Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 September	29 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emmaunuel Omonode[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the references cited in the article are interviews, not independent of the subject. The subject doesn't have a career to speak of. None of his musical recordings have been discussed in significant detail. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject is not sufficiently notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muriel K. Rand[edit]

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

I PRODed this with the rationale ‘Bio of non notable self-published author. Article created by her son who appears to be using it to promote himself as a composer. No reliable independent sources since 2008.’ PROD was contested by another editor. Please note that the article itself says ‘She has self-published two practical textbooks on classroom management.’ Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article supports a claim of notability and no reliable and verifiable sources were found in a Google search to support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because no claim of notability, nothing significant about this writer for inclusion. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her text books were self-published. Clear notability fail.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a badly written article about a professor, a former dean of a school of education, and an expert in early childhood education. It is very difficult to find support for an article about an educator because it is not a high citation area. The comments here make her sound like some minor self-published author. She is author and co-author of two conventionally published textbooks, one in a second edition, and both widely held in university libraries.^[1]^[2] They don't go away because she later self-published books on classroom management. I can't find reviews for the textbooks, however. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Muriel K. Rand (2000). Giving it Some Thought: Cases for Early Childhood Practice. National Association for the Education of Young Children. ISBN 978-0-935989-94-6.
^ Muriel K. Rand; Sharon Shelton-Colangelo (2003). Voices of Student Teachers: Cases from the Field (2nd ed.). Merrill/Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-094130-5.

Delete the lack of reliable sources is more concerning as this is a BLP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JSTOR finds: she was a doctoral candidate at Rutgers in 1991 [1]. She was a consulting editor for the journal YC Young Children [2]. I couldn't turn up any textbook reviews, though. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sigh of notability, not enough reliable sources. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. Tone 08:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quickmix (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly a fancruft. Anatoliatheo (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing much info to support notability. Barca (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots per WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brimstone (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly a fancruft. Anatoliatheo (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough of a character for a redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Transformers: Cybertron characters where it already is included.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of sources to show notability for this specific project. No prejudice against creating an article about the idea generally if there are sources for that, but I assume that would belong at Cooperative commons rather than the capitalization used for the name of this specific project. RL0919 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative Commons[edit]

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

This article seems to be about a specific business initiative by a specific organization. After searching via news, newspapers, books, scholar and JSTOR, nothing came up that I could leverage as an RS source about this topic. I did find something about Legacoop, but not this initiative. I also found that this is not the only cooperative commons, this is just a specific example of one that one organization was building. Did it come to fruition? Has it had impact in the community it intended to serve? I don't know because RS information hasn't appeared in my searches. It seems to be both an issue of notability and verifiability.

To be retained, the article should reasonably have some non-primary sources to back up the claims that are made. The sources provided either: are primary sources (3 of 5 sources, or do not mention Legacoop at all. The non primary sources mention "a group of teachers from Luiss" or "the coordinator of the Research Center on Information Systems at LUISS Guido Carli." Thus far, I have been unable to verify any claim in this article via the non-primary sources. Thoughts on this article? Should it be saved and improved or scrapped? My concern is that it may just be promotional on the part of Legacoop. Curdigirl (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Curdigirl (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on primary sources, with no evidence that anything much happened beyond the idea being launched. Mccapra (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG as written. However, I did find non-trivial coverage on this term as defined as an "ad hoc network in which all devices are required to communicate and carry each other's traffic, even when those devices are associated with different owners and different administrative domains." (see "Detecting Selfish Behavior in a Cooperative Commons", Hyun Jin Kim ; Peha, J.M, 2008 3rd IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, October 2008, pp.1-12) That's what a cooperative commons is, and this article is really about one specific example of a cooperative commons but not cooperative commons as a whole. The article could be rewritten as there are multiple peer reviewed journal articles on Cooperative Commons.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angelique Sina[edit]

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

This page was almost certainly created by the subject herself or at her behest. A Facebook search back when I placed the noncontroversial delete flag even showed her gloating about the entry (it’s apparently deleted or no longer public now).

The removal of the noncontroversial notability deletion flag did not address substantive concerns expressed in tag. “I think she’s notable” is a vacuous impression. Also, linking to the bias critiques of Wikipedia page isn’t an argument. The fact that there may in fact be some, mainly unconscious, bias in Wikipedia doesn’t mean we suddenly lower our standards just because the subject belongs to whatever group or category an editor may think (without spelling out) we’re biased against.

Most of the sources for the article are puff pieces, public relations pieces (including the subject’s probably paid-for wedding announcement!). Even the seemingly newspaper sources are from shady web-only publications with distinguished sounding names. So shady in fact that they don’t even qualify for a Wikipedia entry of their own.

When in 20 March, Stevey7788 wanted to decline the submission of the article, an anonymous editor requested on 12 April that the rejection be reviewed again saying: “‎Please review again, sources show significant coverage and includes neutral sources such as Baltimore Post.” However, the Baltimore Post isn’t referenced. What is referenced is the Baltimore Post-Examiner along with the LA Post-Examiner, both website-only publications for public relations placements and some third-tier reporting and not actual, editorially-significant news that would signal Wikipedia-level notability (maybe community-level notability at best).

From the text of the article itself, the subject has basically held a couple of entry-level to mid-level jobs at the IFC and World Bank. And later got appointed to a few charity or community boards of no particular saliency.

It’s not that she hasn’t gotten anything done in life, it’s that it’s not really all that remarkable. Half the population of Washington, DC would qualify for a Wikipedia bio entry if this subject qualifies at this point. Deletion should have been uncontroversial.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TopDomino (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the awards she has received as a young leader provide her notability. MurielMary (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's really only a couple independent refs providing coverage of the subject, and they are both published interviews which makes them more primary sources. The rest is all paid for PR. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MYNA[edit]

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

This is a very promotional article, which gives no indication that the subject meets GNG or MUSIC criteria. Nothing has charted, only a small Soundcloud following. It has been tagged for Notability since 3 September, so there has been plenty of opportunity to improve it if the material was there. Gronk Oz (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gronk Oz (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. No clear primary topic. Barca (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of DC Comics characters: E. RL0919 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echo (DC Comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional characters TTN (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: E. Several very non-notable characters. Covered in target article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: E.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereal Darkness[edit]

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

Per WP:BAND - newly formed band with relatively minimal media coverage, certainly not enough to establish notability - struggling to find any self-published sources. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 17:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 17:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too soon maybe? I'm seeing some blips on some metal blogs, etc., but not much by way of significant coverage in better sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Neuenschwander[edit]

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

While accomplished, doesn't meet WP:GNG or any of the SNG's Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I contested the prod on the suspicion that he could well be wiki-notable through his association with Peter Greenaway, a connection in which he is often mentioned [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Unfortunately, a substantial amount of the news coverage is not in English (he lives in Flanders, from what I can tell) [13][14][15] (and an entertaining mention here). At the moment, I think there's enough to write an article upon, though perhaps not a very long one. XOR'easter (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And remember that notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that notability would be "inherited"; I'm saying that there's a good case he is notable for work done in a well-documented collaboration with someone who is also notable. XOR'easter (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ignoring the Greenaway coverage, other coverage appears to be minor or trivial. The article has been puffed up. For example I corrected the statement "he was appointed Princeton University's University Scholar" to something that more closely reflects reality: he was named a university scholar while he studied there. I can't really find much about him other than he is a reasonably successful calligrapher. My conclusions match the nomination exactly:While accomplished, doesn't meet WP:GNG or any of the SNG's. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a lot of material out there on this artist. Yes the tone and content of the article can be improved, as can the references, but that is not cause for deletion. Calligraphy is a niche area of the arts, and it seems that he has been called a "master" for contributions that have moved the field forward from the traditional craft to innovative architectural installations and other experimental large-scale calligraphic installations. His work with Greenaway have been multiple collaborations, he is not simply notable-by-association. His career is based in Europe, and he has shown in museums there: Museum Correr Fondazione Musei Civici di Venezia, the Contemporary Museum of Calligraphy in Moscow, is in the permanent collection of the Berlin Calligraphy Collection of the Akademie der Kunste, and has been the subject of a 163-page monograph, Textasy: The Work of Brody Neuenschwander ISBN 9077362592. He clearly meets WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a lot of mentions but there is not a lot of critical coverage. The shows are nice but a review would be the convincing document. (PS also see List of calligraphers.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern re: critical coverage, ThatMontrealIP, and you are right, however as a niche genre one wonders if calligraphy critics exist. He is mentioned in a number of books including "Artist & Alphabet: Twentieth Century Calligraphy and Letter Art in America" and others. I respect your opinion but my !vote remains keep, at least for now. Netherzone (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between what I found in my search and what Netherzone wrote, I'm persuaded. XOR'easter (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with Netherzone that there is enough coverage about him Alex-h (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep: borderline, but scrapes by on GNG & WP:ARTIST. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NARTIST.4meter4 (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marvel Comics characters: B. Tone 08:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brynocki[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to either List of Marvel Comics characters: B or Master of Kung Fu (comics). BOZ (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, very selectively, to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Not enough notability for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fifty Fifty (Pakistani TV series). RL0919 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salahuddin Toofani[edit]

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

Article is not notable no references in article , even no news in google or google news so the person isn't notable MemonBhai (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fifty Fifty (Pakistani TV series) until reliable sources are found which are better than a "Small photograph depicting Salahuddin Toofani standing with three actors" Mujinga (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added 2 more references and 3 external links to this article on 14 September 2019. Cleaned up and tried to improve it. Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fifty Fifty (comedy show) - Epinoia (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ngrewal1 thanks for improving this article. Can you clarify which notability criteria eg, WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG etc does this subject passes, which has convinced you to vote Keep. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please relist the discussion and allow it more time. this may be barely notable. I am posting a note on Ngrewal1's talk page as well. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fifty Fifty (Pakistani TV series) per Mujinga (talk) - MA Javadi (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fifty Fifty (Pakistani TV series) as a valid search term. We have already waited for 22 days and relisted twice. The subject is mainly popular for this notable TV series. That qualifies as a valid redirect for this series. Regarding the individual notability I am skeptic, the subject has been awarded by the Pakistani government, but there are many recipients of that award which shows that the award in itself may not be enough for passing the BIO notability criteria. The WP:SIGCOV is expected in Urdu media. The contributors (possibly local) above have not presented any links to urdu media and most of them favour a redirect. I would agree with them. If sources are found in future, the article can be recovered from the redirect history. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fifty Fifty (Pakistani TV series).4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JGHowes ^talk 01:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Samba[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. Technically (maybe) passes WP:NFOOTBALL by playing in the Finnoish top division (it's fully-professional status in 2006 is unknown), but he only played for 63 minutes according to this. No ither career to speak of, and more importantly he fails WP:GNG. There is plenty of consensus at AFD that scraping by on NFOOTBALL when you fail GNG so categorically is not sufficient. Giant Snowman 14:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Patrick Samba has relatively high coverage in Bulgarian and Begian media, including a comprehensive interview. Also, it seems to me that articles that gat deleted for this reason are deleted because they use/show all their sources available, rather than just writing a few unsourced lines or have a profile as the only reference so viewers assume they are notable without doing any research. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, too, meets the WP:GNG. WP:NFOOTBALL as well but in first instance the GNG is met. Given the discussion here and the comments by nom, this item should not have been prodded. Prodding is for more obvious cases. gidonb (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about a semi-pro footballer who may have made a single substitute's appearance in a fully-pro league (if the Finnish top-tier was fully-pro back in 2006). There is plenty of routine coverage of this footballer in English-, Bulgarian-, Finnish- and French-language sources (match reports, transfer announcements, database entries). I can't find any significant coverage (including the sources cited in the article), although I cannot access the L'Avenir (Belgian newspaper) website to determine if any of those articles would meet SIGCOV. Without more, this article also fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jogurney.4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Weak, only because I'm not an expert on sports, but this sure looks like somebody who's not notable. Things like, "Attempted to earn a contract", and the side job as a receptionist sure sounds like there's nothing else worth writing about him. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 22:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – lack of GNG sources. – Levivich 22:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Atheists[edit]

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

Local branch of national society. We do not usually make articles for these; the references, obviously enough, are local announcements of local events. This is an excellent example of why that is a good policy. All the main article needs is an indication that there are state chapters, and where to find a listing of them on the main national site. DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it appears there's sufficient citation provided in the article to demonstrate some notability of this specific group called "Minnesota Atheists". But I'd like an explanation from the nom about his or her reasons stated - a) a chapter of a national organization and b) "we don't usually make articles for these". The wiki article on this group claims they are affiliated with other organizations but doesn't state that they are a "local branch" so that would need to be demonstrated, and then I'd like to see the specific Wikipedia guideline discourages article creation of local chapters. I'm not saying there is no such guideline, I'm just not familiar with it. I'm sure, for example, that each city's United Way chapter probably shouldn't have their own article, but then I would also want to hear arguments for and against. //// Regardless, a straight look at this article up for AfD appears to be a clear Keep to me without any additional information. -Markeer 20:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete citations are mostly WP:LOCAL, and nothing sets it apart from its parent organization. Some info from article could be put into the American Atheists Association article in future expansions, but this article is a delete. IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI mentioned this in my note above yours, but is there a citation showing that this organization has a parent org? Their website lists some affiliations but otherwise seems to be presenting themselves an independent org. As I mention above, I'd really like some cited evidence of this being a client/child organization if that's a primary reason for deleting. -Markeer 18:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It clearly falls outside the ambit of Wikipedia:Notability (local interests). It is well-referenced and has coverage in the largest media organizations in the state, and some national coverage. And while it is affiliated with national organizations, there is nothing to indicate that is it a chapter of them. Kablammo (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC) And even if it were, we have an entire category for Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. Kablammo (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Local but has enough coverage to stand as an article Alex-h (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Statewide organizations are generally considered non-local per Wikipedia:Notability (local interests). In any case, passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Coalition (United States)[edit]

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

This is a two-sentence article about a political action committee with no clear claim to notability. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve I've expanded the stub a bit, with references showing substantial coverage in multiple secondary RS per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for now). Too soon to see evidence of their notability or accomplishments. Millions of people hate Trump, it's not worth an article if no action has been taken. Maybe next year. Trillfendi (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep covered in multiple unaffiliated (or independent) reliable sources which shows this article satisfies the criteria for inclusion per WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG.

Merely reading through the references, I can see this topic is the subject of significant coverage in the Washington Post [16], Newsday [17], Mother Jones (you'll have to scroll down a bit), NBC News [18], The Science Christian Monitor [19], CNN [20] and the Daily Beast [21].---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon for notability SalmanZ (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Article shows sustained significant coverage over a three year period which to my mind seriously weakens the argument of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Winter[edit]

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

Appears to lack significant coverage, promotional Feoffer (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into CESNUR seems the obvious thing to do. The issues with the sources can probably be fixed, but any notability of Bitter Winter probably comes on the back of the notability of CESNUR, therefore it makes more sense for Bitter Winter to be a section of the CESNUR article rather than an article in its own right. A1415 (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge (as second choice). Hyperbolick (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while most of the sources deal with human rights issues, some (China Digital Times, EU Reporter, Human Rights Without Frontiers, Radio Free Asia, La Stampa) deal directly with Bitter Winter and its work - I believe that is enough to satisfy WP:GNG - if not, then merge to CESNUR - Epinoia (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into CESNUR. I don't see in-depth coverage from third-party reliable sources, only passing mentions here and there. -Zanhe (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has enough coverage and meets WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the requirements at WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blue Origin. RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Smith (aerospace engineer)[edit]

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

He may be notable, but this is promotional and incoherent to the extent it would need complete rewriting. Most of the material is about the company, not him. I tried to remove that material and arrange his career in chronological order, but this would amount to deleting the contents of the article and rewriting it from sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Origin where he is mentioned - as it stands, there are not enough significant coverage, where Smith is the subject of the articles, in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Origin. It can always be recreated when/if significant coverage is found and a dedicated editor cares to create a better article.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If somebody really wants to work on this, go research some better sources and then I'll be happy to restore this to draft for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Wilson (attorney)[edit]

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

De-Prod'ed with the statement "might meet wp:prof" but I'm not seeing that. The only part of WP:NPROF that might be met is criteria #7, but I don't see this as "substantial". It's more failing WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. Not enough there, but give it the chance. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbolick, this article was created in 2008 about a guy who worked a case from 2004-2007. What would more time to work on this (beyond the seven day AfD course) accomplish? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Might give people a sense of urgency. Drafts not worked on drop out of existence on their own. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is Richard J. Wilson, a law professor specializing in human rights. There is definitely a common name problem in looking him up. A copy of his CV is online as well as a selection of his papers. He has been written about in terms of his work as a lawyer for Omar Khadr in Guantanamo, but I am not sure this is enough. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only source is a work he produced, this in no way shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With a common name like this, it's difficult to identify what sources are referring to him in his particular field. I couldn't find anything that was definitively about him. The article is sourced to a primary reference, and with the absence of any significant coverage the assumption is that it doesn't exist. Fails WP:GNG unless better referencing is found.4meter4 (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There appears to be a weak consensus to draftify this. If it is deleted from the draft space and eventually becomes notable it will not be difficult to recover. The page creator is also free to move the article to their user space if so inclined. But I don't like doing that w/o some indication of agreement from them beforehand as too many such pages just sit there for eternity. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makhmud Muradov[edit]

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

Subject is a mma fighter. Subject has yet to secure 3 fights in top tier promotion to pass WP:MMA notability requirements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draftspace/Week Keep my first impression was to move the article to draft space per WP:TOOSOON, as Muradov has only 1 fight in the UFC, although with his recent win it is likely that he will get future fights in the UFC. However looking over the article some of the sources are pretty in-depth, and Muradov has the added fact of being the first Uzbekistani fighter in the UFC. I remain hopeful, though not convinced that the subject passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (1) Many fighters are the first to fight in their country and this is not a good reason for draftily for subject fails WP:MMABIO. Subject needs two more fights and if it is happens it will usually take more than 6 months to secure the two fights. Draft article will be nominated for deletion after 6 months. Recreate it when subject secure at least 3 fights in UFC will be a better choice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to suggest moving it to draftspace since he won his first UFC fight, which means he's likely (but not guaranteed) to get more. I didn't realize that drafts get removed after 6 months. Perhaps it could be put in the article creator's draft space so the work done so far doesn't get lost.Sandals1 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sandals1 Winning one fight does not guarantee of continuing the contract as we all know many fighters got released/traded off even with very a good track record, notably recent released of Elias Theodorou, Demetrious Johnson who defended his title for 11 times, Jon Fitch who was ranked top 10 in Welterweight at time of his released and yet UFC would resigned/kept fighter like B.J. Penn who has 7 losing streak since 2011, Andrei Arlovski who had lost 5 times in a row from 2 January 2016 to 17 June 2017, Conor McGregor who violated the law for sucker punch an old man in the pub for refusing to drink his Proper 12 whisky, and all are these are just some examples of many. Suggest you to save the content of Makhmud Muradov in "Note software" (not Microsoft Word) in case the subject meets the MMABIO notability requirement and the article can be recreated again. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace per Inter&#38.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 4meter see comment above above move to draft. and what is your reason of doing so? do provide reason instead of just stated}}. He subject fail WP:MMABIO notability guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm taking the other reviewer's judgement that the subject is not notable. My reason for commenting here is to point out that draftifying this is just throwing the problem over the wall to somebody else to clean up later, given that nobody has come forth and said they're going to work on it. If the subject becomes notable, a new article can be written about him, and anybody can ask at WP:REFUND to get the deleted version back to use as a starting point. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Purely promotional. G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yogabugs[edit]

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

Not seeing how this can pass WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Logan[edit]

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

This person is not notable, except as a member of a pop-band. The article should be a redirect to Bros. Lmatt (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a number of sources, he seems to have received in-depth cover in multiple reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: None of the sources you added appear to demonstrate notability independant of the the inactive pop-band Bros^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmatt (talk • contribs) 16:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - per WP:NARTIST, there does not have to be notability independent of the band, only sourcing. Which we have. The Nom appears to be using some personal definition of notability rather than Wikipedia's, which is more closely related to "independent verifiability" than it is to fame. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article may be short, but he is clearly a notable person. There is currently evidence of notability outside being a member of Bros in the article, as it mentions he (as a songwriter and producer) was nominated for an Ivor Novello Award.Nqr9 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Low, Valentine (2016-10-15). "Band of brothers: bassist left out of Bros reunion". The Times. Retrieved 2019-09-28.
^ "Craig from Bros had no idea Matt and Luke Goss were reforming the band". BelfastTelegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-09-28.
^ Kyriazis, Stefan (2016-10-05). "What happened to Bros third member Craig Logan? Band says he is WELCOME to join reunion". Express.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-09-28.
^ "'I never wanted to be famous': Craig Logan on the Bros years". The Independent. 2011-07-30. Retrieved 2019-09-28.
^ Savage, Mark (2016-10-14). "Craig Logan: Why I won't rejoin Bros". Retrieved 2019-09-28.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant reliable sources coverage now added to the article and has notability independent of the band for his songwriting, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear Powered Speedy Keep per everyone. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bros#Careers after Bros, where all this can be adequately summarized. --Michig (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC) He only co-wrote the song that was nominated for an Ivor Novello Award, and then had a few industry jobs after leaving Bros - can easily be covered by a few lines in the Bros article. --Michig (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator has been banned for one month. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. RL0919 (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion moss[edit]

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

Extremely minor, non-notable fictional creature (or plant, I guess, in this case). The one non-primary source being used in the article, to a "Top Ten" style article, is not enough by itself to have this fictional being pass the WP:GNG, particularly because the information in that list is nothing but a description of it that does not establish notability. Aside from that, all other references are primary. Rorshacma (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to above list, since there is a list. If that list is ever deleted, then the redirect could be deleted at that time as well. Zero real world notability. Sourcing does not show they meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge,Has enough sign not to be deleted, merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Alex-h (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters.4meter4 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whilst some sources have been presented, there is consensus that most of them are routine and there is not enough to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ishan Pandita[edit]

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

Pandita has not received significant coverage or played in a fully professional league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Respectfully disagree with nom. about GNG, plenty of coverage out there: [22], [23], [24] - WP:THREE, [25]. Loads for the subject's (ongoing) career in Spain, e.g. [26], [27], [28], which is expected given he is reportedly the first Indian to officially join a Spanish club. R96Skinner (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BLP1E (signing for a La Liga team as a youth player three years ago). His football career is absolutely non-notable: a handful of appearances for teams in the Tercera Division, which is two tiers below a WP:NFOOTY-qualifying league. Article's also unsourced. SportingFlyer T·C 01:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of past cases show BLP1E is rarely enough for delete, AfD/Wayne Shaw (footballer) springs to mind - a goalkeeper famous for eating a pie! (or was it a pasty? we may never know!) R96Skinner (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Wayne Shaw was a non-admin close, probably should have been a no consensus. All of the coverage is routine transfer announcements from local sources which are playing him up. As I've said, he miserably fails WP:NFOOTY. The only coverage of him on Lorca, where he's currently playing, all I can find is a brief mention here. Clearly non-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Coverage whilst with Leganés, Gimnàstic and Lorca across three years, that's fairly sustained. I get there is an argument here, but I feel GNG is satisfied. As mentioned at a different AfD, it's a shame GNG completely trumps NFOOTY - which I'd say is a better barometer for notability but hey, GNG tops all at Wikipedia so here we are. R96Skinner (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per R96Skinner and have added references [29] ,[30] ,[31] ,[32] ,[33] ,[34] He is the first Indian player to join a Spanish club passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With one possible exception all of those sources are WP:MILL about him joining Leganes or Nastic, two teams he never ultimately appeared for. SportingFlyer T·C 02:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILL is an essay though, so doesn't really bring anything concrete; also, whether he played or not is irrelevant when questioning GNG. R96Skinner (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but WP:MILL is still used frequently at AfD discussions, and I think it should be used here as well. There's a distinct difference between having sources and having sources which pass WP:GNG, and while there are a couple sources here that come close, he is only notable for signing a contract with a La Liga side - he is not notable as a footballer, yet, just a routine fourth division player, and we should not be encouraging these types of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 01:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect where you're coming from, but I do disagree (evidently). To stop us going in circles, agree to disagree I'd say. R96Skinner (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG with significant in-depth coverage documented above, since 2015. Some of the coverage is routine, however this and this certainly aren't. And as this notes, he created history as "the first Indian footballer to sign a professional contract with a Spanish La Liga club". Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~because there's three keep !votes~~ because SportsKeeda is in-depth, but it's user-generated content, so not a reliable source with editorial control, and KashmirLife is written by the Secretary of the state sports council, so not really independent journalism, but rather promotional, like a press release. Every other link in the article and here looks like non-in-depth, routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG, and the fact that we're finding a lot of sources indicates it's not a lack-of-access-to-sources problem. I'm not persuaded that "first <ethnicity> to play in <country>" is something that would suggest there's significant coverage out there (unless it's really unique like first South Korean to play in North Korea or something). – Levivich 04:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer and Levivich arguments. Frankly, he's not too different from Hendry Antonay, which was recently kept for having an 'in-depth coverage' of exactly one event in his career (being selected for U17 NT).--BlameRuiner (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TerryTheVoice[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources cited in the article are all interviews. The subject doesn't have a music career to speak of. He has only released one single. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. I tried checing out for independent coverage by reliable sources but no luck. Subject does not pass WP:BASIC. Mahveotm (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeju Air Flight 502[edit]

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

No source to prove that accident happen in the past plus this is not important article, this type of accident happen every year in every nation. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The incident did occur[35] but it isn't notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, this incident doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant mention in an article about the airline, the airport, or the aircraft type. Consequently, it probably isn't notable enough for an article of its own, even after getting past the fact that no news- or historical-type sources have been provided. (The source cited by William above is an entry in an aviation safety database.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most notable things about this incident are that the aircraft had a rudder failure and it was damaged beyond repair so a mention at De Havilland Canada Dash 8 would be acceptable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents#Aircraft articles. However, a stand alone article is not necessary because of a lack on notability due to no loss of life and a small regional airliner. - Samf4u (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a lack of notability, unfortunately. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 11:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chulbul P Pandey[edit]

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

No evidence that Chulbul Pandey is known by this name. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of stand alone notability or passing WP:NFICTION, no content that is not a summary of his fictional biography in the three films. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural closure. As everyone in this discussion, as well as 31.79.208.54 noticed, the correct venue for discussing this page is WP:RFD. It is not appropriate to blank a redirect's page in order to bring it to AFD instead of RFD. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CoolReader[edit]

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

Empty page, previous revision which was a redirect is incorrect. Petilil (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, more specifically "A3. No content". LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 12:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really too much to ask for those commenting here to glance at the article history? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: Believe me, I looked at the article history. Since it was blanked, I assumed that the redirect is no longer necessary and it should be removed. My mistake then, so I am changing my vote. It would have cost you nothing to point out the mistake. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People calling for the speedy deletion of pages are expected to have a minimal level of knowledge of Wikipedia's procedures, which includes knowing that WP:A3 does not apply to redirects, or even to articles when there is content in the history. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, procedural keep, that is. Please note that the article was blanked by the nom right before nomination. Blanking like this is not allowed. In fact the "article" was a redirect, so this should really be at redirects for discussion WP:RFD rather than AfD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this is the wrong venue. If you want this to be deleted then go to WP:RFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changed vote. It was a mistake, should have voted "keep". Redirect should be discussed at WP:RFD. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Uncharted characters#Victor "Sully" Sullivan. Tone 08:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Sullivan[edit]

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

Another non-notable character. While he gets discussed in fan sites, no true in-depth coverage, and zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable character that definitely doesn't need his own page. Coverage of him is also not very convincing. The only source that the article uses that is actually about him is a dead link to a profile of his on IGN. [[36]] Even if that page was up, a profile of a tertiary character on a video game website doesn't mean that said character warrants a Wikipedia article. The fact that not even specialized websites have an article about him anymore seals it for me. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Uncharted~~ List of Uncharted characters#Victor "Sully" Sullivan where the character is already discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoba47 because redirects are WP:CHEAP, but this target might be a bit less likely to WP:ASTONISH searchers List of Uncharted characters#Victor "Sully" Sullivan as a direct target, but either is acceptable. -2pou (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. I think that would be the better redirect target. I will change my vote when I have access to my laptop (I am currently on my phone). Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uncharted.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lava children[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:GAMEGUIDE; crufty, specialised topic. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor D&D monster, with no in-depth sources discussing it outside of primary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magedoom[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails [[WP:GNG].Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine cactus[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic. Some trivial top X list in itself is does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another minor fictional character with no real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor creature with no notability. The one non-primary reference is to a humor article on "Cracked", which is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Also, looking at the article in question, the coverage on the creature is extremely brief to the point of being trivial. Rorshacma (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two sources in the article don't get this anywhere close to the WP:GNG line; crufty. SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Timur9008 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand A cricket team against Pakistan A in the UAE in 2018–19[edit]

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

A tournament featuring two nation's second tier sides, certainly not at the highest international level and almost no significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT Ajf773 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There seems to be only sparse coverage of the New Zealand A cricket team and Pakistan A cricket team, let alone this non-notable tournament. And while the teams themselves probably warrant their own page despite the sparse coverage, the same can not be said about this tournament. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any substantial, independent coverage can be found to show that this ia a properly notable event. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom's reasoning. Zawed (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks detailed coverage of the match other then the team in the reliable media. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OMS Safeharbor[edit]

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

Unreferenced, promotional and lacking in content Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: The article has five sentences as a whole, four of which have no apparent relevance to the topic. There are no sources, and no evidence of its subject's impact. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The primary contributor is Omsrobert (talk · contribs). (Read: OMS Robert) The user name seems to imply connection to the subject of the article. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches yielded not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Pontificalibus 14:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jailed for Freedom[edit]

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

~~There seems no evidence whatever for the notability of the book, as distinct from the individual. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)~~ DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A ProQuest search shows that the 1995 edition was reviewed by Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Journal of Women's History and The Washington Post. Article needs some serious work, though. Haukur (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added more information and some sources, although there's still a lot of improvement that can be done. The book is cited/quoted in many academic examinations of the 19th amendment fight and in works about Alice Paul, and is being reissued again in 2020. Schazjmd (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn in view of the additional sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Hancox[edit]

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

NOT MEMORIAL No evidence of individual notability by WP:MILHIS or otherwise. The references and bibliography are either mere notices, or very general. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The decorations on his gravesite seem to be the most notable aspect. If the article is retained, these details should be moved to the start of the intro. If the article is deleted, it would be good to see these details moved elsewhere, perhaps to Gallipoli_campaign#Graves and memorials? Thanks. Meticulo (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and an almost complete reliance on primary sources. Just one of the tens of thousands of WWI dead. We need to see significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by an admin per WP:G11. (non-admin closure)---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G1E Productionz[edit]

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

Heavily promotional article for a non notable team of music producers. Since 2007 it has been sourced only to a new-defunct account on MySpace. I mistakenly PRODed this not realising it had been declined for PROD before in 2007. Mccapra (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Super promotional and fails WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 12:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems like this has already been deleted. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of International cricket centuries in 2019[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT, fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR. This article has literally only been created in the last two days. Also we should consider the future of these articles as well Category:International cricket centuries by year. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all in the category mentioned above as WP:NOTSTATS. There are over 6000 international centuries; I don't think every one of them needs to be listed like this. Spike 'em (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are are part of a series, exactly the same in scope, just for different years:

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and find any similar articles and delete them as well. This is pretty much the definition of what Wikipedia should not be. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add - it would probably be helpful to bundle List of International cricket centuries in 1877 to List of International cricket centuries in 1886 and all of those in between, as well as the template associated with them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added the articles; not sure if the Template and Category can be included here, or if they need to go to TfD and CfD if this AfD is endorsed. Spike 'em (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a mere list just like other records. I am trying to add more references and trying to improve the article. Aditya tamhankar (talk) 30 September 2019 10:49 (IST)

It is not the referencing of the individual entries that is a problem. These lists can only be generated using something like statsguru, so this fails both NOTMIRROR and NOTSTATS. Spike 'em (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Ajf773. Dee 03 11:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: As I understand it, these are the equivalent of a list of homeruns in major league baseball. Possibly they rise to the level of a list of grand slams (a home run hit with 3 runners on the bases). Either way, it fails WP:NLIST Verba Delenda Est Rockphed (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of numbers there is just less than 1 century per international match with a total of between 140 and 190 per year this century in men's matches. In terms of frequency this will be slightly rarer than a HR and in absolute numbers comparable to the number of grand slams in an MLB season (I see that is generally between 100 and 130 per season). Spike 'em (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: as per nom. HawkAussie (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above arguments. Plus, it's nearly impossible to "maintain" such huge lists. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santa and the Three Bears[edit]

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

I could hesitate to nominate it, was it for plot details, but since there's not even such thing, I think it should be deleted. Also, no references. NickBlamp (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this sort of cite is what the current article is based on. Decent for establishing facts, but rubbish for establishing notability.

Crump, William D. (2013). The Christmas Encyclopedia, 3d ed. McFarland. ISBN 9780786468270. Retrieved 20 September 2019.

I'm not sure there are better sources out there. Rockphed (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:NFP - Epinoia (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a reviews of newspapers.com shows this film was widely shown in theaters across the country in 1970 - 1972. It was then shown widely across the United States on television in the 1980s. There are two significant sources about the film, [37] and the aforementioned book by Crump. A review is also found in "Video Movie Guide 1996" by Mick Martin, published by Ballantine Books. Another review is found in Cinefantastique, volume 15, 1985. Given the widespread, nearly ubiquitous showing of this film it is likely that a broad audience will seek encyclopedic information about this topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 78.26. I would further add that I disagree with Rockphed's dismissal of The Christmas Encyclopedia. McFarland & Company is a publishing house that specializes in academic and reference works. The content in specialized encyclopedias, including The Christmas Encyclopedia, is especially significant because wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers all content found in other encyclopedias. If a work is the main subject of an entry in a published encyclopedia it's always notable.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in reliable book sources as above and as it was widely released there should be reviews in newspapers offline if not online as it is a pre-internet subject, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seacom Engineering College[edit]

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

Seeking redirect to Howrah or Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology for failing WP:GNG.

There's nil coverage except over these three links. I am a native speaker of Bangla (the vernacular language of the region) and can confirm that there's no coverage of the institute in regional sources. ∯WBG^converse 12:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 12:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 12:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding institutions are usually kept. Not part of the university, just affiliated to it, so no reason for redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need a re-run of this episode? ∯WBG^converse 12:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How very sad that you have dredged up that shameful example of attempted bullying of an editor into not expressing their opinion (note comments by Kudpung and DGG); it really does not reflect well on you that you have chosen to do so. I might almost think you were threatening me and/or trying to shut down my opinion. Let's not have any more unpleasantness like that. There's no place for it on Wikipedia. I am entitled to express an opinion and I have done so. End of. Also note that discussion (and the RfC) was about secondary schools, not tertiary institutions; please don't try to extend it to something it did not cover. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. If sufficient sources can be found I will gladly change to keep. We still have to follow verifiability standards of multiple sources. One source is not enough.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Institutions about which nobody writes are not notable. Rockphed (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. Tone 09:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The character isn't notable in the real world or the fictional one. The few inline mentions of him on other articles can provide the necessary context. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics as per context in WP:MERGEREASON.--PATH SLOPU 08:37, 13 September 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)} 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics.4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything necessary, otherwise just Redirect since it's already there. WP:CHEAP 2pou (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics per above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics, very selectively, as most of the info on the page is quite trivial. Definitely not notable enough to keep a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's clear agreement here that this should not be deleted outright, which is the major decision that AfD has to make.

Beyond that, there's disagreement here about the relative importance of WP:NBOOK vs. WP:GNG, and how literally NBOOK should be interpreted. If people still feel this should be merged, that conversation can continue on the talk pages and if consensus emerges to do so, there's nothing preventing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Engineering: A Yogi's Guide to Joy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. ∯WBG^converse 19:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 19:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 19:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 19:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this book been received quite a bit of media attention. I can find it on the HT-Nielsen list [38] and seems to have been on the NYTimes bestsellers list [39]. I can find some book reviews as well such as [40]. As this is one of those "popular self-help" books, I believe there would be more reviews out there and I will have a look again.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief does not matter. One book review does not make the cut. Being on the best-sellers' list ain't a NBOOK passage. ∯WBG^converse 13:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that's an overtly literal reading of what constitutes a book's notability. Books can be notable though WP:GNG as well. If a book is being promoted though accompanying events, or translated into multiple languages, that does add to the book's notability. The reason why I quoted bestsellers list is because it includes books which have been selling well (in the US and India) and it is likely that there would be coverage about such books. Appearing on a bestsellers list (assuming it is a list by a reliable newspaper like NYTimes or HT) is one of the easiest ways to quantify how popular a book it.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked up the WP:NBOOK guideline and it says A book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list is non-trivial treatment if the list is notable or the list is published by a notable media outlet and the list is republished or covered by other reliable sources. If we go by this, the inclusion in these 2 bestseller lists should suffice
NYTimes bestsellers list for multiple weeks in multiple categories (health, religion, miscellaneous) [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]

HT-Neilsen top-10 list (probably the most reliable list for India) - The book has been in the top10 for non-fiction. Google search link [46] since I don't want to past the individual links. There are 52 results, which means the book has been there in the list for 52 weeks. This is a pretty significant achievement.
Additionally, this book won the "popular non fiction" category of the Crossword Book Award [47] which adds to its significance.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jaggi Vasudev. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect make section in Jaggi Vasudev and redirect this page to there. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic does satisfy NBOOK. One non-trivial review plus one notable best-seller list is enough for that. The article is somewhat promotional, though, and needs to be pruned. Haukur (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the criteria at WP:NBOOK.4meter4 (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jaggi Vasudev. Agree with Hyperbolick's assessment. It is much more convenient to have a page on this book combined with the page on the author. DJRafe (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anybody with new sources, come forth to WP:REFUND, but for now, there is consensus (if lightly attended) to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Szeto[edit]

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

This seems to have slipped through the net in 2011 – created and maintained by an editor with blatant WP:COI. He seems to be of only dubious notability at best – nine verifiable hits on Gnews, two on Gbooks (unless he was also executive director of company building ferryboats?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Justlettersandnumbers: - it does actually say he was the executive director in the third paragraph of his background, if that makes any difference. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Nosebagbear, so it does – thank you! That adds four passing mentions to the Gbooks hits. I don't see any in-depth coverage of him there or anywhere else. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like much of his film career has been spent in China. I'd suggest pinging a Chinese fluent wikipedian willing to investigate. My guess is foreign language sources may exist. In English I found only tangential references to Antony Szeto.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Given that the article has been relisted twice, I doubt anyone who speaks/reads Chinese is going to come forward at this time. He fails WP:SIGCOV, and therefore WP:GNG based on the English language sources available. If someone with access to significant coverage in foreign language references (the most likely source of referencing for this subject) comes forward, I see no problem with them re-creating the article.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spamming. As noted in the discussion the article is completely unsourced after 14 years. That's a WP:V fail and V is policy trumping any notability guidelines. With no references there is nothing to merge. All of which said, it is a viable search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spamvertising[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay. Rathfelder (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spamming. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I received notification that this article was being proposed for deletion, and upon reviewing its history, I can see that I started the article in Wikipedia back in 2004, although I don't remember it. I lean slightly against deleting it now. Although I can see it still lacks references, a Google search for the term yields 17,000+ results, a number of which are are legitimate news or information articles. For example, the SORBS spam blacklist uses the term in an article on "Basic Spamfighting." I think the fact that the article has existed for 15 years without a previous proposal for deletion also suggests that it is worth keeping. However, I don't feel strongly about this. If the article is not going to be kept, though, I think it should at least redirect to Spamming. Sheldon Rampton (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spamming - There are no current references in the article, and doing searches does bring up some results, but nothing that goes particularly in depth or much beyond a definition. In fact, most of the top results are just mirrors/copies of this very article. That said, as the term is a legit term, a Redirect to Spamming makes sense. Some slight merging or mentioning of the term in the target article can also be done if seen as appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My university library has several articles that address the topic in a non-trivial way: "Real IT and fake accounts" by Gibbs, Mark, Network World, Nov 1, 2004, Vol.21(44), p.70; "Economics of Spam", Beijing Review, Jul 1, 2004, Vol.47(26); "Even science would benefit from auctions", CACM Staff, Communications of the ACM, 01 November 2008, Vol.51(11), pp.8-9 (peer reviewed); "SPAM PHISHING CASES FALL", Info - Prod Research (Middle East), Jun 25, 2008; HONG KONG: SPAM PHISHING CASES FALL, IPR Strategic Business Information Database, June 25, 2008; "Comcast Class A: Operation Safety net Helps Business And Government Leaders Understand Global Online Security Best Practices", News Bites US - NASDAQ, Jun 10, 2015. In addition the subject gets 26 hit on Google scholar (see here).4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is Spamvertising different from spamming?Rathfelder (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references after 14 years??? I did some searching on my own and found nothing that looks like a reliable secondary source. Do not merge; with no references, this fails WP:V, and thus can't be merged. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a bit of a mess. I'm discounting the socked nomination. What we're left with is clear consensus that there's insufficient sourcing for mainspace, but if the author wants to continue to work on it, moving it to draft space seems like a reasonable way forward. But, please read WP:POET to understand what we're looking for. We don't need more references, we need better ones. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prabal Kumar Basu[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lacks significant sources Zinzhanglee (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zinzhanglee (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zinzhanglee (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Zinzhanglee (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the whole article with proper citation and reference. Please go through it. All the information provided here are true.as per my best knowledge. Please Don't delete this page and article. I'mtrying my best to make this article proper. I want this page to be published in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dass sundaram (talk • contribs) 14:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Dass sundaram (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete - does not seem to have achieved notable critical acclaim per WP:POET - there are no reviews of his books or writeups about him - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i have reviewed the article thoroughly and cited it with proper references and have added book review. i hope this will fulfill the criteria to publish the article in wikipedia.--Dass sundaram (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the added references still don't confer notability as they are not about Prabal Kumar Basu himself - getting into WP:REFBOMBING territory here - Epinoia (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. MER-C 16:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Quick Google search suggests unplumbed sources, let's investigate. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems odd that a notable Bengali poet would not have an article on bn.wiki. Are there any Bengali sources? Mccapra (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus to delete the article at this time, after much extended time for review. bd2412 T 02:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Stumbo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (only ArsTechnica and Conde Nast really discuss the case, and it's only one one specific element of the case) and WP:CASES - non-notable lawsuit. SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the notability issue, but this was a criminal prosecution, not a “lawsuit.” postdlf (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also no comment, but is it "Stumbo" or "Strumbo"? Chris857 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's Stumbo, and the spelling error has been corrected, TY. Magnoffiq (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SportingFlyer for pointing out my citation error: it's ars technica not Conde Nast. I don't see how it "fails" the WP:GNG at all. In fact, with three solid newspaper stories, and two interpretation articles from well-known trade mags including Wired (magazine), it deserves to stay. Are you perhaps unaware of the reputation of wired? It seems to be the magazine of record in the computer industry... so I inserted a sentence in the lede that begins with "The case is notable for", which alleviates the concern over WP:CASES. Can you re-review it now?

PS, I fixed the "orphan" problem: at last count, two wikis pointed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnoffiq (talk • contribs)

Keep: see above - no reply from proponent SportingFlyer to my comments is indicative of his/her consent to Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnoffiq (talk • contribs)

That's not how Articles for Deletion works, if I were to consent to keeping this I would withdraw the nomination. The Wired article does not even mention the prosecution by name. It's clearly a non-notable crime. SportingFlyer T·C 06:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wired article is mentioned in the ars technica article. The fact that the crime (or a facet of the crime) garnered US national attention in at least two significant publications makes it ipso-facto notable. Magnoffiq (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know how this run of the mill drug case is notable. There's no evidence it has any value as precedent. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian:, I don't think the status of "legal precedent" is a criterion for AfD. Or do I err? Please indicate here the reasons you think it is an AfD criterion. In any case, the text that follows has been added to the lede:

“

The case is notable for its use of an international production order, whereby the DEA obtained crucial links that tied the criminal to the transaction by way of the Canadian Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

”

Magnoffiq (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not totally obvious from the way that the article is written, but this article is significant because it was the first major case which made use of the Canadian Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. That's the claim to fame. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it appears Wikipedia is the only place where it's reported as the first, which would make it WP:OR. There are a couple sources saying the case used Canadian help, but they're brief and don't demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it mentioned in the judgment? That wouldn't be original research. Bookscale (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the documents I've been able to find, I haven't seen the judgment, but I can't find anywhere that discusses the case in that sense. The "claim to fame" isn't mentioned anywhere, the crime wasn't notable (36 months probation?), none of the sources even significantly cover the case (but instead talk about some email-related technicalities.) I don't have any problem mentioning that in say an article on Hushmail, but nobody has actually shown sources that pass WP:SYNTH demonstrating the notability of this case, or this crime. SportingFlyer T·C 02:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the discussion above, a commentator asks "I don't think the status of "legal precedent" is a criterion for AfD. Or do I err? Please indicate here the reasons you think it is an AfD criterion.". Of course, "legal precedent" is not an AFD criterion but it is a dimension of "lasting effect" - see WP:LASTING. Candidly, this is a current event that fails WP:EVENT. A straw in the wind that this case has had no lasting effect is that all the sources in the page are within two months of the case. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Magnoffiq (meant Bearian).4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - umm... Magnoffiq has suggested keeping the article? Bookscale (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per May His Shadow Fall Upon You. Bookscale (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is somewhere between keep and redirect, which is clearly not "delete". Closing as keep. If you want to redirect, discuss at the talkpage. Tone 09:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Projectra[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is undersourced, but the character is certainly notable in relation to DC Comics' Legion of Super-Heroes.— TAnthony^Talk 18:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just did a minor revamp, including new secondary source citations, and adding a new publication history section so the entire article isn't just in-universe character history. This one easily clears the bar imho. Ford MF (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that really helped.— TAnthony^Talk 22:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. Even with the added sources, there is little to indicate any real world notability, as the sources are generally either plot summaries or very brief mentions. For example, this one mentions her one time in a list of characters created by Jim Shooter, this one is just a long, detailed plot summary, etc. This book is probably the closest of all of them of actually being a decent source, and even then, its is almost entirely just an in-universe description of the character, with only a very brief mention at the end of her being a "force to be reckoned with" in comic book history. I really don't see anything that would indicate any independent, real-world notability for the character, and as she is already present on the main Legion character list, redirecting there seems appropriate. Merging can be done if needed, as the article's history will still be intact. Rorshacma (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members per Rorshacma4meter4 (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. I agree with Rorshacma that the sources do not indicate enough notability to support an independent article, although I think a limited scope of notability has been established so a redirect would be an appropriate course of action. This could also be a viable search term so it would be helpful to have for any readers who want to learn more about this character. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members#Silver Age members. As already pointed out by Rorshacma, no real world notability. References are trivial or summaries. Virtually the entire article is in-universe. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources already in the article. I also found this brief mention in Wired magazine [48]. It is one of the first things created by legendary comic book writer Jim Shooter, so I think that adds to the notability. Dream Focus 16:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't know who she is, but there seem to be enough sources that discuss her creation by Jim Shooter, himself quite notable (and the fact that his first creation was female), in depth as well as some of her evolutions. Looks like it satisfies GNG to me, and I don't even really have to go into WP:NEXIST, but adding more can never hurt an article. -2pou (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marvel Comics demons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N'Garai[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics demons. BOZ (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics demons. Not notable enough for its own article.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics demons. Zero real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, contributions) 09:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Santana (academic)[edit]

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

I can’t see that the subject of this article meets any of the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find notability. Reads like a U of C Press Release. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. 12 years after this heavily-promotional bio was created by a single-purpose editor, his faculty profile still lists him as an associate professor with one book. That's not success by academic standards. The book has four reviews on JSTOR [49] [50] [51] [52], enough to be plausibly notable itself but nothing special. So if there were an article on the book we could redirect to it. But even if another book with other reviews turns up (the only candidate I found is [53] and I'm pretty sure that's a different Mario Santana), giving enough for WP:AUTHOR, the promotional and dated content of the current article makes it not worth saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Would need another book to make the cut. Haukur (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreigners in the Homeland. The book is notable and can be expanded from the reviews. Sourceable information about Santana can be added to a section about the author there.Thsmi002 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The book has been deprodded with a vague explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The absence of WP:RS apart from the university is why this is not a notable subject.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is no significant independent coverage of him and I don't see anything that shows he's a notable academic.Sandals1 (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I considered a merge but there is little that merits a merge to the main article. Still, let me know if anyone is willing to give it a try and I will provide the content. Tone 08:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basilisk (fantasy role play)[edit]

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

Just an example farm of various appearances of the monster in fantasy. Fails GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is sourced info there that should be Merged into Basilisk. MarnetteD|Talk 04:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I considered a "Merge" to the main article on the mythological creature, but ultimately decided that it would not be appropriate. The information here runs afoul of being a game guide, and the majority of the sources here are not reliable, secondary sources, in some cases being literal game guides. I took a look at the two sources present that don't run afoul of this. In the first (the book by Gilsdorf), the coverage is limited to direct quotes pulled straight from the D&D monster manual, which does not do much to establish any sort of notability, either for a keep or a merge. The second (on the Harry Potter game) is actually not bad, but is not enough on its own to establish notability for a "Fantasy Role Play" variant of the creature. It wouldn't be a bad source to add to Magical_creatures_in_Harry_Potter#Basilisk, though.Rorshacma (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Basilisk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Basilisk.4meter4 (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kappa (folklore)#In media. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional variant of a mythological creature. There are only two sources being used and both of them are primary. I have been unable to locate any additional sources that indicate any notability for the D&D specific version of the creature. Rorshacma (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly add a mention about it to Kappa (folklore)#In media. Too similar to the mythological creature to have it's own article. Not a very active user (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kappa (folklore)#In media through likely only a short summary should be preserved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Elberg[edit]

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

No indication that this person meets WP:DIRECTOR. Reliable sources cannot be located. IMDB is not a reliable source. Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person. IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Sadirac[edit]

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

8.Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth.

For information : This article has already been removed from Wikipedia fr for this reason. EulerObama (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only noteworthy event was the hacking of the Prime Minister’s website, but that’s not enough on its own for notability. Mccapra (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Notable, no. There are other sources out there but none that support the content of the article. Their medias are also not sufficiently established to be considered RS, even if the claims are accurate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As has been pointed out, having written a lot of things is not a notability criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Fiorentini[edit]

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

After checking the sources used in this article and available sources elsewhere, I don't see anything to indicate that she meets WP:GNG. A google search brings up little more than resumes, social media, and pages listing articles she's written. Not a single source used in the article is secondary. Vermont (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I'd expect Google to bring up articles she's written because her career began as a journalist before moving towards presenter work. Also, there are secondary sources on this article, yes the own website ones aren't ideal, but this can be improved upon rather than the whole article being deleted. Wikipedia has all sorts of articles for many Al Jazeera and other presenters that are arguable far less notable than this subject. Finally, we have to take into account the methods in which people consume media nowadays. Some of her current works are an online weekly news show and a podcast. This is why some of the sources aren't those that you'd associate with "traditional" e.g. New York Times or Chicago Tribune, but more online "trendy" sources for the youngsters. I don't know podcasts or video articles are really the WSJ's "thing" Apeholder (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's many articles she's written, but there's none written about her. Authors and journalists are not notable just because they've written articles. Vermont (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this resume. Trillfendi (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete writing lots of articles does not make someone notable. We need sources about them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Rand2000-1] Muriel K. Rand (2000). Giving it Some Thought: Cases for Early Childhood Practice. National Association for the Education of Young Children. ISBN 978-0-935989-94-6.

[RandShelton-Colangelo2003-2] Muriel K. Rand; Sharon Shelton-Colangelo (2003). Voices of Student Teachers: Cases from the Field (2nd ed.). Merrill/Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-094130-5.

[3] Low, Valentine (2016-10-15). "Band of brothers: bassist left out of Bros reunion". The Times. Retrieved 2019-09-28.

[4] "Craig from Bros had no idea Matt and Luke Goss were reforming the band". BelfastTelegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-09-28.

[5] Kyriazis, Stefan (2016-10-05). "What happened to Bros third member Craig Logan? Band says he is WELCOME to join reunion". Express.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-09-28.

[6] "'I never wanted to be famous': Craig Logan on the Bros years". The Independent. 2011-07-30. Retrieved 2019-09-28.

[7] Savage, Mark (2016-10-14). "Craig Logan: Why I won't rejoin Bros". Retrieved 2019-09-28.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]