources have pointed out, has national repercussions for the upcoming 2020 elections. Abductive (reasoning) 02:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trillfendi. (And I'm betting we have not heard the last from this plucky woman.) Gandydancer (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely covered in secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trillfendi. I looked her up here to see which company fired her on what grounds, and would have been surprised not to find an article on her here. Preslav (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable has been established. Meets GNG. Articles can easily be found with a quick Google search in major news sources, like the NYTimes, Washington Post, Vogue, USA Today, CNN, etc. Sustained coverage in RS for two years. The nom logic that the only reason why she was elected to office in Virginia was because she flipped off the prez has no merit. She won an election. This is not a case of "one event". Netherzone (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contrary to some of the delete !voters, WP:NPOL actually proves notability in this case. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:SIGCOV, WP:NPOL by a country mile. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than satisfies WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV and per Trillfendi, Tagishsimon, Oldperson , Abductive, Gandydancer, Erpert.--198.185.164.120 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "only notable for one event" argument is manifestly inapplicable. If a person does one thing, gets press coverage for it, and then does another thing, that's two things they've done, even if the news stories about the second mention the first. XOR'easter (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that I clearly respect the many thoughtful, experienced editors who are telling me that I got this one wrong. I'd have already withdrawn were it not for other delete !voters meaning it couldn't be closed anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in that case can we get a speedy/snowball close? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is mountain of coverage her that trumps the known for one event argument. I suspect she probably was reported on by every newspaper in the west at the very least. Here is a Der Spiegel article:[1]. If it is case of she slips into oblivion 6 months up the road, then article can be revisited, but at the moment is vastly salient.scope_creepTalk 11:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep She received international attention for flipping off President Donald Trump. Despite her controversial behaviour, she gained international news which in fact makes her very much notable. Abishe (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The deletion argument here is that certain aspects or events do not guarantee notability. That may very well be the case but it is in itself not a good argument for deletion, as it neglects the fact that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent publications. --Cold Season (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a WP:SNOW keep. As an aside, I may go flip off someone important and hope to get an article on WP. (sarcasm) Pretty clearly a keep. I retract my delete in the face of overwhelming keeps. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstated my delete !vote. My opinion had never changed, I was just succumbing to the snow keep: however the latecomers have convinced me that I should remain on record with a Delete. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A previously unknown Iraqi journalist threw both his shoes at President George W. Bush. I see separate web pages for the journalist and for the incident. Paul Klinkman —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete Ehhhh, I'm very uncomfortable keeping this, but I'm not sure how strong my delete argument is especially given the many keep !voters above. WP:NPOL is in no way satisfied. WP:GNG is arguably satisfied. This really feels like two WP:NOTNEWS public interest stories which have merged into a WP:BLP2E. I'm not going to vote to delete it, but I wanted to comment here in the event someone looks at this ten years from now and wonders what the heck we were all doing then if she never gets any further press coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 10:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that’s where WP:CRYSTALBALL comes in. We don’t know what’s gonna happen even next year in politics let alone in a decade. WaPo sums up the current trend of non-politicians running for office because they were pissed off enough to. Hence why the article wasn’t created before she actually accomplished notability. And as I pointed out up top, one of the guidelines applies to 15 minutes of fame: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. (then again, here we are 2 years later). For myself, I had long forgotten about the story until I was bombarded with news stories about her after the election on Tuesday. So like I said, y’all can call this a low-level position but the only other person who was getting this level of coverage (nationally and internationally) was Andy Beshear of the Kentucky gubernatorial race. Trillfendi (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually where WP:10YT comes in. If she goes from strength to strength, there's no issue. If we never hear from her again, I'm not convinced she's actually notable, and we've just had two "and finally!" stories about the same person. But again, not arguing to delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated to a delete after checking how few votes she received in the county election. I know this will get kept because of the large number of keep !votes above me, but I don't care. Even though she won the election, she only got covered in the election because of the event she's notable for. SportingFlyer T·C 10:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Though I share SportingFlyer's concerns, I'm willing to give this a chance (and there is decent coverage that may indeed satisfy GNG). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super strong delete This "media covered her election" is rubbish. County officials get media coverage for election, but we have decided that is never enough to show notability. Making obscene gestures at the president falls under news, and thus is excluded under the not news guidelines. It is time to rid Wikipedia of its horrendous presentism and the junk articles that clutter it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this rubbish article is kept it will be a sign that all hope of objectivity is dead on Wikipedia and it has been taken over by a liberal cabal that will stop at nothing to force their views into the encyclopedia and attack others in the process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does no one realize that deletion discussion isn’t about votes? Trillfendi (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an easy way to put it saying "!vote". But yes, we all understand the process and the policy rationale's weight. I have cited policy. Mine was not WP:JUSTAVOTE I was initially tabling my very strong rationale so that I would not be standing in the way of a snow storm. But now some latecomers have emerged and I realize I should stay on record as a delete. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all the coverage is for a single event , not notable Alex-h (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage isn’t about a “single” event, it’s about an election (you know, multiple elections happened on Tuesday) whose victor had some notoriety to her name. This isn’t an article about the act of flipping off Trump. Is it that hard? Trillfendi (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in part because the election was hyper-local, she only got 6,300 votes, and the only reason why her election received any media coverage at all is because she flipped off Trump. Denie Corbo got 52,000 votes for School Board in the same election and no press coverage at all. SportingFlyer T·C 10:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Denise Corbo didn’t have an interesting story. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. 🍪 Trillfendi (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This person has had international coverage in 2018 and 2019. Whether we like it or not, "a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it" ". There was coverage of the original event - the photo of her giving the president the finger. There was coverage in Australia of her suing her employer for being forced to resign, and of her being elected. I can assure those who say that she's just a county official, and there is always media coverage of the election of county officials, that there is not coverage of every US county official's election in Australia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - arguably, there's been six events - the flipping, the Trump-tweeting, the firing, the suing, the campaigning, and the electing, of which all have gotten international coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Kapur[edit]

Ajay Kapur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines for academics. Unable to establish notability through research --- appears subject is less notable than many other academics who do not have Wikipedia pages. Backfiah (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Backfiah (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hardly remarkable. Fails WP:NBIO. Ajf773 (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:NBIO.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources we have that are independent of the subject are not in-depth enough for WP:GNG. I found more independent but insufficiently in-depth sourcing [2] but not evidence of actual notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 11 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. Tone 22:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apeiruss[edit]

Apeiruss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Who fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. not enough to establish notability music company or group. This music group seems to be too early in the concept phase for any such coverage to exist then it means WP:TOOSOON for this young singers group. As because they have worked with some famous singer that is Tahsan So, isn't means that they did won something or receive any an award. Even i didn't find any notable album in bangladesh. this article should be Deleted. Nahid Hossain (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not a project I work on in any level of frequency, to an extent that I haven't yet developed an opinion toward delete or keep. I have done a bit of a search to find additional sources that may be usable in the article in some way here and here. It seems plausible to me that a half-decent Wiki article could be constructed from these sources and the sources already in the article, and I'd prefer a rescue rather than deletion. What prevents me from giving this a soft keep right now is that I have no reference for WP:RELIABILITY on these sources. They look less like press releases than other sites I did not list here, but ultimately that's the only judgment call I can make. hewhoamareismyself 23:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nahid Hossain (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they have reliable sources newspaper coverage in the article and also in the Dhaka Tribune so there is no reason for deletion. Also they formed in 2014 so are well beyond the concept phase imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per User:Atlantic306 ((T)).-Nahal(T) 09:06, 13 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 Draftify/moved to draft. BD2412 T 20:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mosel (programming language)[edit]

Mosel (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from a few press releases, I cannot find anything that supports that this programming language has established acceptance by the programming community and therefore may fail Wikipedia's notability requirements.

There are only 10 questions on StackOverflow that are tagged with mosel and the videos I can find on YouTube mostly seem to be related to advertising and tutorials uploaded by the creator. Alpha4615 (talk to me) 21:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Alpha4615 (talk to me) 21:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Alpha4615 (talk to me) 21:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem notable to me. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:(re-!voting below)Keep or perhaps better draftify The likely clever thing to do on this was to WP:PROD it first, and if that fails make sure WP:BEFORE is done properly handfirst. When I checks the old books link and I see entries such as Algebraic Modeling Systems: Modeling and Solving Real World, Modeling Languages in Mathematical Optimization, Queueing Networks and Markov Chains: Modeling and .. I am not going to be convinced by the quality of the WP:BEFORE. I quite frankly haven't delved into the those references but the article plainly isn't currently fit for mainspace. I've put a belated-welcome on the creators talk page for links to the help pages.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Author here. I don't even know if i'm supposed to write on this page frankly I find Wikipedia really unintuitive sometimes.... Perhaps I should have edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optimization_software or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICO_Xpress instead? The 'programming community' which uses this language is a very narrowly focused group of people doing mathematical modeling of systems of linear equations. My suspicion is that references to this industry/language on stack overflow is mostly full of open-source alternatives. Please view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optimization_software for an indication of what this space consists of. The article was meant to be a 'stub' since I don't have a ton of time to complete it in one sitting. I was looking for more of an unbiased assessment of the language's capabilities compared to others listed on that page. I supppose I don't care if this gets it's own page or not. I wanted to link properly from the Mosel disambiguation page as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonybakermpls (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anthonybakermpls Its perfectly reasonable for you to vote here and reasonable for you to !vote here too but you really need to through the help and guidance and this page's discussion may feel like you've us at the trial in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Roughly speaking you've published a draft before it was in a fit state to be published to mainspace. I'd start by taking a copy of what you've done offline or to your sandbox; the page is likely to be deleted at the end of a week (though we might just decide to keep it). Also I'm sufficently weird to maybe decide to improve the page so it can stay in mainspace; but that might not be a good idea as you possibly likely don't have a clue about Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Citing sources (and we don't like youtube much as sources we dont). May be best to seek advice at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Your article will not be until a week has passed since nomination at the earliest. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anthonybakermpls please do not be offended by any of these proposals or actions and to be clear, we certainly appreciate honest and thoughtful attempts to making Wikipedia a better place! @Djm-leighpark has GREAT advice for you and it's a good place for you to start. I personally don't think it's the worst thing in the world if you have a connection to the subject matter as long as such COI is declared and edits are purely objective and factual. In my point of view, everyone who is an expert in something that wants to contribute has some degree of interest. I'm a Microsoft Certified Software Engineer and I have worked with non-profits, medical firms, publishing software companies and educational institutions. Those associations and such don't per se disqualify me from posting in related subjects. However, if I chose to contribute in such a way, I would have to exercise a great deal of caution to avoid diluting Wikipedia and harming the efforts of future consumers of that information. So, yes, please follow @Djm-leighpark's advice. Perhaps we can resolve this without a deletion and improve the quality of the article. Welcome to Wikipedia; we're happy to have you :) Alpha4615 (talk to me) 19:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Then optionally change redirect to point to Anchor [[:FICO Xpress#A-Mosel}} (printworthy, with possibilities etc.) What to say is doing my head in but I'm happiest with that suggested. Mosel is quite linked to FICO and may be developed there ... but that said the language may have some independence so it tricky. Might suit Wikibooks, and might not. Djm-leighpark (talk)
  • Draftify to give User:Anthonybakermpls time to create a suitable article.4meter4 (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Study Hall School[edit]

Study Hall School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school which clearly fails WP:GNG  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Bisciotti[edit]

Taylor Bisciotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are not sources indicating she's notable. Current sourcing includes work biography and two alumni magazine pieces. Lots of non-notable people have appeared on Today so that's no sign either. A BEFORE did not find better sourcing to indicate notability. I think journalists have a harder time proving notability than some people of equal levels of note in other fields but under our current policies and guidelines she does not seem to meet our threshold. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not finding anything other than social media and a few human interest stories, but it does not seem to add up to significant coverage in reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find much either. scope_creepTalk 11:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Willsheer[edit]

Andy Willsheer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E, on the face of it. No obvious sources other than photo credits and the crash. Guy (help!) 21:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guy (help!) 21:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a clear violation of one event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While he might meet WP:NAUTHOR, searching on his name finds no reviews of the books he has contributed to. There is no other coverage apart from the crash event, except one picture of the day by him in the Telegraph [3], for which the caption says 'A biker is engulfed in a ball of fire as his 1950cc twin-cylinder machine explodes. Greger Johansson was performing a 'burnout' to heat his tyre when the 190mph nitro superbike malfunctioned. Photographer Andy Willsheer managed to capture the moment the fireball erupted - and a piece of the engine came hurtling towards him at Tierp Arena, Sweden. Andy says: "There was a bang then he was engulfed in flames. The intake manifold came flying towards me spewing flames, but luckily it clattered to the ground." ' Someone may well write about him one day if he keeps standing in the way of crashes, but they haven't yet. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and lack of significant coverage, being that there is one source that goes in depth about him once. I don't follow car racing, so I don't know how important his books are. As a photographer, there's no evidence his images have won awards or been exhibited in major art galleries. Bearian (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Alternators[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Transformers: Alternators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable toy line TTN (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6 November 2019 Islamist attacks[edit]

6 November 2019 Islamist attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTH combining a bunch of attacks by disparate groups that are covered independently of each other in the media, with no links of any kind presented by news articles or any other reliable sourcing. The "islamist" part of the title isn't even true, since the Thai one is by separatists in a Muslim-majority region and there is no evidence (as of this moment) of any affiliation of the Jordanian assailant. Compare to 26 June 2015 Islamist attacks, which had widespread coverage of occurring on the same day and having the same inspiration. ansh.666 20:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Unfortunately there are lots of terror attacks, but these are not by the same group and haven't even been connected in skeptic media. Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Or split if no connection is shown. Only the Thailand attack has an article. The attacks are notable. Remove Islamist from the title if that motivation can't be shown. Jim Michael (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some kind of split for the other attacks. Might start the articles myself; I had thought they existed, but thanks Jim for correcting me there :) Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — There is no direct correlation between these attacks and the existence of this page is unnecessary, since its purpose is better served by List of terrorist incidents in November 2019. CentreLeftRight ✉ 22:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS perhaps the attacks are not related, the research does not even know. And given that the world has 1.8 billion muslims, it is likely that this coincidence occurs often. Lightburst (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as SYNTH and a violation of NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you all be voting to delete if there were separate articles about each attack & Islamist were not in their titles? Jim Michael (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. ansh.666 02:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the individual events, as I have said 1.8 billion muslims. Not notable. WP:NOTNEWS and we do not have WP:CONTINUED

Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)restoring my erased comment. I assume accidentally erased.[reply]

You don't need to make anymore wikis. Jim Michael you only put one sentence and a source. There is no need if we have current events and you can fit a whole sentence on that. Only make wikis if you can put more sources in and it's actually important. Only two of the attacks today are notable today, the one in Thailand and Burkina Faso. None of the other attacks are even close to being important. 11S117 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS and there is not evident the attacks is correlated. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into List of terrorist incidents in November 2019. Ultimately no need to single out this one day. Also, as most others pointed out, WP:NOTNEWS applies. hewhoamareismyself 05:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When we make this kind of articles about different not related attacks in the world, we can make this kind of articles every day. When the stabber in Lebanon was targeting Western tourists it is notable enough for a separate article in my opinion. Lukasvdb99 (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the 5 attacks in this article happened in Lebanon. Do you mean that the attack in Jerash, Jordan should have its own article? Jim Michael (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant that one. I confused the countries.Lukasvdb99 (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SYNTH and NOTNEWS. No connection between events has been demonstrated other than they happened to occur on the same day. Daß Wölf 23:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH, while tragic, there is no evidence that any of these events are linked to each other beyond anything other than coincidence. No source makes note of this making the article seems suspiciously like WP:OR. There are other dates in history were multiple terrorist attacks or shootings occurred simultaneously while unrelated to one another. Inter&anthro (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete We do not have news round up articles. There is zeron evidence these create a discrete unit, let alone that they were covered as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The events are not related; may be they are in author’s mind but the article does not give any conclusion. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - putting them together is original research and a random list, bordering on a fringe theory. Bearian (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 22:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerax[edit]

Hammerax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tagged this page two years ago as failing GNG for an organisation per WP:ORGSIG. Since then, there have been no improvements. The page is nothing more than a promotional piece for an unremarkable business. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to find reliable sources for this company and failed to do so. From what I have seen, I would argue it is not even notable in its niche industry. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:50, 6 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Ricardo Meade[edit]

Rocky Ricardo Meade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page seems to only promote the entity. It may be possible spam. PROD was declined by the author for no reason. Awesome Aasim 20:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep He's the highest ranking uniformed member of the Jamaican military as the Chief of Defense Staff. That's a clear WP:NSOLDIER pass. The article does need work though. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously. As a general per WP:SOLDIER. Ridiculous nomination. Yes, the article needs work, but he's clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn - apparently I made an error again in not remembering that deletion is not the solution to everything. Will have to disable Twinkle again for a long while :\ Awesome Aasim 05:21, 12 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. Tone 22:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Kind of Town[edit]

This Kind of Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure to Meet Notability Guidelines Hog Farm (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of the discography of a notable artist and written by a notable songwriter. Alpha4615 (talk to me) 22:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable song from a notable album and a notable. country star. Lightburst (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina#District 6. So that people can still access the content if needed (seeing as some people wanted to preserve the content in some way) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Watts (politician)[edit]

Ryan Watts (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office -- although I'll grant that this is better written than the norm for this type of article, it isn't making any strong claim that his candidacy was of enduring public interest. As always, a non-winning candidate gets a Wikipedia article in one of two situations: either (a) he can be properly demonstrated as having already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway (as e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) he can properly demonstrate and source a reason why his candidacy was somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies (as e.g. Christine O'Donnell). The fact that some local campaign coverage existed in his district's local media is not an automatic free pass over GNG, because every candidate in every district in every election can always show some evidence of local campaign coverage in their district's local media. But the only evidence of "nationalized" coverage shown here at all is the raw table of election results on the election-night platform of a media organization that published all the raw tables of election results for every district in the entire country, not evidence they gave Watts any special attention above and beyond other candidates. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if he ever does get elected to a notable office, but nothing here is enough to already earn him permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia today. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Robinson[edit]

Vernon Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, unsuccessful congressional candidate and director of somebody else's presidential campaign committee. As always, none of these are instant notability freebies just because the person exists -- but the references are a mix of primary sources, unreliable blogs, glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that is not fundamentally about him, and routine campaign coverage not strong enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Fant Donnan[edit]

Mary Fant Donnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. This is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself; a person has to win the election and thereby hold the office to be notable as a politician, and a person who runs and loses is notable only if (a) she can be shown to have already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway (the Cynthia Nixon ticket), or (b) she can be referenced to such an unusual depth and range and volume of coverage that she's got a credible claim to her candidacy somehow being much more special than most other people's candidacies (the Christine O'Donnell trick.) But this is referenced entirely to routine reportage of election results, rather than to any evidence of significant coverage about Donnan, which means the sourcing isn't getting her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every person who runs for state-wide office becomes notable. Oddly enough, we lack articles on all the people who have held this office that she ran for. It would be nice if people would spend their energy creating articles on office holders, not unelected candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Swimming pool sanitation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral sanitizer[edit]

Mineral sanitizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as no reliable sources can be found. One source that came up in a gScholar search is but a passing mention. No other sources found. Insufficient to support notability. Geoff | Who, me? 18:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merge is a good option here. Geoff | Who, me? 17:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar Alliance[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Interstellar Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prod-ed article. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT (not a single real-world info) and fails to establish WP:Notability. The present plot information could be summarized with WP:DUEWEIGHT as "Fictional races X, Y and Z formed an interstellar government of civilzations named "Interstellar Alliance", so nothing worth merging either. – sgeureka t•c 18:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia D. Brown[edit]

Cynthia D. Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced biography of a person notable only as a city councillor and non-winning candidate in a political party's senate primary. As always, these are not article-clinching notability claims per WP:NPOL -- neither city councillors nor unsuccessful congressional candidates are notable unless (a) they can be shown to have already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can be shown as the subject of such an unusual range, depth or volume of coverage than most other people get that they've got a credible case to being much more special than the norm. But neither of those things are true here, and the referencing is entirely primary sources with no evidence of any genuine notability-building reliable source coverage being shown whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete city council members need better sourcing to show notability and those who lost senate primaries have never been shown to be notable at all for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 09:12, 14 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. doesnt seem to be much point relisting since no one else commented since the last relisting. There is no clear consensus that GNG is or is not met at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Valdez[edit]

Abel Valdez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about footballer who made a few appearances in the Romanian and Paraguayan top divisions (both of which are considered fully-professional at WP:FPL). The online English-, Romanian-, and Spanish-language coverage of this footballer is entirely routine (poor guy suffered with swine flu while in Romania: [4]) and the presumption of notability in WP:FOOTBALL doesn't hold when there is such a comprehensive failure of WP:GNG. The article hasn't been improved in the past 10 years, and with the complete lack of significant coverage, there is no reason to believe it ever will. Jogurney (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails GNG which is more important than squeezing by on NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I was not able to find anything on the internet for the majority of his WP:NFOOTY pass, his Paraguayan career, but I did add a couple of sources I found quickly to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG with sources added since the nomination. Meets NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand how anyone would conclude that article meets the GNG. The prosport.ro transfer announcement article is the closest thing to significant coverage, but it reads as routine coverage to me (just a quick rundown of his prior career). Jogurney (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The combination of that one, and the Gazeta Sporturilor, both a decade old, from a quick search for a player that meets WP:N does it, barely, for me. I'd think a detailed search would find more. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I respectfully disagree; the gsp.ro article is nothing more than a note about him contracting swine flu. I did a detailed search and found nothing that gives an impression of significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I don't see these as GNG, because they say almost nothing about this player. What are we going to write in our article? "Abel Valdez was signed in 2009 to Astra Ploieşti, played two games, and got the swine flu." (That is pretty close to what the article actually says.) We just don't need stand-alone pages for articles that won't grow beyond a few sentences, because nobody is writing secondary sources for us to summarize. – Levivich 03:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus divided over whether to keep or delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 18:13, 6 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. Fenix down (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Bouanga[edit]

Didier Bouanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Didier never played a fully professional league game, his brother Denis did instead.

The only game attributed to him by Transfermarkt is a November 2014 Lorient-PSG game. However, the source in the article itself clearly states that it was Denis and not Didier who played in Ligue 1, with Didier only playing for a reserve team. There is also an interview made right after that match clearly stating it was Denis who played and not Didier.

He did not played for any national team either: he was called for Gabon U20 but his club never released him.

There is no evidence he played in any further professional or national team match: bar this misattributed Lorient-PSG game his Transfermarkt profile is empty — NickK (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:43, 7 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. we are not the Guiness Book of World Records — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Ayub Khan[edit]

Farhan Ayub Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by a sock of a blocked editor but it had some edits by other people so not eligible for G5. The claims to notability are 1) a few Guinness World Records for things like "Fastest time to burst 20 water balloons with the feet" and 2) his appealing to the Government of Punjab to help him with his college fees two years ago. Regarding the former, being a Guinness record holder does not automatically lead to notability, and while the latter was covered in a few newspapers at the time, it's pretty much WP:BLP1E and there is no significant coverage. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 6 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. BD2412 T 20:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usha Reddi[edit]

Usha Reddi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a deputy mayor of a small town and a not yet elected candidate in a future political party primary. As always, neither of these are NPOL-passing notability claims -- a person has to win a congressional election, not just run in the primaries, to claim notability on that basis; politicians at the local level are not automatically notable just because they exist; and the historic firsts that a person will represent if she wins an election she has not already won are not valid claims to special treatment. But of the eight footnotes here, four are primary sources and four are the type of routine local coverage that every local municipal politician in every town can simply expect to receive, which means none of it is sufficient to render her more special than other smalltown deputy mayors or other not yet elected congressional candidates. If she wins the senate seat next year, then obviously it can be recreated as her basis for notability will have changed -- but nothing here is notable enough to already get her over the notability bar today, and Wikipedia is not a public relations venue on which to publicize her campaign in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no prejudice against re-creating the article later should notability be established. Suggest trying another wiki for now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Usha is notable for being the first Asian american elected and sworn in as mayor to any city in Kansas. She likely was notable when she was elected in 2013 to the mayor position. I can edit the infobox to show her term as mayor as well. I think the article isn't written to publicize her campaign. I noticed that she is the only candidate that does not have the page created, which is why I authored it. There are more primary sources that aren't just from local media outlets which I can include. I tried to include a diverse mix of sources. Furthermore, I read through WP:BLP and I don't see any clear line of notability that is cited there that would prevent an article on Usha to be included. So long as the article focuses on only her public career and what can be cited in the public domain and is written from a neutral point of view, unless I am reading that wrong. Certainly her page on Ballotpedia or another wiki are also good places for this information to be updated, but when I was reading through the article on the 2020 Senate election, to me, it didn't feel right that Usha's name was only a blue link when she has already accomplished a lot as mayor and two-term elected city commissioner. She also had a failed bid at state school board which I have yet to include in the article. WaltBren (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can provide details of the independent, third party coverage required by the general notability guideline or WP:POLITICIAN or some other means I'd be happy to change my position. I applaud your enthusiasm, and I hope I'm wrong! The KC Star article is nice I admit... but I see no mention of her in the WIBW article. The KMAN article is just election statistics and the Winchester Star article is about a man charged with rape but has no mention of the person the article is about--we can presume she was the victim and it's normally good policy for newspapers to not print the name of the victim, but even if they did just being a victim although tragic doesn't make an individual notable. The rest of the articles (from what I can tell) are useful for confirming data but not necessarily for confirming notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, mayors who hold the position on a rotational "everybody on city council gets a turn" basis, and are not directly elected by the voters, are never inherently notable just because they exist — that type of mayor is accepted as notable only if you can demonstrate a reason why they're uniquely much more notable than most other mayors.
      Secondly, "first member of X group to do an otherwise non-notable thing" is not an automatic free pass to being special, either — if she wasn't the first Asian-American city councillor in the entire United States, then you don't get to spin off 50 more second-level firsts for the first Asian American city councillors in each individual state, and then thousands of third-level firsts for the first Asian American municipal councillor in each individual town or city within each state. If her firstness doesn't have nationalized significance, then just being able to claim that she was the first of something is not an exemption from having to pass our regular notability standards the normal way.
      And thirdly, the fact that the article is written in a fairly neutral, rather than blatantly advertorial, tone isn't relevant — it was still created because she's running in a political primary she hasn't won yet for an office she hasn't held yet, and that's not a notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this brave woman. There is media coverage of her childhood rape and her quest to convict her father. Coverage of her term as mayor. Queen Viga (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mayors who rotate in and out of the job by virtue of their town's or city's mayoralty being a ceremonial "everybody on city council gets a turn position" are not presumed notable just for being mayors — a mayoralty has to be a directly elected executive position before the person has a potentially valid notability claim, and even directly elected executive mayors still don't all get a guaranteed notability freebie just because they exist, because our notability criteria for mayors still require much more than just being able to show technical verification of the fact that they've been elected mayor. And as unfortunate as having been raped is, and as glad as I am that she's overcome it, it isn't a notability claim either. And every municipal politician everywhere can always show some evidence of local coverage in her own local media, so the existence of some local media coverage is not a free pass over GNG that exempts her from actually having to pass NPOL by holding a notable political office: smalltown mayors don't pass GNG unless and until their coverage has nationalized far beyond where it's merely expected to exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's starting to feel like her political supporters are using Wikipedia to further the cause. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete unnominated candidates for public office are not notable. Not every member of the city council is notable. The routine local coverage plus primary sources does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. If she manages to pass this threshold later in her career the article can always be recreated.4meter4 (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis Monthly[edit]

Hepatitis Monthly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Journal is likely not notable, but i'm not 100% about the policies around this. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 6 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liam MacDevitt[edit]

Liam MacDevitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY as they have never played in a fully-professional league. The article also has an apparent WP:COI issue as it appears to have been created by the subject, initially in draft. When the draft was declined, they copy/pasted it to mainspace anyway, and then removed a WP:PROD. Number 57 16:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question has now also repeatedly removed the AfD tag on the page. Number 57 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 6 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) 19:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lipid therapy[edit]

Lipid therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a hoax. While there are various medical techniques referred to as lipid therapy (e.g. lipid rescue, drug therapy for cholesterol management, and some quack cancer treatment), there is no such thing as a controversial medical technique that entails the injection and expulsion of fats and lipids, which proponents claim can improve cognitive and memory function. The article claims that it is popular with celebrities and has drawn scrutiny from the FDA and the Department of Agriculture, but no sources are provided to support these assertions, nor can they be found.

The medical claims in the article are nonsensical, e.g., lipid therapy can be easily discerned by the painful pressure in the thoracic cavity engendered by the sudden dip in plasma viscosity. Globules of lipid polymers also produce a significant shear strain on capillaries, causing the skin to pale and the tongue to swell. Content like Since most toxins in the body are fat soluble (according to practitioners), this causes the patient to defecate a translucent slime seems like childish potty humour.

The cited sources don't contain any references to this technique according to Google books previews: [5], [6], [7]; the last source is about lipid rescue. There are no results for "therapeutic lipovenous injection" outside of Wikipedia mirrors and no relevant results for searches like "lipid therapy" +celebrity, "lipid therapy" +pseudoscience, etc. I found 2 references to it on blog sites: [8], [9], but the wording of these posts makes it clear that they're just cribbing from the Wikipedia article. I was tempted to tag this for G3, but since the article has been around since 2008 and the title is hard to search for I decided to bring it here. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per analysis from nom. While there are a number of medical practices or treatments referred to as "lipid therapy" or something similar, none of them appear to have anything to do with the claimed procedures in this article. Either this is indeed a hoax, or something so minor that nothing was written about it. Either way, it can be deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not quite sure this is a hoax per se. I think this is quackery, taking the legitimate use of lipid emulsion as a treatment for fat-soluble drug overdoses, and wrapping that up in the "purge the toxins" fetish. But in any case, there aren't really any sources evident, and even if we happen to dredge up a couple, this would certainly run afoul of WP:FRINGE besides. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to exist, not even as a quackery treatment. I find it a bit odd that these two blogs put so much work into paraphrasing this, but they do indeed seem to just be paraphrasing this article. The fake bibliography is sneaky. If confirmed, this would be the 11th longest living hoax here. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say that the half-life of quackery websites is generally quite short, so there's a real reason to suspect that the web presence of one fringe treatment or another might have evaporated since the 2008 article creation. But on the other hand, the article creator's editing pattern (ten trivial edits to innocuous topics, then this article creation, a couple userboxes, and out) is one not unusual for people sneaking in wholly fabricated content. Six of one, half-dozen of the other, I suppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other thing that makes me suspect it's a hoax is that the article doesn't seem to be promoting the quackery. Its talk of "slimy discharge" and "questionable documentation on their acquisition of the animal fat" is rather offputting. It really reads like someone making up something gross as a joke. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that was my impression, too — it reads a bit like someone inventing a gross "treatment" that celebrities would faddishly go in for. I wonder if fabricated bibliographies (books that sound like they're relevant, etc.) are common for long-lived hoaxes. Anecdotally, I can recall a couple instances, but I'm not sure if anyone has looked into that tactic systematically. XOR'easter (talk) 18:07, 6 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. I think the keeps have it here. The arguments based on notability criteria for authors have the clearest policy-grounded consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. O'Neill (Navy SEAL)[edit]

Robert J. O'Neill (Navy SEAL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly only noteworthy for one event which appears to be self-proclaimed, coverage presently in Death of Osama bin Laden is sufficient. Prod removed without explanation MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • .Delete The executioner of Osama bin Laden has not been identified by the Department of Defense, Navy, State Department. We have only the published word of one man, in a book to which he contributed. A one time event might be notable, were it verified by RS but the only source for this article is a book written by the man who claims to have done the deed.Oldperson (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now in secretive operations like this we have to accept the published claim. About the most notable thing a Seal can ever do. Meets GNG Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Killing one of the most wanted terrorists out there definitely will get you known, but this is a debatable subject. Barely clears WP:GNG for me. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 14:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe he passes WP:GNG. In addition, his book appears to have spent a few weeks on the NYT Best Seller list. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He is only really notable for the unconfirmed claim that he killed bin Laden which I think makes this a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Only the book gives me pause, but that's essentially just an extension of his claim. PC78 (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just to note that this article has been moved to Robert J. O'Neill while this discussion is still open. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets criteria #3 of WP:NAUTHOR as his book was on the NYT Best Seller list. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics and culture of Bhat[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Demographics and culture of Bhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing it here for a community decision, as I've had some disagreements with another editor about it. As poorly sourced as most village articles, but should at least be mergeable. DGG ( talk ) 11:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor seems to be removing extensive content and sources after the afd was placed, which does not seem the way for a fair community discussion. I have restored it, but if anyone looks and sees a one-sentence article, look in the history. DGG ( talk ) 11:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete Not encyclopedic at all. First point is this is so small village besides Ahmedabad and has population of 5000. The creator made articles on small features of their villages and all of them are being nominated for delete by me.
Second thing, first reference is primary but that should not be problem. Main problem is second and third source. Second source is for Karnataka which is 2000 Kms far from this place and another source is Tarla Dalal's book. Second book is book for recipes, had NO MENTION of village or food of village in it.
Third thing, this is whole encyclopedic. What the legend of Krishna birth has to do with demographics of culture?
Fourth thing, it is dangerous OR and fails WP:V. Noone knows that Sindhis and Marwaris are living there and vegetarianism is being practised there. This violates basic policy of verifiability.
Fifth thing, I can challenge the community that they can't even find more than one para about village. I am living near this locality and this is just small village like other villages. If this article will stand then tomorrow some people will demand separate article for each and every village. Definitely, creator was WP:NOTHERE to built encyclopedia but to promote his village on the platform by making some silly articles.
Delete this ASAP to save the time of community.-- Harshil want to talk? 16:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting - removing significant content under the guise of "silly", when those are claims of notability, will potentially hinder the quest for WP:V and WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The demographics info is the only worthwhile, sourced content, and that's already in the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main article. This town is the size of a small borough in New Jersey or Pennsylvania, and tiny for a country of its size. There is zero need for it, and would confuse an ordinary user. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dubai Marina. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 16:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Quays[edit]

Marina Quays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any reliable secondary sources for this topic, nor have there been any sources on the page since 2015. Has previously been rejected for speedy deletion but no major improvements to the page seem to have taken place since. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Merge - the wrong speedy was initially used - this is unsourced and fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. SportingFlyer T·C 10:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to merge after the WP:HEY. Still not notable enough for a standalone. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep seems quite notable per WP:NEXIST policy. Many reliable sources exist - yet they are not in the article. They await an ambitious editor. In any event our policy does not call for delete based on the nominator's reasoning. Looks like one that can easily be improved. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Lots of mentions, but nothing in-depth. Onel5969 TT me 16:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks User:onel5969 I will continue to look for additional sources to meet WP:NBUILD criteria. I also submitted to ARS so please check back soon to see if your opinion stands after a cleanup. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Dubai Marina, where residential complexes are listed. Would be improvement to that article without diminshioning integrity of this information. A better Wikipedia:BEFORE would have been good, as there appears to other refs, and as one contributor mentioned likely enoough for GNG.Djflem (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • HEY Wikipedia:HEY, the article has been improved and should be re-reviewed.Djflem (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate you trying to turn this into an article, but I'm still a strong delete, though I think at least some of this information can be up-merged to Dubai Marina. I ended up doing a full source review after a very bad experience with the first source as you'll see below, and there's not a single notability-granting source currently in the article:
1) Architect's website, apparently - I was directed to a browser-hijack webpage, so cannot confirm, but that's the reason why I ended up doing the full source review
2) Does not mention Marina Quays
3) I didn't see Marina Quays mentioned, but it's a scroll-thru-the-photos style article which I think we typically significantly downweight or exclude for notability purposes?
4) One mention of "Marina Quays," but it's not clear it's discussing the development
5) This is a real estate website
6) The "Sales and Leasing expert" mentioned the development's name and nothing
7&11) Emporis is a building database, not used for notability
8) Appears to be the official website of the Dubai Marina, Primary
9) Skyscraper Center is a building database
10) Flatreviews.com is an apartments aggregator
  • I"m happy the article is improved, but it's still not yet notable, so I think an upmerge is the best way to go. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These are exactly the kind of references one could expect to find unless we are talking about an internationally known building like the Empire State building. Thanks for the hard work Djflem! NBUILD this area and Marina Quays has social, economic importance Additionally the architecture feature of the cantilevered building, extending 20m over the Dubai Marina waterway is notable. A merge is not a terrible idea, my only concern is that the Dubai Marina (target for merge) will likely be a bit long soon. Many of the notable topic headings have not been fleshed out or linked as of yet. Construction continues. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The info in this article is easily stated in one paragraph which would not overburden target in any way.Djflem (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Sources are pretty routine real estate content that don't appear to establish notability as any more than generic tall(ish) buildings people live in. They're luxury but can be covered in the main article with their lookalike neighbors. Reywas92Talk 20:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The entire article could easily merge over to Dubai_Marina#Marina_Quays. Dream Focus 22:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Delete (or Merge) Lightburst, Djflem thank you both for your attention on this article. When I had originally nominated I had found a lot of these sources, but to me they did not seem to add to the notability of the article, as they were either sources that were overly promotional or sources that were clearly not independent. I’m a new editor so I’m very happy to stand corrected, but I still believe that this content does not merit a stand-alone article as per WP:GNG. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dubai Marina. There's not enough independent sources to shows why it should be notable singly. صدیق صبري (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looks like we are headed for a merge and I will concur. Perhaps someone can put the merge in motion before a full delete. Lightburst (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize with AfD process. A merge would take place after this discussion is closed.Djflem (talk) 22:19, 12 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. Both articles have past proposed deletions or deletion discussions, so WP:SOFTDELETE is not an option, and the lack of any commentary besides the nomination makes it impossible to determine a consensus. RL0919 (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darussalam Islamic Academy[edit]

Darussalam Islamic Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Darul Huda Islamic University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Darussalam Islamic Academy is a non-notable Islamic academy affiliated by another non-notable Islamic academy, Darul Huda Islamic University in Kerala. Both fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kutyava (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation Management[edit]

Presentation Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable concept. Basically a marketing buzzword, so WP:NEO. Fails WP:NCORP. Most of the references in the article are either the websites of companies which sell this kind of software, or articles written by Alex and/or James Ontra, the co-founders of one these companies (Shufflrr). My own searching found nothing better.

Almost certainly WP:UPE and/or WP:COI. Article creator did the usual, 10 quick edits to get auto-confirmed, then droped in a 5k perfectly-formatted pile of spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not seeing anything to support notability and appear to be an attempt to promote Shufflrr. GSS 💬 13:48, 8 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. Tone 16:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Babylon 5 articles[edit]

Index of Babylon 5 articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Index of articles related to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I guess index pages are allowed on WP because of Category:Wikipedia indexes, but I haven't seen such pages for TV shows in ages, and I believe them to be unnecessary because categories will do the job just fine. – sgeureka t•c 14:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CLN which explains that we have a variety of ways of helping readers navigate our voluminous content and these are complementary rather than exclusive. Categories are quite inadequate, because they do not support citations and their tree structure does not work well with multiple independent keywords. Indexes are a traditional way of navigating reference works and so it is quite reasonable that we should support them. Andrew D. (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, potentially speedily so. I've never been a big fan of index articles; the project supports them as a sort of analog to the traditional table of contents. Personally, I think they tend to be incomplete, often poorly maintained, and rarely accessible to readers. But my opinion on them doesn't matter as an issue of policy; index articles (and the similar outline articles) are explicitly permitted as part of our system of navigation tools. If you desire to change this, AFD isn't the right venue (indeed, "the deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy"). If the argument is that specific articles on the list need to be deleted or merged, then the right approach is to consider those articles and not the index. And even if we assumed that the currently in-vogue cull of fiction-related topics pares the list down somewhat, there's no realistic claim that this isn't a valid index. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counter-argument: WP:WikiProject Babylon 5 is marked inactive, and WP:WikiProject Buffyverse seems to have been dead for at least the past 5 years, so these index pages clearly aren't used as navigation tools anymore, so they have lost their right of existence (IMO). – sgeureka t•c 18:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - Seems like a pointless relic of the past. That a set of articles is allowed does not mean it actually needs to be utilized. There are only two fiction-related ones in the category, so it's not like this is a major trend. TTN (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still tend to feel that's a policy revision that would preferably need an RFC first. Don't get me wrong, I'm inclined to argue that we deprecate indexes and outlines in their entirety. But that's not up to me (and isn't in order at AFD). Right now, indexes are a permitted navigation structure, and there's nothing prohibiting their use in fiction or fiction-related topics; if anything, that just means that index-space is not done (and I'd oppose a fiction restriction; things like The Simpsons certainly could support an index). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say it's less a denial of policy and more simply an editorial decision to retire functionally useless and hard to maintain pages. Categories are so much more useful in not requiring manual updates that I don't see much valid reason to keep them unless they are religiously maintained and have a large enough page view count to substantiate their usefulness. TTN (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many of those links are just redirects? Anyone got a bot to show that? As long as enough of them are links to valid articles, this list/index article should remain. Dream Focus 18:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until such time as index-related policy changes, but with major trimming to avoid overlapping. Links to List of Babylon 5 episodes and List of Babylon 5 characters are sufficient, not ones to every damn (fragging?) one. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep But cull and then perhaps redirect. The vast majority of these entries appear to be articles on episodes, and those that are not are not actually "articles" but redirects to sections of other articles like Civilizations in Babylon 5. Several of the others that are articles should probably be merged per WP:ALLPLOT (Centauri (Babylon 5) and Lyta Alexander were the first two I clicked on that were actual articles, but neither of them should be actual articles from what I can see). It's entirely possible that once all entries that are not actual articles are removed, the index will be completely redundant with List of Babylon 5 episodes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now This list/index article should remain. Lightburst (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as it stands, i don't recommend deleting it yet. It's just a navigational list. Some of the articles may not all be notable or are redirects. I recommend reviewing all the articles in the index before trying to delete the index itself. I'm in the firm belief that if the articles are well maintained and check notability, then indexes aren't normally needed for franchises like Babylon 5. But that's just a personal opinion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Squeamish Ossifrage. I too think WP:Indexes are kinda dumb, but policy says they're allowed. No good rationale has been given for why these specific nom'd index articles are less worthy of existence than any of the others at Category:Wikipedia indexes. Colin M (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JesseRafe (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator, spurious OR removed by other editors, and it stands as a standard set index article, as noted below. JesseRafe (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna (Korean name)[edit]

Hanna (Korean name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly written original research and unsourced claim. Two notable individuals have this name, but there is no info that their uses are related to each other and most significantly to the Hebrew name Hannah.

This user has a long habit of adding unrelated homophones to various articles, never using any citations. About a week ago, the user added these two people to the "Notable people named Hannah" section on that article and they were removed. They also add various unrelated Korean and Japanese names to name articles in/from other languages. The existence of this OR page is only justifying their disruptive behavior. JesseRafe (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page creator was just blocked 72 hours for persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. JesseRafe (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think classifying the creation of this article as deliberately "disruptive behaviour" is entirely correct. If one assumes good faith, it looks more like an evolving attempt to understand and adapt to how things work around here. What User:서덕민 seems to fail to grasp, is that they need to have some references (citations) behind what is written. I'll leave it to others about whether this name is notable or not. Nfitz (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't even get to the point of whether it is notable if it can't even be ascertained for truth. The user has a history of spurious additions based on their own fancy and this has no sources. Notability is not the question, it should be spedily deleted, but there was not a neat and tidy option for that. JesseRafe (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the existence of Gwon Han-na (and a reference), Kang Han-na (ref), and Han-na Chang (ref) confirm that it is indeed a Korean female given name? To me the question is notability - and English spelling (Hanna vs Hana vs Han-Na vs Han Na all from 한나), and whether this could be merged with it's homonym Hannah (name) or List of Korean given names. I don't see spurious editing, or disruption (beyond the lack of good citations). Nfitz (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify to Draft:Han-na. First of all, the spelling "Hanna" is not supported by any sources, and so the article would, at the very least, need to be moved to "Han-na". The paper from The SNU Journal of Education Research added as an external link by Genericusername57 (thank you for that, it was very helpful!) discusses how Korean given names written in a Romanized form generally have hyphens between the syllables. See also List of Korean given names which has "Han", 한, in its list of first syllables.
There are three people called Han-na with articles in Wikipedia, so it certainly exists. The SJER paper includes "Han-na" in a list of foreign first names for girls in 1996, but that is a very tenuous source to use in order to state for certain that the name is etymologically related to "Hannah" (especially as it doesn't say that – it's a natural inference to make, but I wouldn't want to accept that kind of OR). The paper does not discuss the name specifically, unfortunately, and I haven't (yet) been able to find any other sources. (I thought for a while that this was the same name as Ha-na, discussed in Hana (name), but that's written with 하, not 한.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree - but I note that 2 of the 3 articles I referenced above, just happen to use the Hanna spelling despite the Wikipedia articles for the same people using Han-na; I don't know if there is any implication from that. Nfitz (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Where is the "original research" or "unsourced claim"? This is merely a set index article for notable people with the Korean given name "Han-na", no different to so many others. The people on the list do not need to be related to each other, that's the point of an SIA. The name doesn't appear to be particuarly notable, but a source has been added and the nom doesn't make a compelling or even valid case for deletion. PC78 (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest, however, that if kept or draftified the article is moved to Han-na. PC78 (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think my nom can be withdrawn. At the time of the nomination there was OR and an unsourced claim that the Korean name was derived from the Hebrew name. This page creation followed [a few attempts by the creator https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hannah_(name)&action=history to add these Han-nas] to the Hannah (name) article. As an SIA, I think it passes muster as it conclusively exists, and I also agree that it unambiguously should be found at Han-na with no disambiguating qualifiers required. The fact that it was unnecessarily made at this name space speaks to the WP:CIR issues a now-blocked editor brought up at an ANI about this now-blocked editor, the page creator. JesseRafe (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Barron[edit]

Thom Barron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR: none of the references currently in the article constitute significant, external coverage in reliable sources. #1 is a promotional profile on a porn site, #2 and #3 are product listings by a porn vendor, and #4 appears to be a self-published internet pornography database. Looking for new sources, I found only a paragraph on a German gay website[10], plus a name-drop in a German LGBT pop culture trivia book [11]. The additional sources on the german version aren't useful either: a wikipedia mirror and some fansites/personal websites. I don't believe that Mr. Barron's industry awards count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. Cheers, gnu57 14:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. My own search for RS coverage confirmed the nominator's assessment. This article would not have passed any recent version of PORNBIO before it was superseded. There's nothing to support notability per WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR/WP:ENT either. • Gene93k (talk) 08:09, 7 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. Tone 16:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Stokes[edit]

Catherine Stokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage. scope_creepTalk 13:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see four independent sources giving in-depth coverage of this person. This means it passes WP:GNG.--TM 15:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are they not very local, defeating the whole point of SIGCOV? scope_creepTalk 16:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to re-read the policy.--TM 16:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I thought, a non-answer. As far as I'm concerned it is minimal, local coverage only, that fails to pass WP:SIGCOV, nor WP:BIO. It has been previously deleted at Afd and as supplied, the references are not sufficient to satisfy WP:ANYBIO.scope_creepTalk 16:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The location of the source is immaterial. Here is the standard by which to judge this article: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject." Are the sources significant? Yes. Is there more than one? Yes. Are they secondary, reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject? Yes. --TM 17:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. Locality is not part of WP:N. Scope may be thinking of WP:AUD or WP:GEOSCOPE. The former applies to organisations and adding it in for people was (it seems) rejected [12] but its removal from organisations was also rejected.[13] The latter applies for events (in a rather weak form). Thincat (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite often Deseret News is questioned on grounds of lack of independence on LDS matters rather than for its locality. WP reported status is that it is reliable but we have no consensus on independence.[14] Thincat (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to be good-RS. Thanks for that @Thincat:. I'm think WP:AUD is more applicable. The coverage for the most part is interviews, there no secondary sources of any real value. I can't see Salt Lake Tribune as its not GDPR compliantscope_creepTalk 11:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see two non-trivial sources and see that the subject passes WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what they be exactly? scope_creepTalk 16:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have sourcing to the Salt Lake Tribune which is a major regional newspaper. There is adequate sourcing here. I am guessing if you did a deep dive on Chicago sources back to when she received her highest government appointment you would find more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 10 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. Mostly due to concerns that the sourcing is not independent enough to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of dimensions of the Discworld[edit]

List of dimensions of the Discworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overly in-depth, plot-only, non-notable fiction article. TTN (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The background of Discworld is discussed and detailed in a variety of books including the following. The topic is therefore notable and the rest is matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per policies including WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Discworld and the Disciplines
  2. The Science Of Discworld – a series of books in multiple editions
  3. The Discworld Atlas
  4. The Intertextuality of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld
  5. The Folklore of Discworld
  6. The Turtle Moves!: Discworld's Story
  7. Turtle Recall: The Discworld Companion
  8. Secrets of The Wee Free Men and Discworld
  • Comment I haven't looked at the others in depth, but I want to point out that "The Science of Discworld", "The Discworld Atlas", "The Folklore of Discworld", and "Turtle Recall: The Discworld Companion" are all official discworld books, written by Terry Pratchett himself. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Science of Discworld series seems to be written by a variety of authors including respectable scientists such as Ian Stewart. It appears that Pratchett's name is put on these works in large latters as a form of promotion – a publishing practise known as sharecropping or ghost-writing in which famous names are used to sell works written by others. Anyway, the works are best-selling and have been published in multiple editions and Pratchett has been dead for years now. The topic is clearly notable and attempts to wikilawyer this away are not credible. Andrew D. (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirty seconds worth of research at our own article on The Science of Discworld shows that yes, it was written by Pratchett himself, as the books are a combination of fiction written by him in addition to the included writings by the other authors. And I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the fact that he's been dead for years - all four of those books were written before he died. You are going to need to provide some evidence about your claim that these were just "ghost written" by him or they slapped his name on for marketing purposes if you want anyone to take them seriously as reliable sources, as all evidence points to them not being independent in the slightest. Rorshacma (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article confirms that that that set of works involved multiple authors besides Pratchett. It also confirms that the series sold exceptionally well and so it is clear that the scientific background of Discworld has been noticed and is notable. And this is one of several entries above which include a variety of unauthorised works too. This is ample evidence that deletion would be inappropriate and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this article isn't about the "scientific background" of the series. It is a list of several of the entirely fictional dimensions that make up the setting. Even if you were somehow able to convince people that official Discworld books are somehow independent sources, that really doesn't mean much when the "scientific" portions of these books don't actually discuss these fictional dimensions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude, seriously, there are limits to inclusionism. I've read all of the SoD books. They are co-written by Terry, he wrote about half of what's inside them (every second chapter). This is just embarrassing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lazy pile of useless junk by someone who can't simply admit he doesn't care an ounce about any of the topics on which he comments. TTN (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - another bit of fancruft, with no real world notability. And that's coming from someone who's read every book by Pratchett.Onel5969 TT me 17:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely in-universe plot summaries, with no indication of any sort of notability for the grouping. I already went over above why four of the proposed sources are ineligible for providing any kind of notability, as they are not independent of the series itself. Having taken a look at the other four, I can now say there isn't enough there to pass WP:LISTN. "Discworld and Disciplines" and "The Intertextuality of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld" are certainly scholarly sources - the problem is they do not really discuss these dimensions at all. The latter, in fact, is just a text describing the difficulties in translating the series in other languages, and does not mention a single one of these listed dimensions. That leaves "The Turtle Moves!: Discworld's Story" and "Secrets of The Wee Free Men and Discworld", which do talk about them somewhat, but only in the context of in-universe plot summary. There is nothing in them that denotes notability for this grouping. Rorshacma (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:ALLPLOT article with no encyclopedic basis, Wikia level fancruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- nothing but crufty, in-universe plot summary. I agree with Zxcvbnm that this more resembles a Wikia article than anything encyclopedic. I'm a fan of Discworld but this is completely untenable. Reyk YO! 08:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While the list of dimensions does not appear encyclopedic, and most of them are not notable on their own, I would think that L-space might be notable on its own ([15], [16]). Seems like this single dimension has quite a few cultural references. Any librarian who would like to rescue that part? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The L-Space section is currently unsourced, and seems to have some WP:OR problems. I guess it could be covered with one or two paragraphs in Discworld (world), but it's not mentioned there a single time. I'd be reluctant to recommend a merger at this time, but I wouldn't fight it either. – sgeureka t•c 09:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has gone to a level of madness. Rorshacma has described the issues better than I can, so I will just second him. I have read most of the Disc world books, I watched the film or whatever it is "Hogfather" last night. This is beyond the event horizon for totally trivial article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Middle-earth rivers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anduin[edit]

Anduin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yes, Tolkien works have the distinction of being the most studied and written about out of all fantasy fandom. But I don't think a fictional river, even Tolkien's, passes WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. All sources I see are primary references/description. Because, let's face it, the most you could try to write about it's real world connection is a sentence on two about its name, and I don't even see good sources for this. There is also the so-far unreferenced section in the article about proposal to name a real world object after it, but at best it's WP:ONEEVENT, and at worst, it's WP:TRIVIA. This fact may be used in a sentence about Tolkien's works impact in general, perhaps, but it's hard to argue a fictional river is notable because few fans proposed (and failed) to name a real object after it. (There is also a distinct possibility the discussion about whether real objects in NZ could be renamed after Tolkien's works might itself be notable, but again, WP:NOTINHERITED). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 6 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 12:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some token text to List_of_Middle-earth_rivers. --Izno (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is certainly going to be more notable minutia for Middle Earth than other series, but this is not one of them. TTN (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't believe this subject warrants a stand-alone article, but a mention in a list about Middle Earth geography is justifiable. Hog Farm (talk) 3:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Middle-earth rivers. Goustien (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhya Jain[edit]

Sandhya Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NACADEMIC. Her (self-written) CV is a few miles away from even being remotely impressive. ∯WBGconverse 12:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 12:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 12:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable individual. When your main claim is related to your father you are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is essentially a publications list for a NN journalist, who has occasionally written academic articles or books. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 10 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 Darkseid. This is trending more towards the conclusion that the topic isn't notable, mainly due to lack of evidence to the contrary - we need some measure of sourcing to establish that and mere assertions are not enough; the redirect argument is perhaps the most detailed presented here. Also, there isn't any policy-based reason I know of to insult other people at AFD, no matter how much they annoy you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grail (DC Comics)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Grail (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional topic. This is not the same topic from previous AfDs under this name. TTN (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snark only works if you actually have something you could use to justify your position. I guess continue acting like a petulant child if you think that helps. TTN (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, can you please refrain from using AfD debates to insult other editors? Ford MF (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Towards him? No. He is completely disingenuous. While I definitely disagree your over sourcing standards on most of these AfDs, I can at least respect that you're doing everything in good faith. He is not. TTN (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Darkseid, where she is already covered in quite a bit of detail. A relatively recent character, she does not appear to have much in the way of non-plot summary coverage in reliable secondary sources. As all of her appearances have been in connection with her notable father and, as I said, she is covered quite a bit there already, redirecting to Darkseid's article makes the most sense. Merging is not really necessary as there is not much in the way of content here, and the small bits of primary sourced story content is already largely included in Darkseid's article already. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Darkseid per Rorshacma as not individually notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable if you don't have any sources outside her own appearances, still doesn't need own article. Reywas92Talk 18:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep comparatively new but currently significant character in the DC landscape. Tidied article a bit and added further refs. Ford MF (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Cooper (writer)[edit]

Terry Cooper (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been unable to find any significant coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page: beyond the single reference on the page, there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage to demonstrate Cooper's notability as an author, illustrator, actor, artist or rapper. I am also nominating the following related page: it's a novel created by Cooper, but doesn't appear to be independently notable and the page is a near-orphan with no references:

Kangazang! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Chase[edit]

Jon Chase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been tagged for over three years as being a possible COI creation. While it may be the case that in "2008 he was identified by The Guardian as education's 'Next Best Thing'", he doesn't appear to have garnered any significant coverage since and doesn't meet GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chase has never become the "big thing" as predicted 11 years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against a refund to draft if this becomes more significant as a phenomenon. BD2412 T 19:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petconomy[edit]

Petconomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. A dictionary definition with not much coverage in sources other than the odd passing mention. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • draftify or delete, judging from a quick search, petconomy seems to be a thing in Korea, an as the initial creator disclosed on their user page they are Korean, they might have access to better sources in their language. It also seems the page is still under construction, which is why I would argue for draftify and see if it can be improved and referenced enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Achaea (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • changed vote to delete, as there's been no work on this article since my last comment. Achaea (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 01:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana Development Forum[edit]

Telangana Development Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The content in the article doesn't quite live up to the expectations when the notability issue matters. Abishe (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:39, 6 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. Consensus is that this corporation fails the notability guideline. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pyras Technology[edit]

Pyras Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of sources to prove the notability of the article. Abishe (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Information on this company is primarily to be found in Mandarin, a language I do not read (I note that businesses in non-English speaking countries are heavily underrepresented on english wikipedia). However their accomplishments seem to stand for themselves in establishing notability, their hardware is above your head right now and they are one of the major subcontractors on a current jet fighter program, those appear to be significant contribution in their field. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only trivial mentions from the sources, fails WP:CORP completely. STSC (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. That said, I have no doubt performed poorly at searching chinese sources. HighKing++ 16:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regrets. @Horse Eye Jack: unfortunately wikipedia is interested not in what is true but what is verifiably true. There is just not any references in the English language to warrant an article, and unfortunately Chinese language publications in this content area are usually classified by the Chinese government. It's doubtful RS in any language will be found. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Thompson (Revolutionary War)[edit]

William Thompson (Revolutionary War) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company commander. Can't see how he is notable. scope_creepTalk 10:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:12, 6 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. Tone 10:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messed Up[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Messed Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has 19 sources, but I see exactly one reliable one among them (taz.de). Is this good enough? Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What makes Cafébabel, Messed!Up, Street Beat Records, minutenmusik, TRVE LOVE, and Chaos w mojej głowie unreliable sources? What makes taz.de more reliable than them? The primary sources are only used to confirm basic details and self-proclaimed statements about the band, so their use is acceptable. The Facebook events are clear confirmation of gigs, including some major ones. What kind of "reliability" are you expecting from an article about a politicised punk band on an independent label? It's not like The Wall Street Journal are gonna be writing about them... The amount of attention they're already getting in German online media, for example, is already amazing considering how small this band is. They are most likely the only all-female band in Belarus and also likely the second ever Belarusian band signed to a German record label. If you have a problem with some of the sources (which you did not explain at all), perhaps try to find ones more to your liking instead of just lazily nominating the whole article for deletion? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the user, who is the creator of the article, has canvassed users to come here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked them to come and share their opinion, especially to show support IF they agree with the defence. You have yet to provide any kind of serious justification as to how the other sources listed are "unreliable". I guess I could also be rude and say: "the user above has not provided a proper rationale for the nomination", but I prefer to address others directly when I am speaking/writing to them as it is common decency... --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the user, who nominated the article for deletion, has yet to provide an actual explanation. He may also better acquaint himself with Wikipedia guidelines, as "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus". The users who have been asked to share their views here were asked to do so if they agree with the arguments for keeping the article - if they disagree or are not convinced either way, they are completely free to support the deletion of the article or simply not comment here at all. No one is controlling them. Mr. Blanter might also wish to familiarise himself with proper etiquette. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for teaching me the Wikipedia policies. It is particularly refreshing to get this lesson from a user who has made 2000 edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome and thank you for finally responding to me directly. I'm sure you're completely missing the irony of a middle-aged male professor born in Soviet Russia trying to get an article about young Belarusian feminist punks deleted from Wikipedia. And since you have still not provided any reasonable explanation for this, I think it's safe to assume your desire to delete the article is motivated by ideology or maybe some personal vendetta against dissident Belarusians or Poles? Who knows, but it looks like you're trying to hide your real POV (see this for reference) behind a weak rationale involving zero explanation. It is also entertaining to see that you too have "canvassed" another user to join this discussion, only using a template to feign neutrality when the choice of the person you reached out to is obviously not random or neutral neither could it ever fully be when it comes to notifying individuals. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you would need to read Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and stop providing your opinion about my motivations, which I am, to be honest, not interested in. Concerning my notification of the user, it is done by automatic tools which I used to nominate the article for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you had actually provided an explanation and illustrated how all the other non-primary sources used are unreliable, then there would be no need to make any assumptions whatsoever. Instead, you chose to act smart and "flex" about your status on Wikipedia while being condescending to someone who simply chooses to spend less of their time on this website than you do. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fundamentally, the question here is whether there's a second reliable source (as Die Tageszeitung is unquestionably the first). I think that answer is probably yes. Cafébabel is a distinctly weird publication, based on the concept of participatory journalism; however, it doesn't appear to be "user-generated content" in the way that normally excludes sites from satisfying WP:RS. It has a stated editorial policy, and includes editorial oversight both in terms of article topic selection and traditional prose editing; additionally, it is published by a recognized nonprofit that partners with Europe for Citizens. We've certainly accepted far more marginal sources as reliable elsewhere. And there's no question that the article in question offers a significant treatment of the subject. Now, some of the other sources? Probably not as good. But that's not a deletion rationale. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see an indication of notability in the sources present. Ss112 16:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There were several reliable sources in the first version of the article, but many of those used were also unreliable or not accepted on Wikipedia - though the initial statement when the page was nominated for deletion was a gross exaggeration and clearly not a deletion rationale, as pointed out above. However, since then all the unnecessary less reliable sources have been removed and plenty of much more reliable ones (including articles from very well-known news media outlets) have been added. If there was any rational and non-POV-motivated argument for deleting the article to begin with (which, as illustrated, there was not), there most certainly would not be one now. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:: According to Wikipedia guidelines, the discussion for an article nominated for deletion should run for a full week (168 hours). This time has passed, so I was wondering when will we see the outcome of this? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 09:27, 13 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. Tone 10:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bagio White[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bagio White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While the initially proffered sources are apparently debatable, the evidence provided later of notability carries has not been disputed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Hughes (sports entertainer)[edit]

Cameron Hughes (sports entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is on Wiki from 2008 and really there are no WP:RS for him to pass WP:GNG. Cheering and dancing with a tennis player doesn't makes you notable. Meeanaya (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on much more reliable source coverage than this. Two of the three footnotes are the same deadlinked video piece, whose content is unverifiable for the purposes of establishing that it was about him in any non-trivial way — and the fact that weblinks often die and become completely unverifiable is precisely why one of the conditions that a source has to meet is that it is permanently archived somewhere accessible (e.g. ProQuest or Questia or newspapers.com), so that we will still be able to locate it 10, 20, 50 years later if we need to. And the only reference that is still live is a blog piece in which he is not the principal subject, which is not in and of itself enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG: 1, 2, 3. Just because some sources weren't in the article doesn't mean they don't exist. Should be expanded, not deleted. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LVSportsBiz is not a reliable or notability-supporting source at all — and while the other two are better, they aren't enough. GNG is more than just "two pieces of media coverage exist, regardless of context": to get a person into Wikipedia on just two valid sources, they would need to have an "inherent" notability claim that guarantees an article, such as winning a major award or being elected to a state, provincial or national legislature. But if you're going for "he hasn't done anything that would normally be expected to get a person into an encyclopedia, but he's still notable anyway just because media coverage of him exists", then you need a lot more than just two acceptable sources to get there. As I've often pointed out, if the mere existence of two sources were enough to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from having to be notable for any conventionally significant reason, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who got into a couple of newspapers several years ago for finding a pig in her front yard. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alongside the two reliable sources already cited by Sportsfan77777: Business Insider (2015), HuffPost (2017), Las Vegas Review-Journal (2018), Psychology Today(2011) (a blog post, yes, but by the notable & published sports psychologist Sam Sommers). Clear pass through WP:BASIC. While Bearcat's mother's former neighbour can't get in per WP:BIO1E, Hughes has been covered by multiple newspapers over a significant period of time and for several events, including two article-length profiles in national newspapers. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources provided by Tenpop42 and Sportsfan77777. Collectively its enough RS to meet WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the above editors have made a compelling case. Hughes has been covered by more than one newspaper over time and for more than one event. Lightburst (talk) 01:00, 15 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. Unfortunately barely any opinions have arisen from this discussion, although some sources which might be used to improve the article have surfaced. Let's try again some other time. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline24[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Deadline24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, no independent sources, can't find anything that suggest it is a notable event (programming competition). PS. Last AfD I found two sources, but in the end, they don't go much beyond press release and are local/niche. I guess few years later I don't think it's sufficient. PS. I also started a deletion discussion on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2019:10:22:Deadline24. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Last one seems to be have been held in 2018. Cannot believe someone removed earlier refs, or perhaps I can. Would be nice to keep but unclear if salvagable at the moment and not my priority.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears some academic publications have resulted from this event. Here are some additional sources to consider: [17], [18]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional organization, no indication this passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:12, 29 October 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 08:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's a valid argument. And no, your own WP:REFBOMB of vaguely related things doesn't count.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge The topic is doubly notable as there is plenty of coverage of both the fictional concept and of its influence on modern military, as high-tech infantry follows the fictional precedent, like many other SF concepts. The only issue is whether it would be more sensible to merge to mobile infantry as the general broad topic, but that page is under attack too. A selection of sources follows:
  1. Nanowarriors: Military nanotechnology and comic books
  2. Putting Your Young Men in the Mud
  3. Heinlein's Starship Troopers An Exercise in Rehabilitation
  4. Starship Troopers, Galactic Heroes, Mercenary Princes: the Military and its Discontents in Science Fiction
  5. Teach phenomenology the bomb: Starship Troopers, the technologized body, and humanitarian warfare
  6. Starship Troopers' Influence on the American Military
  7. Eyekon: augmented reality for battlefield soldiers
  8. Exoskeletons for warriors of the future
  9. Imag(in)ing Tomorrow's Wars and Weapons
  10. A Strike Back at the Empire— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs) 02:19, November 1, 2019 (UTC)
It is sad how many people ignore GNG, and its requirement such as in-depth coverage. I reviewed the first source on your list: [19] and the mobile infantry is mention in passing in a single sentence: "They also point to Robert Heinlein’s novel Starship Troopers (1959), with its vividly depicted powered armor and its heroic (if quasi-fascistic) mobile infantry"... sorry, this is just 'google hits' list of sources. Please tell us which, if any, provide in-depth coverage, instead of being mentions in passing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is sad how many people misrepresent and misunderstand GNG. This does not require "in-depth coverage". It does not use the phrase and so this is something that Piotrus has imagined or invented. What it expects is significant coverage and this is not the same thing because it "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". What is required is that it "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". The source in question provides this, being brief but succinct and so verifying numerous facts about the topic such as the name of the author and the MO of the MI. As it appears in a scholarly paper about the general concept of hi-tech soldiers in fact and fiction, it serves us well by placing Heinlein's mobile infantry in this wider context. By itself, the source is not enough for an article but it isn't by itself; it is one of many sources which cover the topic. Taken together, these give us ample material to support an article and so we're good. So, Piotrus's objection is refuted and the validity of these sources is established. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You purposely left out "more than a trivial mention." When looking at the one source in particular, it's clear that the topic is part of a laundry list of similar items being used as examples of that particular topic. It is given no major focus, and there is no commentary on it. That is the definition of a trivial mention. The source has no use at all in the article, and that you list such a basic source gives absolutely no confidence that your link dump has anything of value. TTN (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable topic. The above sources should be discounted unless the user can actually take the time to show how they provide significant coverage. Laundry lists of sources do nothing for a discussion when the user is simply using the above links and grabbing any source that seem reliable. It's no better than a bot could do. TTN (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this was a snow keep previously the nominator waited 6 years to renominate. That is dedication to a cause!. Sources WP:NEXIST to show notability and so this is a keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Starship Troopers. That's where this content belongs.4meter4 (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as its meaning is obvious from the name, and it currently just lists appearance info. No prejudice against redirecting it (for more context explanation) to Starship Troopers or Terran Federation (Starship Troopers) (should that even be a stand-alone article?). The given sources generally appear appropriate to improve the setting and influence of the franchise/film article, but not this fictional element. – sgeureka t•c 11:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no sourced content on the page currently worth preserving, and its a fairly unlikely search term. The entry on the Mobile infantry disambiguation page, pointing to the main Starship Troopers article, is a far more likely way for people to get to where they need to go. Rorshacma (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of coast artillery regiments of the United States Army[edit]

Armorial of coast artillery regiments of the United States Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article, despite having two paragraphs of sourced useful content, falls afoul of WP:GALLERY which states: Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

Article belongs on commons where it is already included in c:Coats of arms of U.S. Army Units, although this article can still be moved there as a separate page dedicated to the now defunct coast artillery.

Please see prior similar discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of U.S. Cavalry Regiments, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of U.S. Artillery Regiments. Hydromania (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel of Russia Festival[edit]

Jewel of Russia Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not have any reference to which we may determine notability. Upon further investigation, we see that the article was created by the event organizers with user:Jewelfestivalrussia Danidamiobi (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked for sources and found nothing. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found promotional adds for the festival going back to 2007. It exists and involves some of the most important cultural institutions in Russia. I would expect that Russian media would have covered the event. This a topic where Russian language sources will be vital for proving WP:SIGCOV. I don't speak Russian, but editors who do are needed to help evaluate this topic.4meter4 (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if any Russian speaking editors can help with Rus RS
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 03:14, 6 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) 02:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blight (comics)[edit]

Blight (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable comic book cruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BEFORE makes me think that not only might this not be the primary topic, but that even DC doesn't know what the primary topic is. There are two separate characters on top of this race. -2pou (talk) 20:45, 7 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) 02:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blithe (comics)[edit]

Blithe (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable comic book cruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything in my WP:BEFORE, and even the in-universe appearances don't seem widespread. -2pou (talk) 20:34, 7 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) 02:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen flag[edit]

Fallen flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

vanity page for slang term definition. Should be removed per WP:NOT#DICT Graywalls (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:25, 6 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. Seems like this discussion's main issue is whether a) the topic meets GNG or b) whether being interim party leader is sufficient to satisfy WP:NPOL criteria. OK, there is also a secondary discussion on whether we should follow the notability rules "off a cliff" to quote one of the participants there but it doesn't seem like it is conclusive. Plus a lot of mentions of precedents and other articles (some of them in that secondary discussion) but as far as I know we don't use other AFDs as precedent.

On the GNG question, the discussion is somewhat inconclusive as we have several assertions in either direction but apparently no specific sources cited as proof that GNG is met. Regarding the NPOL question (and the more general "is she notable by virtue of being a party leader") it seems like most people here endorse the claim that NPOL is met but the counterargument offered by Bearcat that being an interim leader might not satisfy WP:NPOL criteria carries weight.

On balance, it seems like this has no consensus for plain deletion or keeping mainly due to the uncertain status wrt. meeting GNG criteria. It's perhaps closer to a delete than a keep due to the aforementioned lack of proof but here I don't see a clear cut enough consensus to warrant deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Ann Roberts[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jo-Ann Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As written, appears to fail WP:GNG. No evidence of significant press coverage—that is, coverage outside of her being appointed as interim leader of the Green Party of Canada. A detailed biographical account of her life, print or digital, would certainly count as one WP:SIGCOV WP:RS, if one exists. Even then, multiple reliable sources are needed (minimum two; but WP:THREE is a better minimum). She has been an unsuccessful candidate for public office and is likely an otherwise non-notable radio personality. This seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON and I note that the next day after this article's creation, dutiful admin Barkeep49 tagged the "Biography" section with WP:ADVERT.

At the same time, WP:POLOUTCOMES is quite relevant here in that, when serving in an interim role, civil servants who may be called upon to act as a minister are generally regarded as not-notable. Note, too, Jo-Ann Roberts was likely named to this interim party administrative leadership role in order to try and boost her public persona. Wikipedia should not participate in this puffery. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friendly tags to previous AfD nom participants: Bearcat, Rusf10, and Johnpacklambert. --Doug Mehus (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Generally in Canada political party leaders ARE NOTABLE. Also per WP:NPOL - "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Edit - Also per WP:POLOUTCOMES - "Leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success. Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons." Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Disagree, respectfully, with Me-123567-Me's assertion and provided rationale. In this case, Jo-Ann Roberts is not the leader of a parliamentary party in the House of Commons. Elizabeth May is still very much the leader of the Green Party of Canada's parliamentary caucus/wing. She is, for all sakes and purposes, the de facto public face of the party. Jo-Ann Roberts, by contrast, aside from being only interim leader, is just the interim leader of the political party for the purposes of issuing party statements, news releases, and fundraising. Respectfully, if she is kept on this basis, then we are legitimizing making political party leaders of the Rhinoceros or Libertarian parties even though they do not hold seats in Parliament. Moreover, given how easy it is to start a political party, this could be a back-door way for people to getting a Wikipedia article. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me-123567-Me, moreover, you noted "local political figures," which I'm not sure applies in this context. Nevertheless, you've not shown where she has been the subject of significant coverage beyond either this single event or her unsuccessful election campaigns. Further, Bearcat even noted at first nomination deletion discussion that significant coverage was not met and the article closed as delete. There's no indication this has otherwise changed. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, I was patrolling based on articles that had previously deleted so I was most definitely aware of the earlier AfDs but the events since the last AfD suggested notability for me. But before diving to deeply into that I'm curious if you have sources to back up your statement that she was named interim party leader in order to boost her public persona. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, Thanks for the reply. To answer your question, after having watched for years of the way in which the Green Party of Canada operates with respect to their deputy leaders and, indeed, even their former party leaders who never held a seat, they often select these positions in an attempt to build notoriety. I thank Me-123567-Me for noting Tim Moen has an article, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's notable. If we're going to make all party leaders notable because they led a party, then well, I can see a potential back-door way of getting a Wikipedia article here (that is, all I'd need to do is run for the Libertarian Party of Canada or similar, put out a press release, and get a few media organizations to cover my winning the leadership?). I should note that I support, and have voted for, the Green Party of Canada in the past, and generally like what they're doing, but I have to set my biases at the door in these AfD discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't have to be the parliamentary leader. That was never the level required for an article. We have articles on EVERY previous GPC leader even the previous interim leader. Heck, we have an article on the Libertarian leader (Tim Moen) who doesn't even have a seat. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the leader of a national political party is obviously notable. Coverage in the media will continue to improve, as will our article. – bradv🍁 03:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bradv, So, for clarity, are you saying that any national political party leader, including those which are interim leaders which have not been selected by the party membership and which have not won elected office, are notable? In other words, I could run for, and win, the leadership of a similar minor national political party and be qualified for having an article? Doug Mehus (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you become leader of the Green Party I'll write an article about you. – bradv🍁 03:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bradv, LOL, but for clarity, there's nothing special about the Green Party of Canada from, say, the Libertarian Party of Canada, right? In any case, I'll be sure and add this to my "bucket list." Doug Mehus (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is a huge difference in the amount of coverage between the two. The Green Party has seats in parliament, takes part in nationally-televised debates, and is a major part of the political landscape in Canada. The Libertarian Party is not. – bradv🍁 03:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bradv, Yes, I know that, but Jo-Ann Roberts is interim leader—that is, she was selected by the party's board of directors for a period of not more than one year. She has never held elected office. Thus, I don't see how she meets the requirement for being a notable politician. As Me-123567-Me pointed out, Tim Moen has an article, but he has never held elected office. We shouldn't start making exceptions for one party over another; either Jo-Ann Roberts has a seat in Parliament or she doesn't. So, on that basis, in your view, would you say Tim Moen is notable? Doug Mehus (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As leader of a major Canadian party - one for which we have articles on previous interim leaders (see Chris Bradshaw). As WP:OTHERSTUFF notes In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.. She has already received international coverage (see the BBC). At most I could get behind draftify as we wait for better sources but ultimately I think she's likely notable which is why I marked her article as reviewed while patrolling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, I wouldn't be opposed to a Draftify either. It's possible she may well become a Member of Parliament for Victoria on the third (or fourth) attempt, but not yet. Also, the trouble I have with WP:OTHERSTUFF is some articles may have flown under the radar with respect to notability and are, in fact, not necessarily notable. Similarly, articles that had notionally "passed" AfD as "keep" may have done so on low turnout or when regular Wikipedia editors were otherwise on vacation.
    The only reason she received a passing mention in the BBC re: her appointment as interim leader. If coverage continues, and she continues to receive biographical-length profiles, books, and the like, then fine, she may be notable without having being elected. I just think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.
    It seems to me some editors feel like it's more important to have a linked article for the "predecessor" and "successor" links in the political office template footers; I think that's the wrong approach. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • PRECEDENT -
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elmer Knutson
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hnatiuk
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Stilwell
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Figueroa
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul McKeever
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Clarke (politician) Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right now this is News, so WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON applies. She is an intern leader, and all we have is a brief bit of news coverage about that. Likely as she goes on she'll continue to get news as they go and become notable. But we don't have a crystal ball. We don't know how long she'll be leader, or if anything she does will be notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? In this encyclopaedia where we decide we need to keep the list of Crayola crayon colours, the article about a bloke with an amazingly long name, the article about which way round to hang your toilet paper, and the article about the precognitive octopus, we're going to delete the biography of the deputy leader/interim leader of a major political party in Canada? Wikipedia is utterly ridiculous sometimes.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall, Notwithstanding the article about the "bloke" with a really long name, which I agree with you probably should not be included here, in this case Jo-Ann Roberts is just a placeholder administrative leader—I would also point out that her article was rightly deleted when she was Deputy Leader of the Green Party of Canada due to their being a lack of significant coverage. It's a similar story here; there just isn't significant, reliable, independent sources for either her radio career or her administrative political role as the Greens' interim leader. We wouldn't necessarily make a City Councillor notable who served as Acting Mayor of a city following the Mayor's resignation nor would we make a Deputy Minister (civil servant) notable who served as Acting Minister for a short term. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly agree that you have correctly expressed our rules on notability. To delete this article now would be to follow the rules off a cliff.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall, thanks and thanks for your reply. Maybe we're in need of a major cleanup with respect to non-notable party leaders (note this does not mean parliamentary leaders or leaders having also concurrently held elected office)? Note that Bearcat reminds us of Wikipedia's rules on notability (a) being tightened up a few years ago such that (b) that political party leaders are not entitled to articles unless they pass one of those two "filters"—that is, they were notable prior to their appointment to the party executive board or they were the subject of significant, independent, and reliable coverage. Perhaps Jo-Ann Roberts is just the "tip of the iceberg"? If we don't undertake some sort of larger scale AfD political party leader cleanup process, we may end up further drowning ourselves in the proliferation of otherwise non-notable persons who are permitted to have articles by virtue of their having leading a national party's executive board? Doug Mehus (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd agree that that's one of the many cleanups we need to carry out in due course. Personally, I'm still focused on the cleanup of the >3,500 articles that came up in 2016 in WP:AN/CXT, or at least getting the biographies of living people cleaned up. In this encyclopaedia where we have articles about baseball teams' mascots, Barbie's careers, separate articles about individual episodes of 1960s TV shows, extremely minor Marvel/DC fictional characters, American settlements with a population of 63, and 8.5k words on sexuality in Star Trek, we've somehow decided to spend our volunteering time talking about deleting an article about the deputy/interim leader of an important political party in a major nation. I couldn't explain why, to a non-Wikipedian, without making our whole culture sound badly thought out. Could you?—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall, True, and no, I probably could not explain how some companies are named with parenthetical qualifiers when there's a clear primary topic. Of course, I could not also explain why we even have policies like WP:PRIMARY when there's nothing inherently wrong with parenthetical qualifiers other than for those intent on having companies' Wikipedia article names match up with the public name from the company's website.
    It's worth stressing that the de facto "leader" of the Green Party of Canada (an example of where WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over WP:COMMONSENSE that would dictate using WP:OFFICIALNAME) is still, very much, Elizabeth May. Jo-Ann Roberts is not your typical interim leader in that she will not likely be conducting the day-to-day press scrums; instead, she will likely be singularly focused on the party's administrative structure, fundraising, the coming leadership convention, and the like. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I don't see how her political career meets WP:NPOL yet, I think that the position she has been appointed to, in combination with her journalism career and the reliable sources that have been referenced gets her up to notability standards. However, @Kermick180: the Biography section of the article as of this moment is a straight copy-and-paste from her Green Party profile and has to be rewritten or deleted completely, ASAP. PKT(alk) 13:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    PKT, Wow, good point on the biography. It was a blatant cut-and-paste insertion. Not even a close paraphrasing. I tagged that section with a copyvio tag for a copyvio clerk to resolve and remove. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the party, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her coverage improves. It is not true that all political party leaders in Canadian politics are automatically handed a notability freebie just for existing as leaders. Rather, political party leaders are permitted articles in one of two specific instances: either (a) they already hold an inherently notable WP:NPOL-passing role, such as actually being a member of the party's legislative caucus, alongside their leadership of the party, or (b) it is possible to write and reliably source a substantial article that says significantly more about the person than just the mere fact that they led a political party. If the article is not actually able to say more than their name being mentioned in the party's article already does, because the coverage of their leadership is that limited, then a standalone BLP is not appropriate.
    And Me-1234567-Me's "precedent" list above is not binding, either, as those are all old discussions that were conducted before our notability standards for politicians were tightened up, and the number of political party leaders that we have deleted for not having enough coverage to properly support a standalone BLP vastly exceeds just six.
    If her coverage improves between now and the convention, then by all means a separate article about her can be created when that happens — but as of today, a brief 24-hour blip of coverage verifying the fact that she was named interim leader of the party, while not being about her in any depth, is not in and of itself enough — being a party leader is not an instant guarantee of "inherent" notability if the coverage isn't good enough to get her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has thousands of articles that are completely useless. Whenever a US president is elected we have pages of text about those who "might" be nominated to cabinet but never are (80% of this article is speculative garbage). We have pages about people who "might" run for president but never get close (seriously, the only notable thing on this section is that they didn't do something that nobody was expecting them to do). So my question is, why can't someone who is the de jure leader of a political party with 3 seats in the house of commons not get to keep their article? The Green Party has had representation for almost a decade and has grown even more in certain provinces, like BC and PEI. If we applied this level of scrutiny to all sections of every article ever written we would delete 2/3 of the content on Wikipedia. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kndimov, But the problem is nothing has functionally changed from her non-notable Deputy Leader role. Jo-Ann Roberts is party leader in name and title only. Functionally, the leader is still the party's parliamentary leader Elizabeth May, who will likely also double as party house leader given their small caucus and who will likely conduct daily press scrums and all political activities. Jo-Ann Roberts, by contrast, is like an administrative bureaucrat, leading the party's bureaucratic organization, leading fundraising efforts, and issuing party communiqués that, in turn, help to drive fundraising. The examples you cite may or may not be notable, but they are not standalone articles. Thus, I agree with the suggestions to either draftify or redirect this article. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kndimov, To your later point, I don't think it's two-thirds, but at least half, by my rough estimates, of Wikipedia articles fail WP:Notability. Would deleting so much content be a bad thing? Instead, we could focus on improving, sourcing, splitting off where necessary, etc. articles that are notable. I'd add that Everipedia exists an inclusionist venue for everything—corporate spam and all. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for above reasons. She is now the leader of a federal party which holds seats in the House of Commons and she has a ton of independent reliable sources available. Handoto (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Handoto, But Elizabeth May is still parliamentary leader and house leader. IDK, but I would argue her role is politically akin to that of a bureaucrat (no disrespect to bureaucrats). Also, those reliable sources you quote are based off of a single event and which also fail significant coverage—that is, they're merely passing or routine mentions of her being selected by the party brass/executive board as interim leader. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus, she is still a leader of a successful federal party, even with May being the house leader. For sources, you'd have to look elsewhere as well. She received some coverage when she was a journalist at the CBC and again when she was appointed and during her time as the deputy leader of the party. To me, there is enough out there to pass WP:NPOL or at the very least, definitely enough for WP:GNG, even when looking at WP:NOTNEWS. Handoto (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Handoto, But coverage about her? It has to be more than mere mentions of her role as a journalist. Articles she wrote as a journalist do not count. Also, Elizabeth May is more than just a House Leader; she is the Leader of the party in Parliament. She may well also be House Leader, a legislative deputy to the parliamentary caucus leader, but is definitely more than House Leader. Is no one[1] reading Bearcat's sensible reply here!?

References

  1. ^ Notwithstanding S Marshall, who acknowledges she may or may not be notable, but who favours keep because to delete would be following WP "rules off a cliff."
Doug Mehus (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is following the rules off a cliff. I've just participated in an AfD about a bloke who's notable for not finishing a marathon at the 1924 Olympics (landslide "Keep! Passes WP:NOLY!"). If Ms Roberts had competed in an international football match for 8 minutes, she'd definitely have an article. But as all she's managed to accomplish in her life is the mere leadership of the Green Party of Canada, we're applying a different SNG which is less inclusionist. We need to temper the strict application of these rules with a bit of editorial judgment if our decisions on Wikipedia are ever going to make any sense.—S Marshall T/C 10:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall, Ah, thank you for illuminating your thought process behind that. To be clear, I wasn't trying to challenge your assertion—I just wanted to make sure I was not lumping you in with my comment that some editors seem to be ignoring Bearcat's thoughtful rationale for redirecting to the Green Party of Canada above.
To your example, I don't know the rules on the Olympics, but to me, one doesn't need to finish a competition. They could be signed up to participate on the Olympic team and then back out at the opening ceremonies and still be notable.
Anyway, that's what I love about Wikipedia—two administrators (you and Bearcat) can disagree on a specific issue or discussion. That is, it is not just the editors who disagree; administrators can do so as well. I wonder, procedurally, at closing, do opinions expressed by administrators (provided they cited appropriate policies) carry more weight in determining consensus than the cited opinions by editors (again, provided they too cited appropriate policies and evidence)
Speaking of which, I meant to thank you for your use of WP:COMMONSENSE in allowing me to withdraw a deletion review I'd submitted for First Nations Bank of Canada even though, policy-wise, there was not such a mechanism at deletion review. There is that method at AfD, but not the former. So, I thank you and RoySmith for exercising common sense there. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the wisdom of Solomon isn't one of the tools administrators get when they pass RfA. Which, incidentally, I haven't; like any other experienced editor, I'm permitted to close a range of discussions on Wikipedia, which is fine as long as my closures are unproblematic. If I started to get it wrong I'd lose discussion-closing privileges rather quickly! When an administrator comments on a discussion they are commenting in their editorial capacity rather than their administrative one, and their remarks get no additional weight. They aren't permitted to close a discussion in which they have commented as an editor.—S Marshall T/C 18:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, You're not an administrator? Wow. Surprising. If I nominated you for adminship, would you accept? Cool, unindent tag. I will remember that one. ;)Doug Mehus (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your intent was to compliment me, then thank you. I would rather not undergo the ritual hazing of RFA in its present form.—S Marshall T/C 18:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, LOL, true. Yes, it was meant as a compliment, but I tend to agree with you. Editors ask far too many, overly detailed questions at RfA—which is, in part, why I don't participate in that venue. They're also far too picky. To me, what makes a good admin is owning up to mistakes. Admins are not infallible so I don't mind if an admin makes mistakes in closures, so long as they own up to it. I wish more editors would realize that. Really, the only reason I'd want to see admin privileges revoked is for blatant misuse of power—that is, multiple instances of blocking people in contravention of policy or going against/completely misreading consensus.Doug Mehus (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number of independent coverage increased since the AFD started. --Enos733 (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep nom says "As written, appears to fail WP:GNG." The state of the article doesn't have any impact on notability, such as if it doesn't list enough sources or isn't written in a certain way. There are a ton of independent sources available and this easily passes WP:GNG. 159.33.10.155 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying, as written, it fails. However, more importantly, there is not sufficient sources which meet WP:SIGCOV and the biographical equivalent of WP:CORPDEPTH on which to write more than a perpetual stub-class article. See administrator Bearcat's well articulated comment above. With respect, you can't just say "strong keep" and not provide the sourcing to back it up. Supposedly, we base consensus on the strength of the arguments, not the number of !votes as this is supposedly not a vote. Moreover, can you point me to the consensus decision that says we keep minor political party leaders who have never held elected office but who otherwise fail WP:NBIO or WP:GNG!?Doug Mehus (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lishan Perera[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lishan Perera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - No works published for over a decade, and he's no longer an active writer as far as I can tell. More importantly, it's written like a puff piece.Paul 1953 (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Note I have reformatted the above discussion to use the standard AFD Template. This discussion was also not listed in a daily deletion log. Please consider the time of this message as the start time for the discussion. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability isn't temporary. If he was ever notable, then he's notable forever. I mean, I can think of many people who're immensely notable despite not publishing works for over a decade and no longer being active writers. I agree that the current content of this article is simply atrocious.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. William Shakespeare hasn't published anything new for four centuries, and he is no longer an active writer so far as I can tell. That is no argument. Narky Blert (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - most of the references provided are deadlinks so its hard to determine whether the subject satisfies WP:NAUTHOR or not. Dan arndt (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is only one source apparent that would satisfy WP:GNG. No other indication that he ever or now demonstrates notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC) edited to add: The previous AfD closed as "keep" referred to multiple reviews in RS, but no such reviews were linked in the AfD, the article, or are apparent in current searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a super young published author is not a claim of notability. There is no evidence of actual reviews of his work. He does not even come close to passing notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added one review of his first novel, and another article - which, however, is mostly an interview. I've also added an archive url for the World Book Fair source - it's just a sentence or two. And I also found a university website news item about him as a student of mechanical engineering, attending a conference in the US. So far, there is not really enough for him to meet either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG - or even WP:BASIC. The UCL source is not independent, the Daily News article is mostly his words, which leaves one review and one article about him. More could be said about his books, if the article is kept - but it may well not be unless we can find more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seems like evidence of notability was found during the course of the discussion. If there are COI issues with edits to the article, WP:COIN would be the place to discuss them; we generally do not consider COI editing as a sufficient reason for deleting a topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MARTINI[edit]

MARTINI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page serves nothing more than to promote the work of its authors and is based entirely on primary literature almost completely from the creator himself EvilxFish (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would agree. 11 of the 17 main paper refs are to Marrink. The 18th is the site. Having such a singular focus on one individual to signify the article is unhealthy and breaks Wikipedia many source criteria. scope_creepTalk 11:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if we can get more engagement in the AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and set the MARTINI entry on the martini DAB page to point to Force field (chemistry)#Coarse-grained force fields where there are a few sentences on it. I was unable to find multiple, in-depth, reliable sources independent of the creators of the, so the article seems to fail notability criteria per WP:GNG. As there are multiple peer-reviewed articles, there is some verifiable material for the topic, and the brief mention at Force field (chemistry)#Coarse-grained force fields seems of due weight to me. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Update Changing my recommendation based on Kingofaces43 good points. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

A mention in another wikipedia article is not enough to make this notable. Creators of forcefields have been making wikipedia articles on them and putting links to them in other articles. A few have already been deleted. EvilxFish (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed such notability. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One, I'm not seeing the independent factor here needed for notability, but that also plays into this not being a good search term in a merge/redirect as mentioned above, especially given the more predominant martini. In terms of Force field (chemistry)#Coarse-grained force fields, that article can handle things independently, but I don't see anything that needs to be tied to this current article in terms of redirects or edit histories. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point about the common name. Deleting the article, but retaining the redirect on the DAB page may be a better solution. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the page was apparently created by a contributor with WP:COI. However, the subject is sufficiently notable and highly cited in its field, so I think it should be kept as a legitimate sub-page of Force field (chemistry). The page was not written as a pure promotion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A complete lack of appropriate secondary sources, and very few independent sources clearly demonstrates a fail of notability criteria, see here. There is a clear conflict of interest as you have noted. EvilxFish (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI is only an assumption and is not relevant (the article was significantly changed by others since the initial creation). One can find a large number of secondary RS (reviews) independent on the author about it, For example,

Developing and Testing of Lipid Force Fields with Applications to Modeling Cellular Membranes By:Leonard, AN (Leonard, Alison N.)[ 2 ] ; Wang, E (Wang, Eric)[ 1 ] ; Monje-Galvan, V (Monje-Galvan, Viviana)[ 1 ] ; Klauda, JB (Klauda, Jeffery B.)[ 1,2 ]

Interplay of G Protein-Coupled Receptors with the Membrane: Insights from Supra-Atomic Coarse Grain Molecular Dynamics Simulations By:Periole, X (Periole, Xavier)[ 1,2,3 ]

Effect of Membrane Composition on Receptor Association: Implications of Cancer Lipidomics on ErbB Receptors By:Pawar, AB (Pawar, Aiswarya B.)[ 1,2 ] ; Sengupta, D (Sengupta, Durba)[ 1,2 ] Molecular dynamics simulations of biological membranes and membrane proteins using enhanced conformational sampling algorithmsBy:Mori, T (Mori, Takaharu)[ 1,2 ] ; Miyashita, N (Miyashita, Naoyuki)[ 3,4 ] ; Im, W (Im, Wonpil)[ 5,6 ] ; Feig, M (Feig, Michael)[ 3,7,8 ] ; Sugita, Y (Sugita, Yuji)[ 1,2,3,8,9 ]

And so on, and so on. People who say this is not a popular and widely used force field are simply not familiar with the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these. Certainly in my case, beyond some experience with AMBER, I am not an expert and I found it challenging to find independent RS. The first review looks solid and in-depth. Periole is a Marrink collaborator, so I am dubious about independence for the second reference. The third mentions MARTINI in the keywords, but not the body of the paper (am I missing something?). The fourth has a couple of paragraphs on the MARTINI model and brief mentions elsewhere. These by themselves might be enough for marginal notability. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just copy-pasted three first reviews from a longer list which can be easily retrieved from Web of Science. Well, I do not do MD myself... I am just saying one can find hundreds studies and publications which used this force field and many reviews. If someone was a collaborator is irrelevant in terms of notability of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My university library has hundreds of independent peer reviewed science journal articles that use the MARTINI forcefield. It's a widely published topic. In addition to the ones already provided by others, here are some more:
  1. "Coarse-graining poly(ethylene oxide)-poly(propylene oxide)-poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO-PPO-PEO) block copolymers using the MARTINI force field"; Nawaz, Selina ; Carbone, Paola ; Nawaz, Selina (correspondence author) ; Nawaz, Selina (record owner); The journal of physical chemistry; February 13, 2014, Vol.118(6), pp.1648-1659
  2. "Martini Coarse-Grained Force Field: Extension to RNA"; Uusitalo, Jaakko J ; Ingólfsson, Helgi I ; Marrink, Siewert J ; Faustino, Ignacio; Biophysical Journal, 25 July 2017, Vol.113(2), pp.246-256
  3. "A Structurally Flexible Protein Backbone for the MARTINI Coarse Grained Force Field"; Periole, Xavier ; Marrink, Siewert-Jan ; Tieleman, Peter; Biophysical Journal, 2011, Vol.100(3), pp.613a-613
  4. "Investigation of the Martini Force Field for Lipid Raft Membranes"; Davis, Ryan S ; Laradji, Mohamed; Biophysical Journal, 31 January 2012, Vol.102(3), pp.295a-295a
  5. "Protein-Ligand Binding Simulation with the Martini Coarse-Grained Force Field"; Negami, Tatsuki ; Shimizu, Kentaro ; Terada, Tohru; Biophysical Journal, 28 January 2014, Vol.106(2), pp.609a-609a

There are tons of studies in this area. WP:SIGCOV is exceedingly met on this topic. @EvilxFish: I strongly urge you to withdraw your nomination.4meter4 (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the sources provided by My very best wishes and 4meter4. BD2412 T 19:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change the name..I am on the wagon ATM and this article name is making me want a cocktail. Lightburst (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Struck my recommendation above. With sources 1 and 4 from My very best wishes and sources 1,4, and 5 from 4meter4, sufficient in depth, independent RS have been found to demonstrate notability of the topic. Nice work on tracking down sources. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Klim[edit]

Christopher Klim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsouced GNG Fail. I cannot find anything in a search in terms of of SIGCOV. An older version of the page has one or two reviews. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A lot of books, and not a shred of notability. I looked at those reviews--they are nothing: a blurb and a blog. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has this article been unreferenced for its entire 13 years of existing? As I say almost everytime I contribute to AfD, we need a more stringent article creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far I have found two reviews of Jesus Lives in Trenton, both in New Jersey papers (he lives in Lambertville, New Jersey) [20] [21], and a report of a talk he gave at a school in New Jersey [22]. The reviews and article all have biographical detail about him, but so far, it's all very local, and more importantly, doesn't really meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. I will see if I can find more reviews, especially some of his other books, to see if he does meet WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:41, 11 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. Clear consensus for keep. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 18:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Purohit[edit]

Amit Purohit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable jobbing actor who passed away. All coverage is news of passing. Fails WP:NACTOR scope_creepTalk 00:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has at least two leading roles in notable productions together with reliable sources coverage already in the article. If he was nonnotable his death would not be covered in national newspapers, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - along the same lines as Atlantic306. Eagleash (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Atlantic306. News of his death has been covered by multiple credible sources, which can be taken as a good indicator of notability TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well folks, I think that strong keep. So I am going to close it. scope_creepTalk 18:46, 11 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. This is basically on the edge of no consensus/keep, given the weakness (but not absence) of sources, but this is not an impermissible outcome. bd2412 T 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ann Brown[edit]

Lee Ann Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

self promotion of individual with only trivial and arcane coverage, including reliance on facebook pages. Fails WP:Author. MarlonApricot (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Lee Ann Brown

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural speedy keep per CSK3. No evidence of WP:AUTOBIO here, as the article's creator appears to edit under her real name, Cassandra Gillig, and citing a Facebook page for one sentence is hardly "reliance on facebook pages". No prejudice against withdrawing or even changing to delete if someone else who has actually looked at the article wants to second the nomination: it wouldn't be the first time that an article on an American poet with some loose connection to Japan or his/her work was promoted by him/herself or his/her friends on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the nom is an SPA, which is sending up red flags for me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just ... wow. The above is an editor who has an overall 80% keep !voting record !voting "delete" in this case, after I had !voted keep (after a fashion), and also has a history of showing up and harassing me just for the hell of it.[23] (Note also that despite some recent pretend indignation about me "outing him" by accidentally referring to him by his former username, the above is essentially speculating on the supposed real-world relationship between the author of this article and its subject.)
Does anyone want to make a good-faith second to this nomination so I can change my !vote like I said I would?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Don't believe the hype. The editor has harassment issues in spite of thinking like 5 people are harassing him. I had five delete !votes today, and two yesterday, and two the day before that. The record is in my contributions. Please carry on and realize that not everything is about Hijiri 88. closer: please do not diminish my !vote based upon the hysterics and disruption of Hijiri 88. Lightburst (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, which means you have been deliberately manipulating your own AFD record by !voting delete in a few instances where the result was already likely to be delete, as well as ones where you saw me !vote keep. This started in the last few days: why has your rate of !voting delete jumped from like 8% to 40% out of the blue? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The women is all over the web, NY Times, American Academy of Poets. Poets, successful poets anyway, are generally at the peak of human creativity, and should be valued. Note to closing admin This is a entirely vexatious. The SPA editor came at at 00:39, 6 November 2019 and by 00:42, 6 November 2019 this was at Afd.unsigned comment by User:Scope creep
  • Your strong keep is based on a your suspicions that the nom is an SPA (which does not mean the nom is wrong). Additionally a claim of sources all over the web is not confirmed. Presenting those sources here would be helpful. My search found blogs. Additionally American Academy of Poets looks like a site where you pay to be listed. Starting at $500 I could be listed and I am not a poet. Lightburst (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not tell me what I'm thinking, ever. You have no understanding of what constitutes an academy, what its purpose is and why it is indicator of notability. Stick to what you know. Poets are not like scientists, celebrities or politicians or celebrities i.e. those who have a ton of money and can have huge buildings, loads of symbolism and tradition, plenty of pomp, huge prizes and attendant stuff that comes with a ton of money. Poetry and poets tends to be low key affair.scope_creepTalk 15:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. I merely summarized your !vote rationale and asked for you to share the sources you found. I would be happy to reconsider my !vote if I could see that the person was notable. As another editor pointed out, I try to !vote keep when I see notability. You cited an organization that you claim confers notability (American Academy of Poets). It seems every group has a "pay to look credible" group like this: Lawyers especially. I will let others evaluate the subject and see if they can submit reliable sources. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for that. Apologies accepted. I think your here for the long term and look forward to working with you. Its an Academy, a learned society. Poets are feted by the great and the good, if they are good but don't tend to have a lot of money as a group until that point, as poetry doesn't sell, like e.g. comics books, so they always have secondary jobs to keep the money coming in. The only reason I know about this is a I read about it. In that particular instance is was a Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom who up until he was appointed to the queen was farming cows to survive. I found out that is always like that. Poets in particular are always living in the equivalent to a garret. The only thing you can judge them on is the writing and what folk say about it. scope_creepTalk 11:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primary writer of the article here... Yes I have bias but this article should exist. She has won a few major prizes and edited the first poetry press run by and for experimental women writers. I know it's a niche but it's a significant niche to poets and this article serves to bolster the record of a history that is left out of a lot of canonical texts--women already write at the margins and women who can't go the route of conventional publication even moreso. I'm not as well versed in the rules of wikipedia writing as y'all, so if the facebook link is too much, that part can be edited out. Was just trying to flesh out the page. Happy to work with whomever to get this into a more acceptable page, but I really think it'd be a shame if we took it down entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.148.190 (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cassandragillig: I see that your account is a borderline WP:SPA. Almost as soon as you started your account you worked on Lee Ann Brown's Tender Buttons Press and another poet who was also self published by that same press. Since then you have done little else, before creating this article about Lee Ann Brown. It is perhaps odd that we have a SPA nominator and an SPA creator both involved with the same article. IMO the Tender Buttons Press is not notable. It is entirely self published. See below:
"Poet Lee Ann Brown began tiny nonprofit Tender Buttons in 1989 after meeting writers from New York who had run their own presses: "I didn't realize you could make your own books. I just asked everyone how to do it.” So the “Tender Buttons Press titles are "available for online purchase directly from the website.” And the web site uses a self publishing book publisher called Small Press Distribution.
  • In addition the Encyclopedia of the New York School Poets does not confer notability and also is a self published book. Copyright 2013 by Terrance Diggory.
  • The article appears to be anchored and referenced to the non-notable references and "pay to look credible" site, and self published non-rs refs which on first glance make the subject appear notable.
  • Regarding the NY Times.. two references appear: One New York times article is about a different poet. And the other is a WP:ROUTINE wedding announcement. The wedding announcement is really about Lee Ann Brown's husband Anthony S. Torn who is a big deal actor and director. But WP:NOTINHERITED applies to Lee Ann Brown in that reference. Lightburst (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lightburst:*Cont. from writer of article I am reviewing the SPA guidelines which I was not familiar with until this point. I have worked with dozens of poetry presses including Tender Buttons on small things like book layout and assistance in getting their papers into archives, which is all unpaid volunteer work. I edit under my real name for transparency and to be responsive in situations like this. The majority of poetry presses on Wikipedia are similar to Tender Buttons and the majority of poets active in the late 20th & early 21th century have similar publication records. These are not vanity presses they are often certified 401c nonprofits with limited staff. As far as the SPA goes, I have not received payment from Tender Buttons to write this article nor have they paid me in the past. Also, The Encyclopedia of the New York School of Poets is likely mentioned on at least a hundred poetry pages here on Wikipedia--it is a comprehensive resource with sources cited and is not a self-published book. There's a huge difference between self-publishing and publishing with a small or independent literary press. The latter are legitimate presses which regularly win prizes, have staff, and publish a wide variety of authors (by writers who are not the staff). Brown, for example, was not published by Tender Buttons. I would like to see a review of the information on this Wikipedia page to establish its accuracy since my authority here has been called into question because I have done volunteer work for this writer's small literary press. I am seeing now also that this article has been expanded well beyond what I initially wrote--I am not the sole author of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandragillig (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm nervous about !voting here since there already have been a fair few words spilled above, and I only stumbled upon this AfD because of a dispute between two users who are currently in conflict above. I want to make clear I am focusing just on the article here as I became curious as to whether she's notable. I want to stay as far away from the conflict as I possibly can and will be un-watching this page after my vote. Through a before search, I think she meets WP:AUTHOR - her poetry has been reviewed in some very notable publications, and while she only appears to be a professor or assistant professor at St. Johns, you could also argue WP:NPROF #1 is met, and the sources overall clearly meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The Boston Review [24] seems like notable coverage. Publishers Weekly reviewed some of her works which makes them notable, and a writer is notable if their work is notable. Getting "Poet's Choice" in the Washington Post seems like it adds to her notability as well. Dream Focus 01:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Not sure now. Boston Reviews isn't looking so great as a reliable source. Dream Focus 01:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The subject married Rip Torn's son so the wedding announcement is in NY Times. The poetry of the subject is a vanity project, as is her entirely self published pseudo publishing company Tender Button Press. Any awards received are not mainstream awards. There is very little editorial oversight on any publication by this subject or about this subject. Reviews I have found are blogs or sites like Boston Review that ask for donations. To pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOET we would need to see more. For instance which criteria does the author pass?
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
  • The person does not meet any of the criteria. I checked...her works are all published by self publishing and or a small independent publishing company.
  • Additionally, the claim that the subject passes WP:NPROF#1 is simply not supported by facts The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. We have no evidence of this. With that I leave the AfD after having put up walls of rationale and research. I of course yield to the consensus, but wanted everyone to see that a person can game the system, by paying to look like a successful poet. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just passes WP:SIGCOV. She's been reviewed or been a subject of interest numerous times in Publishers Weekly (see [25]; "Polyverse"; Rotella, Mark; Sep 28, 1998, Publishers Weekly, Vol.245(39), p.96 (offline); "The Sleep That Changed Everything. (Poetry).(Book Review)"; Scharf, Michael, Publishers Weekly, Feb 17, 2003, Vol.250(7), p.72 (offline); "Interior with Sudden Joy", Rotella, Mark, Apr 26, 1999, Publishers Weekly, p.76, 50; "An Anthology of New (American) Poets", Publishers Weekly, Nov 2, 1998, p.49. She's also authored several peer reviewed journal articles in The Literary Review, A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, Journal of Modern Literature, Southern Cultures, and Chicago Review. There's also The Washington Post piece already cited in the article.4meter4 (talk) 22:49, 13 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) 02:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Fox[edit]

Freddy Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable - the only source is to a fake award (paid for), the author has no article Melcous (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A quick scan of Google seems to show no significance for the book, and the only sources I could find were this page and places to buy the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog Farm (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any useable reviews of this book. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 9 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. Default keep since the consensus is not to delete. A merge is an option, but can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 10:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hester Shaw[edit]

Hester Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Continuing from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mortal Engines Quartet characters. There are news sources about Hera Hilmar being cast as this character, but I'm not really sure that counts as GNG. ミラP 00:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, we see fictional character material for UK books held to a completely different standard. This is one of the main characters in a substantial series of books, later a starring role in a big-budget film. But it's UK, so apparently that's "just not notable". Yet the tiniest trivia from Marvel or DC is never held to anything like this standard.
To AfD a list of characters article for anything which has been a Hollywood film was farcical. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the first few I found when clicking on random days in the AFD calendar. The reality is that there are a lot of people who think that, because a series or publisher is notable, that every character in that series (or every character in a book or comic published by that publisher) is automatically notable. These are almost always sourced entirely from the book or comic itself, or else sources that talk about the book/comic/movie and only incidentally mention the character. I don't see any double standard in AFD nominations here, since this is something that is always controversial because our notability guidelines are not well crafted to work with fictional characters. I think a strong argument can be made that Hester Shaw in particular is notable, but let's not distort the record by pretending that only UK-based works are scrutinized at AFD. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? Where to? The whole list of characters article has just been deleted! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly said what to merge where. The LoC is irrelevant. – sgeureka t•c 18:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The minor production info does not currently establish notability. Unless more sources are presented, an article is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the 2018 film may gain a post-release cult following, thus affecting any reboot chances and the popularity of the Mortal Engines Quartet itself, and will remain as a once-off look into the world of Mortal Engines that may not occur again in anyone's lifetimes. That's what Redditor Tonino4 tell me, who also tried to silence me over the hypothetical Mortal Engines TV series reboot, it's like telling me to get over hopes of Philip Reeve's series ever get second life. It's like Fobos-Grunt all over again, but also the 2016 election of Donald Trump and the Brexit vote. -- 14.192.214.23 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean someone will try to create pages to keep it under the same quality as that of His Dark Materials. -- 2001:D08:D8:53C9:BCA8:682D:9839:8C09 (talk) 11:48, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_November_6&oldid=926304161"