Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 April	19 April >

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. BD2412 T 04:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 3[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No or little references for the actual subject, most of the references are unrelated and have no relation to the article, pretty much saying "this song exists". Micro (Talk) 23:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These artists may or may not be notable, but every little particular release by them doesn't inherit that notability. I agree. This album isn't really notable. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not enough coverage to be notable. Alex-h (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 04:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 2[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No or little references for the actual subject, most of the references are unrelated and have no relation to the article, pretty much saying "this song exists". Micro (Talk) 23:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 04:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat 030 – Finale[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No or little references for the actual subject, most of the references are unrelated and have no relation to the article, pretty much saying "this song exists". Micro (Talk) 23:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last Odyssey: Pinball Fantasia[edit]

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

Cancelled video game that does not meet the notability guidelines. Nearly all the sources on here are unreliable or dubious in nature, consisting primarily of a YouTube video by a non-notable figure or questionable fansites. There's also no reception, which is a requirement for cancelled video game articles. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 22:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This will be my only comment on this subject but its a notable unreleased Neo Geo title, regardless of its sources. Also, finding even the slightest of reviews about x unreleased game its tough because nobody bothered to keep track of it back in the day and compiled them for easy net searching. I'm fairly certain this won't be the last unreleased Neo Geo game article i created targeted for deletion, which is disheartening due to the time i invested on them. Although somebody may had already archived the links, which is the least of worries now (since pretty much everybody these days archive links for future reference). Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"a notable unreleased Neo Geo title, regardless of its sources" - that doesn't make any sense. If there's nothing in the way of reliability in the sources, then this shouldn't even have an article. You basically admitted that this article isn't notable but it should stay anyway, which is silly. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't admit that the article was not notable. I said blatantly that it was a notable unreleased Neo Geo title but whatever suits your mind. There ARE sources about LO:PF but they're extremely hard to come by. That and i'm currently dealing with internet issues at my home (i'm responding via mobile device) than to look for sources, which i seriously need to get it fixed. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But how is it notable? Is there significant coverage of this game in reliable, third-party publications? Assuming that sources exist is not at all a reason to keep something, as really that applies to basically everything. If there's no coverage of this by reliable sources, then it simply cannot have an article. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG, although in Japanese this source here, shows that is has been published in a reliable independent 3rd party publisher. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 12:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC) – Apollo825 (talk · contribs) is blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]

How can you look at this article and think it is notable? Most of the sources are unreliable, and the ones that aren't offer almost no significant coverage. I fail to see why this pagevshould be kept. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 13:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "NeoGeoFreak" coverage looks solid — I can't read Japanese, but it's clearly a two-page article entirely about the game. I also added a small reference from GamesTech magazine. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're proposing this article be kept because of one magazine? For real? Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NeoGeoFreak and GamesTech coverage are significant coverage in reliable sources. So it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 22:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The GamesTech coverage is literally a couple of sentences. That's not even close to establishing notability. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being in a language I couldn't read I didn't look too closely at that one. Anyway, there was surely more coverage back then, not everything can be found online. This a major game from a big company, so some would be covering it. If one major media source gave it an ample review, then someone else sure did as well. Dream Focus 02:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - "This a major game from a big company, so some would be covering it." Who would that be? Are you confusing them with Monolith Soft? Whatever the case, saying "oh there's probably sources online" is not a valid argument to keep something. There's nothing here that has given significant coverage except for a single issue of Neo Geo Freak. One sources doesn't constitute notability. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Neo Geo (system) had only 156 games ever released for it over its 7 year lifespan. Any monthly publication that reviewed their games would run out of things to review if they didn't cover all of them. And this company had other notable games(EDIT to Clarify: click "Developers in infobox to reveal it worked on them). Fatal_Fury_Special#Reception, Samurai_Shodown_(1993_video_game)#Reception, and Super_Baseball_2020#Reception are three other games by them that have articles, and they had ample coverage. Unless someone has a copy of those old magazines from back then and wants to bother looking it up and posting information, no way to tell. But I find it unlikely they wouldn't have reviewed this game in more than one place. Dream Focus 03:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        This game is a cancelled game, so there are never going be reviews of any kind. You meant previews? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        All of the examples are games by SNK, a clearly notable developer. I really don't know what you're trying to argue about here. This article clearly doesn't meet the notability guidelines and I fail to see how you think otherwise. We cannot be assuming things with sources, and if we can't find any, what good does keeping this article have? Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 03:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment There ARE rare ocurrences where a cancelled game DID get reviews. An example of this is The Shadow by Ocean Software. Most of them were found by SNESCentral, while the Next Generation review was found by BOZ, however the Micromania review was found by complete accident during one of my researchs. So IMHO, if there are reviews for a unreleased title then go for it. Otherwise, I don't see the reception section as a necessity for a cancelled title and I never intend to invent a reception section for the sake of one in a article about an unreleased title, as finding references for cancelled games is much harder than for a game that did get released. Oh and one more thing, if any magazine giving his thoughts about the title is shown, then that's also valid. Roberth Martinez (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        You still haven't proven why this article meets the notability criteria despite me asking multiple times. I'd be very surprised if an admin closed this discussion as "Keep" after looking at the page itself, which has four sources (only one of which being actually useful, the Neo Geo Freak coverage) and lots of unverified statements. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment All I'll say after this comment is this: It's a notable unreleased title among Neo Geo fans but finding sources that covered the game (like Gamest and Micom BASIC Magazine for example) are extremely brutal to come by. Finding what I digged out for The Warlocks of the Fates prior to being deleted (unfairly IMO) was NOT easy, especially since I was dealing with serious internet issues at my home during the time when that happened. Want another example of a cancelled game without a reception section? Well, there's Sonic X-Treme. I can prove the notability of a game here on Wikipedia but as I said before, finding sources for a canned title is HARD. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not notable if you can't establish notability. That ignores WP:GNG. Sonic X-Treme has also seen significant retrospective coverage (and even some reception), so I am clueless as to why you're trying to make the comparison between that game and this. If sources don't cover this in detail, then it cannot possibly have an article on Wikipedia. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The General Notability Guidelines clearly state in the disclaimer at the top This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. It is not an absolute law like Policies are. Dream Focus 18:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        One source does not establish notability. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 19:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Others have already stated that they felt there would be more and why it wouldn't be practical to find them. Mentions elsewhere, no matter how brief, add to the notability claim. You have stated you opinion several times, others have stated theirs. Dream Focus 20:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I've stated it multiple times because almost nobody here seems to understand the notability policy. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The notability guideline. It is not a policy. And we understand it just fine. Dream Focus 20:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Please, take this talk to a talk page or whatever, both of you. It is WP:BLUDGEON-ing the discussion right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sigh. This is a messy AfD here. Not sure what is worse here, "but its a notable unreleased Neo Geo title, regardless of its sources" that ignores WP:GNG, linking a website that has nothing to do with the game, 1 source = notability, and mistaking the developer of the game initially for Monolith Soft (Japanese company that opened in 1999, four years after the cancellation of the game), and even SNK (!). At this point, this has 0 chances to be closed anything other than keep/no consensus, so I am not voting. I saw one of the Game Machine references through archives shared by my friend, which is merely an announcement of the game, GamesTech just says that it's a cancelled pinball game by Monolith Corp., CD Consolas says "Monolith is creating a heroic fantasy atmosphere for this pinball game title for Neo Geo. Twelve courses and many tables are planned. The story takes a knight to fight an armada of monsters to finally confront him with the king of demons." which I don't find a significant coverage, and that leaves a (great) Neo Geo Freak reference that did preview the game. Sadly, as the one and only source like it (and me being unable to find anything else even by searching in Japanese), it fails WP:GNG. Not that anything I said here matters now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Namcokid's analysis is correct; there simply aren't enough sources to demonstrate notability. JOE BRO 64 23:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Namcokid and Jovanmilic97's commentary. Although Jovan did not explicitly !vote, his analysis is spot on. -- ferret (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely poor arguments by the people who voted Keep - show me significant coverage. A source is nice. It's worth a mention somewhere in the encyclopedia, perhaps in a list article like List of Neo Geo games, acknowledging the existence of its development and that it was cancelled. Its own article? That is not appropriate coverage. Full disclosure, since it was mentioned above: I am the primary author of Sonic X-treme. I have experience working with cancelled video game articles. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject does not meet the GNG. These sources are obscure and the ones we can check are not significant coverage. Cancelled video games can be notable - I’ve created and maintained a few. This is not how it’s done though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's plenty of articles on cancelled video games that are comprehensive and notable (heck, I made one just a few hours ago). It's not like having pages for cancelled video games is not allowed, it's that they need to be notable to have their own article. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 01:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I completely agree. But some editors (mistakenly) believe being unreleased is an auto-delete situation. Just clarifying I don’t subscribe to that at all...and still think this should be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Story Keepers[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements. Complete lack of reliable secondary sources— all citations/references are to networks it airs on and episodes of the show Itself. Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Presumably the thing exists, even if it has not been broadcast for 25 years. The question is whether it is notable. At most it is a work of fiction. WP is not somewhere that can host an article on every book, film, of TV series that has ever been produced. Neutral, but no objection to deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find one reference at [1], but that's only in passing rather than any details. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That source definitely doesn’t add anything to notability. It’s a single sentence of trivial coverage. A cursory DuckDuckGo search managed to dig up this: https://www.crosswalk.com/culture/features/10-christian-series-we-need-to-reboot.html But on its own it probably isn’t enough to confirm notability. Dronebogus (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can't find any useful coverage to help prove it is notable, and looked pretty carefully using several search engines. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the accomplishments listed in the article may pass NACTOR, there simply aren't enough reliable sources to verify the information. If new sources are found or become available, this should probably be revisited. – bradv🍁 00:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Gibbes[edit]

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

A non notable actor with no reliable sources apparent. Potential COI issues. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - google news search also shows no RS. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Gibbes is famous in Australia for being on Prisoner. That alone is notable, but her early appearance on Round The Twist is also notable. She was a significant Australian actress! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Chris.sherlock - are there any independent secondary sources that would demonstrate notability? At the moment the only two external links are a fan site and IMDB, neither of which are reliable sources for the purposes of WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check IMDB - in this case just to see the incredible list of notable shows she appeared on. She made appearances on Blue Heelers, Sea Change, Home and Away, All Saints, Wildside, Water Rats, GP, The Flying Doctors and The Young Doctors, all extremely significant Australian dramas, in a different age of Australia.

It’s probably more helpful to check Trove to find secondary sources given her age - https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=%22Robyn+Gibbes%22

What I’m saying is that she satisfies WP:NACTOR. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve checked Trove and there’s nothing substantial that would indicate notability. A list of credits on IMDB does not indicate notability, and notability can’t be inherited by just appearing in a minor role on a notable programme. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a fan site and IMBd are two extremely non-reliable sources. Wikipedia is supposed to be built on reliable sources, not this type of junk.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I have absolutely no problem keeping this article in terms of WP:NACTOR, because the subject has had significant roles in very famous Australian TV shows, including Round the Twist and Prisoner: Cell Block H. As for WP:GNG, there are clearly some problems, although here are a couple of sources which may help—the first is a BuzzFeed article, which isn't the most reliable of news outlets, but it isn't the worst, either; and the second is an excerpt from a Variety review of a film, Wild Horses (1984), which provides a much briefer comment on the subject:

→https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliawilling/what-the-cast-of-round-the-twist-looks-like-today

→https://books.google.com.au/books?id=UXJZAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Robyn+Gibbes%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Robyn+Gibbes%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid_snPldjoAhUl6nMBHZxuBpI4ChDoAQhCMAQ

The subject also gets a lot of hits in Google Books and at newspapers.com, but it's doubtful whether they would do much to assist with WP:SIGCOV. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Olivero[edit]

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

In a previous discussion it was argued that his "multiple lead roles" make him notable. The problem is that all we really have is one recurring TV role, that is not enough on its own. His other lead roles were in films that are not notable, and so do not add towards notability. The sourcing is also downright atrocious. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't found any coverage in independent reliable media. Despite playing those minor roles he fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NACTOR. Less Unless (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also completely failed to find any useful backing sources online. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: There are hundreds and hundreds of hits at newspapers.com—but, of the ones I've gone through so far, the vast majority are mere mentions; any more significant coverage is about a sentence's worth here and there, or a caption under a photo. It's a shame, because a weak argument could have been made for WP:NACTOR, I think—but there doesn't seem to be in-depth coverage on the subject. If someone finds something, please let me know. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlgren Junction, Virginia[edit]

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

According to this source "Dahlgren Junction is an intermediate location (siding) on the Carrier's main line 60.7 miles north of Richmond, Virginia, and 51.1 miles south of Washington, D. C." The carrier in question was the RF&P, and the location in question is still a junction, now embedded in the great suburban sprawl of No. Virginia; the branch line was (obviously) the line that led out to Dahlgren, the east end of which is now the Dahlgren Railroad Heritage Trail. Other than a completely spurious assertion that some airplanes were destroyed there (no, the base in question is in Dahlgren itself), searching produces railroad-related material and the usual clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite claims that GNIS is not reliable, it's the official source in the United States for legally recognizing populated places. We have to rely on sources here as to what's a populated place and what isn't, not original research and speculation based on satellite imagery or other things. As such, it satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whatever the official status of GNIS actually is (and my understanding is that its authority is limited to which name to use), as I've already said once, a .gov domain doesn't make it accurate, and to be reliable, a source has to be right. There are too many manifest mistakes in GNIS to take its assertions as to the nature of a spot at face value, and it is just not reasonable to take mention in an omnium gatherum gazetteer compilation as denoting any notability at all— which, I would point out, WP:GEOLAND already likewise discounts. And for what is also the nth time, I must point out that GNIS's use of "populated place" doesn't mean anything more than "there was some human activity here." GNIS does not claim that this junction was a place that ever a resident population; their classification is entirely consistent, within their terminology, with this being just a rail junction. And therefore the expectation would be that it is a notable rail junction, which you aren't effectively asserting. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please stop spewing utter nonsense, GNIS is not legal recognition, it is a context-free database of names that have appeared on maps ("This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject."), frequently misclassified as "populated places", and when accurate inconsistent with our guidelines. This very example is one of these misclassifications: Virginia Geographic Names (the book version of the GNIS and more obviously "various tables") properly calls it a locale! The original research was mass-creating thousands of pages without finding corroborating and significant coverage for WP:V and WP:N. This is a railroad junction, consistent with sources [2][3][4]; no mentions calling it a community. Reywas92^Talk 00:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this was ever anything more than a rail junction. –dlthewave ☎ 00:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine District[edit]

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

I have difficulties understanding why this subdivision of an organization which by itself has borderline notability is notable. All information, if needed, can be merged into the parent article. Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best barbershop quartet in the world has come from the Sunshine District 6 times. Three of the top 5 quartets in the world just last year were from the Sunshine District.^[1] That would not happen if not for the hard work being done in this District, by this District. Barbershop music is one of the only truly American musical genres and some of the very best is being produced in Florida by the Sunshine District and has been doing it consistently since it’s inception. The District in turn gives back to the community by bringing music education to youth.^[2] Bazinwanga (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with parent article. I ran a Google search of the quartet and did not find coverage of them in reliable secondary sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable secondary sources that provide significant, independent coverage; they don't seem to be notable outside of being a chapter of their parent organization. I don't think there's anything here worth merging into the parent article, so I say just delete. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, none of the facts mentioned by Bazinwanga have anything to do with notability. Looking at that user's contribution history, I worry it could be a WP:SPA. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magheracross Monastery[edit]

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

The monastery fails WP:GNG and is not inherently notable. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure about this one. The photograph linked to in the article is actually Devenish Island. I can see no evidence of a Magheracross Monastery. It's not included on the NI listed buildings database. I suspect this may be a mistaken interpretation of the evidence and the original creator thought the photo was of a non-existent Magheracross Monastery whereas it is actually of Devenish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will mention that in said article, a Magheracross church is mentioned to have burned down. While the photo may not be of the church, it does appear to exist. However, just because it exists doesn't mean that it is notable and that an article should be written about it. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but I don't think that's what the article is referring to. There don't appear to be any extant ruins of the burned church (which does not appear to have been a monastery in any case). If there were then it would undoubtedly be notable under WP:GEOFEAT as the ruins would undoubtedly be heritage listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but for the reason given by User:Necrothesp - that there is no such place and that the article is based on a good-faith misunderstanding (I couldn't find any reference to it either) - not for the reason given by the nom - that such a monastery would not be notable - which is erroneous. Ingratis (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot Keep - At best Merge to Magheracross. A monastery in the Early Christian period in Ireland may well have been a rather different kind of institution from those of the high medieval period, perhaps something of a cross between a manor house and a church. The one source is a village history website, providing a timeline without sources. About one sentence in the article (as to the date and foundation of the monastery) supports the content of the WP article, but actually refers to something with a different name. Little objection to plain deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv🍁 23:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Blue Key[edit]

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

Collegiate honor society with a single chapter, at the University of Florida; per WP:BRANCH such organizations are generally not notable enough for an article. Mentions in media are strictly local (North and Central Florida) and mostly by the de facto campus newspaper, the Independent Florida Alligator. Subject had a few mentions in non-local media in coverage of a 1990s defamation suit against it, but per WP:ILLCON that is insufficient to establish its notability.

If kept - and I understand that content issues aren't themselves grounds for deletion - the article has numerous problems which should be addressed. It has been a cesspool of COI editing (some con, mostly pro) for years. The entire Background section is taken nearly verbatim from the org's official website. And the Controversies section is its most frequently edited part - usually by IPs local to the subject (Gainesville, FL) who blank negative information about it. Perhaps (again, if the page isn't deleted) it should be extended-confirmed protected. Damon Killian (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources already present in the article support independent notability per WP:BRANCH: ...unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. The campus organization's coverage extends beyond the campus through multiple articles (E.g., Associated Press, Tampa Bay Times, etc.) and especially concerning the organization's influence on Florida state-level politics. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv🍁 00:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society[edit]

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

Not enough coverage per Notability (Non-commercial Organizations) and possible COI. Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 of 4 sources in the article have tags suggesting dead links, but here is one of those sources, or a new source: "500 join heritage walk through antique houses in Cagayan, by Villamor Visaya, Jr., April 5, 2019, published by Philippine News Agency. And other sources turn up in my quick searching. If this is a local historical society, perhaps it could be covered in a row in a table of similar ones in a list-article. Hmm, that would be expanding coverage (it is already mentioned) at List of historical societies#Philippines societies. So a merger to there is a possibility, a good wp:ATD. --Doncram (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a few articles about the NGO: [5], [6] and [7]. I believe those, along with Doncram's link, are reliable enough to make the article close to passing WP:NGO. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Not enough independent coverage of the NGO (only two that are valid), the size of the organization and age (barely 2 years) dont help establish notability for this local NGO either. At least, for now.--RioHondo (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found some more articles on this small group:

Comment @Jbuigat: Hello! It took you a long time to reply to the discussion. You haven't fixed the reference links yet. I fixed some of them but I cannot foud them. And where are the articles you are mentioning? And since this is a small group, you should prove that there is enough coverage per Notability (Non-commercial Organizations) and declare that you, as the creator of the article, does not violate the COI. If you are having trouble answering this issues, please put a new section on the Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines and ask for help. I think some will gladly help you there. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed the dead links. My vote still stays. Aside from COI and not enough coverage per Notability (Non-commercial Organizations), I agree with the WP:TOOSOON.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - technically there are two reliable sources with in-depth reporting about this NGO, but it just seems so local. This area in the Northeast of Luzon, the Philippines is isolated, and likely to remain so. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Day Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and most of the sources are available in foreign language (Spanish) and cited sources are primary sources. Abishe (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. May not be massively notable, but just because sources are not in English is not in itself a reason to delete an article - otherwise this version of Wikipedia would have an even more grotesque Anglosphere bias than it does already. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify New article from a new user that has enough links and sources to indicate possible notability. This should be returned to Draft and allowed space for improvement. It is unreasonable to expect the usual level of notability demonstrations from an article at this stage of development. If no improvement is forthcoming in the Draft space, then there is no harm done. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for improvement as above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the topic is about the film company and having reviewed the existing references and conducted my own search, I'm pretty confident that this tiny weeny company will not meet the criteria for notability. Should a different topic be chosen for another article, perhaps the owner/filmmaker Amparo Fortuny, the resulting article will be very different (hence I do not see any reason to Draftify this article). HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Nothing shows that the article is notable. Alex-h (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No wp:gng coverage evident, and wp:notability of the topic looks unlikely. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The most compelling keep argument relates to sourcing for baptists in Leicester but didn't gain traction. Otherwise the delete arguments have a stronger policy basis. Consensus was clear enough but in general I wouldn't advocate nominating an article shortly after a move from one title to another as that can change the scope of the article quite significantly and be seen as gaming. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religious denominations in Leicester[edit]

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

Maybe this is not entirely fair, since the article has just been moved to title "Religious denominations in Leicester" from longstanding(?) title "Places of worship in Leicester". But we don't want such a list. The current title is a fair description/title for this article, currently titled "Religious denominations in Leicester", created in 2012 by editor User:8tennyson and brought up to this version by them. It is just not encyclopedic, has not been discussed in any sources AFAIK about what are all the religions that have ever been practiced in Leicester. Note it mentions modern "Chinese Christian Church" but not Celtic or Angle or Saxon or whatever earlier peoples whose religions were probably practiced in this geographical area. There are no sources at all addressing the topic of which religions have been practiced here (negative-wise at least, though sure, existence of a church building of one denomination does establish that denomination existed here). But still we don't want such fabrications about this and every other town/city area that exists on this globe. It is pure wp:OR AFAICT, and non-encyclopedic. Doncram (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC) P.S. Note if we did want list-articles sort of like this, then doing it at the level of say, Leicestershire, would be better, I think, sort of. Or at levels set by a U.K.-wide or England-wide system of similar list-articles. But I don't think we can know, or that it is useful to assert that we "know" what are all the denominations which might have been practiced in a given area. --Doncram (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Note the title Places of worship in Leicester could conceivably be a good topic to recycle for usage about specific individual churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc., at least that is the view of some editors at ongoing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 9#List of Baptist churches in Leicester (though i don't necessarily agree). --Doncram (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2020 (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/2020 April 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ((edit conflict)) (Confession: I moved it to its current page). Very much per nom: as well as original research, also per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Are there, for instance, no Zen Buddhists or Hare Krishna? A page under its original name listing notable places of worship might be a going concern, but a list of the various religions in any big Western city would effectively be a list of all religions. ——SN 54129 12:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is blatantly false because there are lots of sources which list the various denominations and places of worship in Leicester. The article lists a good selection and it's not difficult to find more. The exact way that we present this information is debatable but what we don't need are endless AfD's to keep flogging this dead horse. See WP:STICK, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A list for just a single city, with the possible exception of Jerusalem, makes no sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep --Leicester#Religion is sufficiently large, to merge this article into it seems inappropriate. The topic is notable as there are equivalent cultural articles about lots of places, especially when there is more to write than will fit in the main article. Why not Leicester?Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fitting there is not a problem, because there is no usable content here. The list naming all or most of the religions in the world should be deleted, then there is nothing else remaining. Oh, the list of purported sources could be pasted to the Talk page of the Leicester article. --Doncram (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the purported sources have been copied to Talk:Leicester#sources about religion in Leicester. --Doncram (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there actually equivalent articles about “Religion in X” for similarly sized cities as Leicester? Not even New York City has one. The only examples that I know of are Religion in London and Religion in Rome, which are quite special. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean like Culture of New York City. The space on the main New York City page for culture is basically maxed out. So it makes sense to have a separate article. Same with this city; the section on the main city article page is already about as big as it should be.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks for the clarification. Isn't the description of religious denominations in a city/country usually covered by articles on demographics? For instance, Demography of Leicester#Religion is quite a short section and seems appropriate for such information. Although, if we're using the old title on places of worship and we shift the focus to the architecture, then demography is no longer the right place. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would not necessarily be opposed to merging this into Demography of Leicester; some architectual non-demography stuff could possibly fit. I guess it would depend on what others say.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Most of this article is just an alphabetical list of religious denominations which have or had a presence in Leicester. Many of the entries are unsourced, and those that are sourced are often just cited to the website of a local church. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert to Places of worship in Leicester as article name change was not adequately discussed - see talkpage for the single question (i could be WP:BOLD and just revert it but dont want to confuse things). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reasoning for keep though? — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, maybe i should have prefaced it with the word "Procedural"? just to enable the title to be reverted to one that is used in similar list articles, see Lists of churches in England category. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be an interesting move discussion: "I want to move a page that doesn't mention places of worship in Leicester to a page called 'Places of Worship in Leicester'". ——SN 54129 13:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Not meaningful to list every major religious denomination there is, every major city has places of worship of a variety of religions and denominations. The rest serves no purpose beyond Leicester#Religion whatsoever. I can certainly see a religion-specific article, but this is certainly not it, just another stupid directory saying "This city has Sikhs, Muslims, and a bunch of diverse Christians]]." Reywas92^Talk 18:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list of religious denominations here is a directory-like list that would be appropriate within Leicester#Religion or Demography of Leicester#Religion, but not as a standalone article. Likewise, the previous article name of Places of worship in Leicester isn't much better from a NOTDIR point of view (unless we had a large list of notable non-church places of worship in Leicester). — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --*Extensive, reliable sources that prove Baptist churches in this city are notable: here, here, and here. A somewhat less extensive source is here. Granted, this is just one denomination, but it is a start.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem directly related to whether we should have a list of religious denominations in Leicester though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It proves that that the general topic meets GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but I don’t think anyone doubted that there is significant coverage on some religious denominations in Leicester. In this case, the deletion arguments stem from WP:NOTDIR and/or the content being better suited elsewhere. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~Having second thoughts.~~ [Came back to clear preference for "Delete", after considering an alternative. -Doncram (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)]. Maybe it would have been better to move this article back to "Places of worship in Leicester" and address the issues by editing processes (i.e. drop the ridiculous list of denominations, add the actual places of worship which have articles, fight against editors who might try to paste in the ridiculous directories of non-notable places), rather than have this AFD discussion. And fine, cite the stupid Rimmington articles to say something bland like "at one time there were many Baptist churches" even though Rimmington agrees that is no different than anywhere else. And try nonetheless to weave a constructive article. (Which by the way would naturally include coordinates and linked map, and I think would naturally be organized by area within Leicester, not by denomination). But if that would involve too much fighting I don't want to do it. The whole series of related AFDs has been pretty awful IMO in the _extremism_ of arguments made (that every church must be mentioned, just because it existed, even tho there is nothing to say about it and it is making the list just like a stupid list of businesses that for some reason Wikipedia feels compelled to promote). Argh, I can't bring myself to actually try to develop positively here, expecting so much kneejerk opposition in the process, based on how people have been. It would be so much better if those with extreme positions would have made some sensible concessions. Okay, back to thinking this just needs to be torched, due to impossibility of me or anyone else building a constructive "Places of worship in Leicester" article. --Doncram (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If "Places of worship in Leicester" were to be constructed, that would address concerns of those who didn't like to see everything thrown out in the series of five AFDs on "List of DENOMINATION churches in Leicester": the Baptist one which ended "Draftify"; the Methodist and Congregational ones which ended "Delete"; the Roman Catholic and Anglican ones which ended "Keep" but for which editing processes are going on to eliminate them (the RC one is being morphed into something different, not focused on city of Leicester; the Anglican one will be eliminated by editing processes next). So within the 5 AFDd lists, there were a number of notable churches that could appear in a Places of worship list (maybe 30 or 40?), but there were also about ten times that many items that just name a non-notable current or past church that should not be mentioned. It is just insurmountable that editors involved will just battle to make a combo article into a 5 times worse massive, embarrassing directory of non-notables. It would be bad enough to make a stupid list of the 44 businesses based in Leicester that have Wikipedia articles. It would be far worse to make an extremely stupid list of _all_ businesses in Leicester that can be verified to exist. Which is what would happen. So nothing can be done. Torch. --Doncram (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The various list articles very likely were derivatives of a UK heritage survey database. The buildings and former-church sites had some government recognition, with what appears to be a looser standard is used for national historic register listing in the US. At the very least, statistics derived from this database could be compiled. You could start by counting the number of entries in each article. Each denomination could be listed by # of open and closed congregations and sites, with a total for all of them.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if that could be used to fabricate any usable info at all for an article about places of worship in Leicester. But this is an article about "Religious denominations in Leicester" and such would be unusable, unconvincing, wp:OR-type evidence, if it was supposed to say anything about prevalence of various denominations locally, based upon existence of buildings! At whatever random date that database was compiled. I'm not even sure if it is very clear about the denomination(s) associated with its buildings. So this is no help for this article.

Epiphyllumlover, you were a participant arguing for keeping all content, including stuff I consider non-notable junk, in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester. If I did choose to try to create a proper "Places of worship in Leicester" article, would you accept that only notable Baptist churches (having an article and/or significant descriptive content making clear the importance of a given church in development of Leicester, say) belong, or would you edit war or otherwise argue to add the non-notable junk (my term)? Honestly? --Doncram (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might argue if I am asked to join in by others; but I am generally busy with other things and was not planning on it currently. I am of the opinion that if you remove the ones without wikilinks, the missing information should be replaced with statistics. Counting entries is not original research. The thearda database commonly includes congregation counts per denomination in the US so it is within generally accepted practices for religious reporting. Maybe you could find the national heritage inventory database online somewhere. Denominational adherence statistics are commonly available from denominations--they are usually reported in annual or semi-annual directories; you'd have to possibly contact them though. In person visits and phone calls would be fairly easy if you or someone you collaborate with lives in Leicester, or at least the UK.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok neither u nor i will do it. This is hypothetical, about what a future editor could do, if they went to create an article actually about the notable places of worship in Leicester. Not sure the world needs that, but that editor is better off if this one is gone. --Doncram (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above comments. Does not meet WP:NOTDIRECTORY. ClaudeDavid (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article does not provide information about religion , worship or ...,

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Alex-h (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunn-hemp mosaic virus[edit]

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

None of the references back up info on the page; none of the information is cited; page has been marked as "needs additional citations for verification" since July 2019 without any updates; I can't find any references that verify info on the page Lonehexagon (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2020 (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/2020 April 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It seems readily apparent that this is a notable virus which is the subject of significant scholarly study. The nomination's claims seem to be erroneous. Note also that the nominator has made no other edits this year and did not notify the creator of the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Speedy Keep: An IP editor has worked on the referencing, and I don't see any statements not supported by the related reference. The virus is recognised by the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses. References include a book chapter (in a volume edited by two wiki-notable editors) on the virus and a paper in Nature. A Google Scholar search shows over 400 papers referring to this virus, so it seems clearly notable to me. Lonehexagon, will you comment on what references you think don't back up the related information, and on the changes made by the IP editor? EdChem (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - documented viruses are automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close as keep, per EdChem. @Lonehexagon: please consider withdrawing this spurious nomination. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Smith[edit]

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

The subject of this article lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Many of the sources are not independent. Of the ones that might be considered independent, they do not appear to be significant. The Christian Post article is not about him but rather quotes him talking about his church. Churchmag provides a video interview, The youtube posting of the interview appears to have attracted all of 63 views and an interview does not establish notability. And we have a book review which does appear to be a reliable source. Whpq (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the nominator's thorough analysis of the sources, there is not enough coverage in WP:RS to justify a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL pastor. Only passing mentions as an "Innovation pastor at Community Bible Church". Clearly non-notable per WP:GNG. PK650 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising, a case of WP:PROMO, adding G11, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per G11. Kori (@) 21:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Duke[edit]

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

Youth footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre COVID, seems like it would have been a clear draftify. Now, who knows? Not notable as it currently stands. SportingFlyer T·C 03:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Ping me if sources are found which might meet GNG. Giant Snowman 08:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails our guidelines for foootballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah V. Brookshire[edit]

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

Completely unsourced Cassianto^Talk 19:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cassianto^Talk 19:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a frivolous nomination with no valid deletion reason given. The subject of the article in question passes WP:NPOL as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Additionally, the nominator's claim that the article is "completely unsourced" is false (the article references the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress). MarkZusab (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - A reliable source is provided and the subject passes WP:NPOL with flying colors as a US representative at the federal level. Hog Farm (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD G12 by Anthony Bradbury as a copyright violation of an xkcd comic ~ mazca ^talk 00:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernoulli-Doppler-Leidenfrost-Peltzman-Sabir-Whorf-Dunning-Kruger-Stroop effect[edit]

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

I think this is a joke. The only sources I can find are a website titled xkcd.com that I may or may not be reliable, and reddit. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a hoax/joke page.--Jorm (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jorm, WHY DO YOU KEEP SHOWING UP IN MY LIFE?!?! Alex Devens (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page is on my watch list because you are a disruptive editor who left insulting messages on my talk page because I reverted some of your trolling or gave you a warning or something. It's very simple.--Jorm (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um no. You closed off my discussion on a talk page with a condescending, dismissive message. I wasn't "trolling"; you just didn't like what I had to say, so you silenced my attempt at starting a rational discussion - which you had no right to do whatsoever. After this, I called you out on it on your talk page, to which you responded with more smug, condescending snark. I then provided a helpful link to show you exactly what you had done, and why I was on your talk page, and STILL - rather than address the issue - you replied with even MORE passive-aggressive sarcasm. So I gather from that, and your above message, that after those interactions, you put my talk page on your watch list so you could jump in whenever you felt it was appropriate to insert yourself, and now your justification is that I am "a disruptive editor," despite the fact that the VAST majority of my contributions to this website have been constructive, not destructive. So to recap, you, Jorm, have:

- silenced me when I attempted to start a rational discussion, and given a smug, condescending message as your reason for doing so;
- given me more dismissive sarcasm when I confronted you about the issue on your talk page, refusing to address the issue;
- added my talk page to your watch list specifically so you could intervene whenever I became embroiled in something; and
- labeled me "a disruptive editor," as if that's at all your place to say, even though almost ALL my contributions are not disruptive.

From the limited interactions I have had with you, it seems to me that you, Jorm, are a genuinely awful human being. Now please, kindly burn in hell and never talk to me again. Alex Devens (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tagged it for G12, it copies the comic caption verbatim from XKCD. Schazjmd (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. xkcd is an excellent site which I recommend to everyone, but he would be the first to agree that he's not WP:RS. Narky Blert (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone close this nomination? The article has been deleted. Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) b uidhe 20:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Donziger[edit]

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

Recreation of deleted article; contested CSD.

Really, what is there to say. The reasons in the previous AFD still hold true. The man has no notability outside of the Lago Agrio case, and the new article is a) still a puff piece and b) still largely concerns the Lago Agrio case, with a nice dash of POV pushing to boot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steven_R._Donziger for the previous AFD; the new article was recreated with a slightly different title. Jtrainor (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jtrainor (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason given in the previous AfD, in 2018, was that "This lawyer did what lawyers do, represented a client...." As the new article reports (from The Guardian, clearly a RS), something has happened since that AfD: Donziger has been placed under house arrest. This is very far from a routine incident of "what lawyers do". Still less is it routine for 29 Nobel laureates to sign an open letter condemning the court's action in the case. These developments clearly make him notable. I agree that the current text has NPOV violations but those can be edited. Putting this much detail about Donziger personally into the Lago Agrio oil field article would be clutter there (and some editors would probably try to remove it from that article by pointing out that it was clutter). JamesMLane t c 19:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Several new significant sources since last AFD two years ago: [8][9][10][11] and several legal-specific sites. I generally support merges and this could be covered further there but his case in particular has moved beyond the original oil field case which is quite long. POV pushing was just added today by IP. Reywas92^Talk 19:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retain article. This request has just progressed from speedy deletion to normal deletion: can someone explain why? An article on Steven Donziger should exist on Wikipedia and he clearly meets notability requirements. Steven Donziger was the subject of a recent article in The Guardian ^[3] that explains that his adverse judicial treatment has the support twenty-nine Nobel laureates who signed an open letter. How can that not be notable? And The Guardian article also counters the AFD claim that nothing substantial has happened since the previous unsuccessful AFD request. Indeed, if one looks at the edit log, the aforementioned article may well have triggered this AFD? --RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://barbershop-org.s3.amazonaws.com/PDFs/International/BHS-Spring-2019-International-Convention-Quartet-Finals-OSS-FINAL.pdf
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYSB5x5JoxE&feature=share
^ Watts, Jonathan (18 April 2020). "Nobel laureates condemn 'judicial harassment' of environmental lawyer". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-04-18.

Strong Retain The 4/18/2020 front page Guardian article along with 29 member Nobel laureate's open letter define Donziger's relevance. The request to delete is repetitive, oddly coincident with the Guardian article and, contains no cogent fact based support for withdrawal based on wikipedia criteria.

Keep Whether Donziger is a hero or a crook, and he may be both, the sources linked above are surely enough for WP:N. Moonraker (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable subject with coverage in reliable secondary sources. Woerich (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but maybe rename? What if the article was "Lago Agrio litigation" (per SCOTUS)? We could then merge that whole section which now dominates the Lago Agrio page. For the sake of argument, the article could just as easily be about Judge Lewis Kaplan - he ordered the house arrest, the petition mentions him, and his name even appears almost as many times as Donziger's in the current article text. Perhaps the overall story is more notable than this one man is. (PS: I'm the one who revived this page from a redirect in January. I didn't know about the previous deletion process and may not have bothered if I had. I probably have a sheepish ambivalence bias because of that.) Yardenac (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Obviously notable subject with coverage in reliable secondary sources. This AfD smells like an attempt to hide information from the public. Drono (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Ross[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, has never played in an actual NFL game (practice squad/reserve-future contract only). Coverage I could find was mostly transactions, etc. or on unreliable sports blogs. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was deleted following AfD in 2010 and recreated this week by User:Lucky7jrk, apparently without following protocols for re-creating a previously-deleted article. While he signed a reserve/futures contract with the Patriots earlier this year, he has yet to appear in a pro game and thus fails WP:NGRIDIRON. He also fails WP:NCOLLATH as he has not won a national award, set a Division I record, been inducted into his sports's hall of fame, or gained national media attention. Finally, the sources cited in the article do not pass the WP:GNG bar of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the article that was originally deleted is about a different American football player. Although this page was previously deleted, the previous page pertained to a completely different person. Lucky7jrk (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucky7jrk: Can you provide two or three examples of what you consider to be "significant" coverage in reliable, secondary sources? Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: This is the most significant, reliable coverage I could find. Lucky7jrk (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like three announcements of contract signings, which generally don't meet GNG standards for athletes. And yes, it's almost certainly a different person than the previous article, based on the years involved. Hog Farm (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Hog Farm that these brief announcements of signings do not satisfy GNG which requires significant coverage (see WP:SIGCOV). Cbl62 (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable player of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Coverage appears to be typical sports reporting of signings that don't show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cabayi (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loading dock[edit]

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

Tagged as poorly refrerenced for 6 years with no improvement. The text of this is almost all WP:OR. Between the references currently in the article and my own searching, all I'm seeing is companies in the loading dock business and WP:PRIMARY sources from various governments listing regulations about loading docks. My first thought was WP:TNT, but I can't even find enough WP:SECONDARY sources to do anything beyond a stub.

Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yard ramp -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination doesn't provide a reason to delete. It appears that improvement is wanted but that the nominator doesn't know how to do this. But does that mean it's not possible? No – consider, for example, the section about loading dock levelers. This is quite extensive and so might need more work. It seems easy to find a respectable source which discusses these in detail – The Warehouse Management Handbook or Facilities Planning and Design. Of course, the work of obtaining, reading, digesting and summarising such sources would be significant and the task is likely to be thankless. The nomination cites WP:TNT but that is not policy and the use of high explosives is not appropriate. Here are more relevant polcies and guidelines:

WP:IMPERFECT – "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome."
WP:ATD – "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
WP:CHOICE – "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians."
WP:SOFIXIT – "In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia."

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic, no matter the quality of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No proper rationale for deletion. If an article of a notable topic needs improvement, especially if it's been six years, then fix it! A quick search brought up the book Technical Standards and Design Guidelines Mixed - Use Buildings which is a great place to start. Oakshade (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cabayi (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bohlenplatz[edit]

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

The info is highly generic and of little relevance. Some of the information could be put onto the page for Erlangen, such as the mention of the church and fleamarket, but most of it is rather unimportant trivialties in my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenthalben (talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenthalben (talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems a little light on sources and the German article doesn't help, but a Google Scholar/Books search seems to bring up a lot of mentions in German, and it is the main public square of a city of more than 100,000. Seems sourceable, which is the test, not whether our opinion is that an article is irrelevant or trivial. SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major square in a city of more than 100,000 people. These are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Wood (sport psychologist)[edit]

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

The Subject Lacks the criteria for WP:N and WP:V Tatupiplu'^talk 18:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tatupiplu'^talk 18:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tatupiplu'^talk 18:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: got coverage in Bluefield Daily Telegraph, ESPN and The Gainesville Sun. It has a lot of inline citations, so WP:V is definitely not an issue. Throwawiki (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article reads like a resume, and the only mentions I see in the articles are inline, and they are just passing remarks for him being "a founder of a mental skills company, icebox." I don't think he has sufficient primary citations. I request the next reviewer to examine every link before commenting on this one. -- Steven655 (talk)

Keep: An MLB coach of any kind is notable enough to have a page. There are also plenty of citations to back up every claim in this article. Notability and Verification are both sufficient. YaBoyReid (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "mental skills" coach is not the type of thing that is notable under WP:NATHLETE. Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBASE says that a coach who for an MLB Franchise passes the requirements for notability. A mental skills coach is as notable as a third base coach, bench coach, hitting coach, pitching coach, etc. YaBoyReid (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete This is nothing more than an exaggerated resume and as per my reasoning below Praxidicae (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://tigers.mlblogs.com/tigers-announce-minor-league-assignments-for-2019-751bb1bfd902	press release	press release only available on Medium? Nope.	PR isn't coverage.	✘ No
https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/2020/03/an-emotional-tsunami-athletes-cope-in-a-world-with-no-sports.html	~ it's got a few sound bytes from Wood, which is basically the equivalent of an interview	~ reliable but in this case, super local	brief mention	✘ No
https://thecitizen.com/2019/10/30/dr-spencer-wood-is-guest-speaker-at-peachtree-city-running-club-monday/	no, this is pay for publication	see above	nope, a paid for announcement about a speaking event	✘ No
https://archives.newsday.co.tt/2009/02/20/ttoc-holding-mental-skills-seminar/	a pushed press release		press releases aren't coverage	✘ No
http://www.bluefield.edu/article/wood-finds-passion-faith-at-bluefield-college/	~ interview/promo piece by his alma mater	~	~	~ Partial
http://www.bluefield.edu/article/bc-presents-2012-alumni-awards/	it's an announcement from his alma mater about an award	not really applicable		✘ No
https://www.bdtonline.com/news/bc-speaker-wood-have-no-fear-and-put-it-all-on-the-line/article_5da741f8-f6ac-11e4-893f-938b560cfe5e.html	announcement about commencement		announcing that he was a speaker is not coverage.	✘ No
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/18067064/florida-gators-use-sports-psychologist-help-men-basketball-team-free-throw-shooting	AP press release	sure, no reason to doubt a press release but it establishes nothing other than they have a PR department capable of sending out releases		✘ No
https://www.gainesville.com/sports/20170302/barry-stone-ready-to-assist-uf-for-possible-deep-run	but it's not about Wood in the slightest	?	a single passing mention in a local paper.	✘ No
http://www.bluefield.edu/article/bc-to-honor-local-journalists-2012/	same problem as 6		see #6	✘ No
https://www.ttusports.com/general/2017-18/releases/20170830wfndfz	~ mostly interview bits	? a school paper is hardly reliable in depth coverage	see above	✘ No
https://www.uticaod.com/article/20080327/NEWS/303279946	independence in this context is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with Wood	see above	a single name drop	✘ No
https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/2019/03/how-sports-psychology-transformed-michigans-free-throw-shooting.html	single quote from wood, not otherwise about wood	see above		✘ No
https://omavs.com/news/2015/10/14/210420999.aspx	schedule listing of speaking engagements			✘ No
https://unlvrebels.com/news/2013/5/3/Peak_Performance_Part_II_Mental_Skills_amp_Toughness_Training	press release			✘ No
https://empire8.com/news/2014/1/22/GEN_0122142723.aspx?path=general	yet another press release/speaking announcement			✘ No
https://montanacoaches.com/2019-coaches-clinic-presentation-notes/	another speaking schedule			✘ No
https://nfca.org/	just a listing			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment: If the bulk of the discussion is centered around the resume nature of the article, and Wood does indeed pass notability in accordance with WP:NBASE, would taking out the speaking engagements and his work with the D1 programs change this to a keep?YaBoyReid (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, because as I noted above, the sources are still insufficient. Praxidicae (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bases WP:NBASE. The article needs cleanup, but that's not reason to delete. I also fail to see how the ESPN article can in any way be considered a "press release." The AP put it out. They normally are reliable and independent. That and the MLIVE articles are enough to get him past GNG as well. Smartyllama (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fail to see why, at minimum, that the ESPN and MLive articles aren't considered primary enough resources. Obviously a major rewrite is in order, but with those three solid sources and passing notability guidelines it should stay around. YaBoyReid (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still undecided but I will say that I don't believe that Wood passes WP:NBASE as he does not appear an actual "coach" as the term is intended as part of the team's uniformed, in-game coaching staff and the fact that the Tigers don't even list him as a member of their coaching staff on their own website. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even with an ignored delete (sock), the conversation remains sufficiently split to warrant a 2nd relist - currently focused both on the sourcing status, and the applicability of NBASE to Wood.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : aside from it having other issues such as - reads like an advertisement, lack of original sources, ; the subject's role as sport psychologist for a baseball team does not entitle him to an article.Grmike (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and I don't believe he meets WP:NBASEBALL. The official Detroit Tigers website does not list him as a coach, or even as a member of the staff. Baseball is unique in that coaches and managers wear the same uniform as the players and there's no evidence Wood ever has. Note that all of the coaches on the team's website are wearing uniforms in their pictures. I think it is probably more correct to think of him as an outside consultant, just as teams have dentists and surgeons that they tend to recommend. Articles about speaking engagements and some passing mentions do not show notability. I tend to agree with Praxidicae's analysis of the sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The ESPN story is actually an AP report and while I don't think it's an outright paid article I'd say it is most likely a story pitched by whomever handles Wood's PR given the way it reads. I still think as whole the amount of coverage comes up a bit short of WP:GNG and he definitely doesn't pass WP:NBASE, this press release from his company's website indicates he is contracted as a consultant on a part-time basis. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think people have adequately explained why this doesn't meet WP:NBASE, which I think should take precedence over WP:GNG (as with all specific notability guidelines). Praxidicae's lovely table spells out why the sources don't confer notability. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources have been provided that demonstrate compliance with GNG. The one valid delete !vote doesn't address why the sources aren't reliable. After last relist, another source is provided, further solidifying GNG compliance. (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Ally[edit]

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

I don't think the subject passes our guidelines for WP:V and WP:N Tatupiplu'^talk 18:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tatupiplu'^talk 18:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that someone from Tanzania got sigcov in a BBC article gives me the impression that there must also be national coverage from Tanzania. Notability is based on the existence of sources, not the current state of the article. Throwawiki (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Throwawiki: Could you say which BBC article you are referencing? If it's this one (the one included in this Wiki article), then that isn't significantly covering her -- It's just showing she works for BBC Media Action in Tanzania. - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whisperjanes: Nope, a different one. I added it as an external link to the artile. Throwawiki (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperjanes, that's the person thing. That was auto-created because she had an article written about her. I think TAW meant to link [12]. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 03:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToxiBoi, Thanks! This is really helpful. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperjanes, On Google news, the subject has just one article written about her, and in a very promotional way. I acknowledge that BBC is a reliable source, but we need more reliable sources for a biography to be on Wikipedia. Link for Google News: https://www.google.com/search?q=Meena+Ally&tbm=nws The only links available on the web are already cited on the Wikipedia page. Let me know what you think? Tatupiplu'^talk

Delete: The only reliable link is from BBC, and the rest looks promotional. No online presence, and I've gone through the links cited in the article. Once she has a few more articles published, we can surely re-think this, but for now, I don't see any evidence for her to be on Wikipedia. -- Steven655 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is also mentioned in the The Citizen (Tanzania)^[1], and in Mpasho Kenya.^[2]20:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)IphisOfCrete (talk)

References

^ https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/magazine/thebeat/How-Afcon-match-brought-Tanzania-and-Kenya-closer/1843792-5185300-avqmlez/index.html
^ https://mpasho.co.ke/meet-meena-ally-radio-personality-serving-beauty-brains/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources. The sources cited in this AFD thread are not enough to justify a separate article at the moment. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most of the sources in the article, including the ones stated by IphisOfCrete and Throwawiki, are good enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even with one delete !vote ignored due to being created by a sock, there still seems enough disagreement both to the reliability of certain sources, and the level of sig cov in others, as to warrant an additional relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG with the sources provided, coverage also in Swahili [13]. AfD is not clean up. --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cabayi (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of unnamed fictional presidents of the United States[edit]

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

Non-notable standalone list. ★Trekker (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good nomination, qualifies as WP:LISTCRUFT. Woerich (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I love Wikipedians' commitment to fascinating trivia, but it's just not suitable list topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely indiscriminate trivia, that is almost entirely un-sourced. It fails WP:LISTN by a huge margin. Rorshacma (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those in the list tend more to be place holders than actual characters. This is listcruft in the extreme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. In fact, the entire series of Lists of fictional presidents of the United States should be deleted, not least because it contains a level of detail that not even other lists of fictional elements match. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- excessive listcruft. Reyk _YO! 11:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Araz, California. As an WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Araz Junction, California[edit]

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

Yet another isolated rail junction (for a branch that's been gone for at least half a century) with nothing around it except an interstate. All search hits are for typical, routine rail stuff. No evidence of notability, and GNIS doesn't count. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name was in frequent use in newspapers in the 1920s and 1930s for railroad and canal related matters. Merge/redirect to Araz, California. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 02:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Brien (Canadian author)[edit]

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

Non-notable author, insufficient citations from reliable sources Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been around since 2006, and only ever had these references: [14], [15], [16], [17],[18], [19], [20],[21]. That is clearly insufficient. However, someone wrote a biography about him,^[1] and that biography was (favourably) reviewed in the National Catholic Register, https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/writer-michael-obrien-and-the-mission-of-catholic-art , a source that is used over 700 times on enwp. We even have an article on his publisher, Ignatius_Press. Other sources exist, for example in Le Figaro, https://www.lefigaro.fr/livres/2012/11/15/03005-20121115ARTFIG00666--michael-d-o-brien-un-prophete-venu-du-canada.php. Vexations (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out below, Ignatius Press, which published the vast majority of O'Brien's novels, is also the publisher of the biography, so the existence of the biography doesn't really speak to whether O'Brien is notable or not, nor does the existence of our article on the publisher (we have many articles on non-reliable sources). If I had found a single unbiased reliable source on O'Brien of any kind, I wouldn't have filed this nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, I see what you mean about unbiased. I don't see any unbiased sources except maybe Le Figaro, which is consistently conservative, but not necessarily O'Brien's brand of Catholic. The only people interested in O'Brien appear to be people with similar convictions. That IS a problem, because all the "criticism" that exists of his work is by people who already agree with him. Whatever "analysis" they do will show that they were right all along. Some of those people hold positions at academic institutions, like the author of this article [22] published in Logos (Catholic journal)), Anthony M. Wachs, who teaches at Duquesne University and his biographer, Clemens Cavallin, who teaches at the University of Gothenburg. So yeah, are horribly biased, from a very small (possibly fringe) group of fellow religious authors, and the subject doesn't appear to have received any critical attention in mainstream publications. His paintings are also really terrible and have not been collected by any reputable museum or been exhibited anywhere that would confer notability. On the other hand, sources do exist. I don't think we should have an article if it is really not possible to write about him from a NPOV, but I'm not quite convinced that that is the case (yet). Vexations (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: the Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Booklist reviews, while not biographical sources, are unbiased critical attention in mainstream publications. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am seeing decent sources here, here and here. One of these is a review of a published biography. The article needs work. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are National Catholic Register, Religion News, and Catholic Register. The biography was published by the same firm that published the vast majority of his novels, Ignatius Press. I can find no reliable sources outside what might be called the "Catholic Echo Chamber". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out some sources. I would say I am Delete on this as I tend to agree with the nomination reasoning, as well as the "echo chamber" comment.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: You may wish to re-review given the further evidence provided. 24.77.42.223 (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ABC-CLIO Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Fiction has a substantial entry on him.[23] Cheers, gnu 57 20:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found reviews in the standard trade publications: Booklist, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal; and in one with which I am unfamiliar, The American Spectator. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- He is also the subject of an essay in Between Human and Divine: The Catholic Vision in Contemporary Literature, which I have found reviewed in JSTOR and Gale Literature databases. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The trades are reliable sources for the publication of the books they review (about which there is little doubt), but do not confer notability to the author, since they review a very large portion of all books published. The essay is a more substantial source, but, again, the book it appears in is published by a Catholic publisher (Catholic University of America), so we've still yet to break out of the "Catholic Echo Chamber" into non-Catholic reliable sources with it. The American Spectator is a conservative online magazine which, as far as I'm aware, is not Catholic in its orientation, so that could be useful. Can you post a link to the review? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NM, I see you've added it to the article as a cite for one of O'Brien's books. I think it's a matter of debate if pro-forma reviews in trade publications and one review in an online magazine do much to confer notability to the author. Certainly he appears to have some notability within a specific contemporary religious circle, but is that enough to fulfill WP:AUTHOR?:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His works have received a significant amount of attention from a range of publications. I added some sources I found as citations, some as external links; I also added some provided on this page by other editors. Some, but not all, reviews from 1990s authors are on the open internet... I assume there are more reviews out there to which I don't have access or which haven't been digitized at all. I see no reason to need to exclude Catholic publications with which the subject has not been affiliated and which are not owned by the same parent organization; indeed, as that is his niche. And he's received attention outside of the popular Catholic publications. O'Brien meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What "attention outside of the popular Catholic publications" is that? One review in The American Spectator does not confer notability, in my opinion. True, Catholicism is his "niche', but the question remains open, I think, if his notability has reached beyond that "niche" -- or the "Catholic Echo Chamber", as I've referred to it -- to be notable in the Wikipedia sense. I'm still doubtful that this is the case. As I said, I discount the trades as being pro-forma reviews of a published book, which does not confer notability (or else every published author would be notable, which is not the case), and I discount the biography as being published by his in-house publisher, so the only breakout from his "niche" that I can see is The American Spectator review. Is that enough? It certainly doesn;t seem to satisfy any of the requirements of WP:AUTHOR cited above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see my additions from this morning? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see the bullet points from WP:AUTHOR? Which one do you think he fulfills? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you're fleshing out the sourcing of the article, that's great, but I'm still not sure that he meets our requirements. Note that my nomination rationale had two parts, and that "insufficient citations from reliable sources" was only one of them, the other was about his Wiki-notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4c. And if he's been reviewed/coveted in trade/popular, Catholic, and academic publications, and that's not enough, where else should we be seeing him? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i don't see what we've got as "significant critical attention". What we have, essentially, is Catholic publications reviewing the books of a Catholic author published by Catholic publishing houses. He never breaks out of the "niche", in your words. And even in that niche, it's rather a circular arrangement: Ignatius Press or Justin Press publishes almost everything he writes, and the biography about him, and a work on his art (written by the biographer), and then a small number of Catholic publications review them. The outside world is represented by the Alberta Report, an obscure defunct newsmagazine and The American Spectator, an online magazine. I'm simply not seeing significance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, see below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you put in the wrong publisher and ISBN for the biography. I've corrected it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright page reads Justin Press, but if you prefer it as on the title page, be my guest. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition was by Justin Press; I updated the year, publisher, and ISBN accordingly. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that ISBN leads to nothing. It's a disservice to our readers to include a dead end in a "Further reading" section. I've restored the edition with a live ISBN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, a question: Have you actually read any of the citations you added as "via EBSCO"? I ask because you don't seem to have included any URLs for them so they can be examined, and I'm assuming you didn't include them because you don't have them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I don't use hyperlinks in citations when I go through library-owned subscription databases. Editors are not required to do so, which I am sure you know. I did include a DOI of an article that had one. Any interested parties may seek out the sources. Regarding the biography, I have filled out the original year of publication field -- now we can have it both ways. Looky there. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great compromise, wish I had thought of it. If you have the URLs, could you add them, as a service to the readers, not all of them will have access. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. If they clicked on the permalink, users would be met with a library-specific subscription wall and then would have to go to their library's page to access the databases (if available) or request via interlibrary loan using the citation information provided. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the "However": The one source that I've been overlooking -- and not by choice but by happenstance -- is the review in Le Figaro. It does indeed qualify as a reliable source outside the circularity of the "niche". It is probably enough to allow me to withdraw the nomination - let me think on it a bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw this article in a deletion sorting list and that's why I worked on it. I found two critical non-Catholic reviews on the open internet within the first minute of searching. (The nominator has said had they found any unbiased source of any kind, they wouldn't have made the nomination. I'm not criticizing; I know it's a different story when the nomination is made--I roll that way too.) I know that not everyone has as good of access to the same databases and knows where else to search as I do. The more I looked, the more I found. I don't care a hoot about the subject, and I don't care whether the article is deleted. But just so people don't just skim the discussion without looking at the article or understanding the changes I spent a good couple hours on: please note that the man has been written about. To summarize for everyone who hasn't been following this and may be unfamiliar with many of the publications in the reference list (some of which can probably go after this AfD is complete, If it survives). O'Brien has been noticed-- by Catholic publications, conservative publications, mainstream literary publications, and still others. There could be more sources that aren't digitized or weren't in the several databases I searched. He's not a household name but is a known novelist. Catholic but lay and not a theologian. A scholar but self-taught and without qualifications. He is a conundrum. Maybe it's not enough, and that's fine. Just make it a good discussion. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments on this which may sound contradictory, but really are not. (1) I think your summary of the situation very much overstates the evidence at hand for O'Brien being notable. I place no weight on the trades, the "Catholic Echo Chamber" does not confer general notability (it would for Catholic Wikipedia if there were one, I suppose), the "academic" citations are from, again, Catholic journals, and the other non-Catholic sources are minor and trivial and some cannot be verified by me without URLs. The only evidence I place any substantial weight on is the Le Figaro review. (2) As the same time, there is the existence of that La Figaro review, and on the basis of that, I'm willing to formally withdraw the nomination. Since we were are 2 deletes and 2 keeps, and have been for days, there was likely to be a lack of consensus anyway, so the practical result of withdrawing is the same, that the article will be kept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Roman Catholic sources be necessarily discounted? And is this particular to religion or does it apply to specialized fields generally? 24.77.42.223 (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Echo Chamber" being Catholic, it has to do with it being an Echo Chamber. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you characterize all periodicals particular to specialized fields (religious or otherwise) as being part of "echo chambers"? And if so, would that not limit us to covering authors discussed in "popular" media (ruling out, e.g., most academics)? 24.77.42.223 (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers above, and a very steady 30-ish views a day over several years - far more than many very clearly "notable" topics get. I know that views aren't supposed to show notability, but they should be - the title is very narrow & precise. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per overwhelming evidence from DiamondRemley39. 24.77.42.223 (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no doubt, if sources are an issue then the Template:Refimprove BLP should be used on the article to further improve, the discussion here does seem to cover everything on the reasons why it should be kept already. TwinTurbo (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cavallin, Clemens, 1969-. On the edge of infinity : a biography of Michael D. O'Brien. San Francisco. ISBN 978-1-62164-260-2. OCLC 1076509629.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on the issue of the subject meeting WP:PROF#C1. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart J. Ritchie[edit]

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

Identified as possibly not meeting WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC by Owling It Up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Criteria_for_known_people_having_a_page. Owling It Up proposed it for deletion but I think the correct route for this one is AFD. Tacyarg (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is wrong with you? The subject is an academic whose (admittedly limited) body of work includes several heavily cited papers. His second full-length book, exposing/critiquing various modes of junk science, is about to be released in the US and the UK by trade publishers, with favorable advance word. Earlier today a new editor made their first order of business to attempt to have this bio deleted, and without any assistance made their way to PRODding the article with their second edit. It should be painfully obvious that it is, say, 100,000 times more likely that this editor is someone whose work or favored cause is speared in the book, and is feebly trying to discredit the author. No actual reason for deletion is presented, in any of the editor's three posts. And then a more experienced editor helps this vandal along. The mind boggles. Oh yes, speedy keep and immediately close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With one self-published self-help book with no reliably published reviews that I can find, and one "to be published" book, he falls far short of WP:AUTHOR. But his Google Scholar citations [24] show 12 publications with over 100 citations each, including three as first author; I think that's enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with David Eppstein that a self-published book doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. On WP:PROF#C1, this kind of citation rate is very common for that field - for example, even within his department, there are plenty with that kind of citation record (and greater). Here are some examples. It's worth noting that none of them have Wikipedia pages: Eric Taylor faculty page Eric Taylor Google Scholar Helen Fisher faculty page Helen Fisher Google Scholar Cathy Fernandes faculty page Cathy Fernandes Google Scholar Andrea Danese faculty page Andrea Danese Google Scholar Owling It Up (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Owling It Up is an SPA and probable bad hand sock. The account began editing Friday, and moved to PRODding this article with their second edit and posting a surprisingly sophisticated argument about citation rates with their fourth. It's clear the person behind the account has a grudge against the article subject, probably related to Ritchie's writing about junk science, but possibly even something so pedestrian as anger over receiving a lousy grade. Five of their first six edits relate to Ritchie, all relating to having his bio deleted -- not at all consistent with the behavior of a new, good faith editor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans." Owling It Up (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typical SPA sock behavior. Discussing sockpuppetry and probable COI editing is not a prohibited personal attack -- and for somebody who claimed to know nothing or next to nothing about WP policies 8 edits ago, you're not exactly acting like that, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do know how to read. Owling It Up (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Owling It Up This argument is an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, and as such is not a valid reason for this article to be deleted. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How about the citation record being fairly typical? Owling It Up (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Subject only became a Lecturer in 2018 - might be a case of WP:TOOSOON Freeranging intellect (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Early career academic. Far too early for notability. Very few academics below full professor level are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:C#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. Per David Eppstein. Note to closing admin: the account Owling It Up appears to have been created solely to discuss deleting this article (they have made 15 edits, all between 10 and 12 April 2020, of which 11 relate to deleting this article) so their vote should be disregarded. TSventon (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Gurudeva PU College[edit]

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

Aside from a Facebook page, I can't find any evidence that this college exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, due to the lack of sources covering the college. Cedix (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Temple of Frisco[edit]

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

Another non-notable Hindu temple. Computer165 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sourcing. Most of the sourcing is UGC, or passing mentions. Neither of which are reliable in any way. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 20:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists and hosted a local meeting. No significant coverage in WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, due to the lack of sources covering the temple in detail. Cedix (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 respective SSSI lists for each English county.. (non-admin closure) Kori (@) 23:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clogau Quarry[edit]

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

Articles are a bunch of mass produced stub SSSI articles with no notability at all. I am nominating these articles. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 16:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - all can easily be redirected to the already existing Lists of SSSIs in the appropriate counties: Clogau Quarry, Cefn Rofft and Llandegla Moor to List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Denbighshire and the rest to List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Flintshire - unless the nom is about to suggest that these lists of SSSIs are without encyclopaedic value. Also, please look around a bit more for other solutions before rushing to AfD - WP:BEFORE. Ingratis (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, nomination is flawed, rather than "articles with no notability at all" (remembering that "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."), being a Site of Special Scientific Interest (a "protected area") does convey a degree of wikinotabiliy. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Agreed that SSSIs are highly likely to be notable, although many would struggle to be more than stubs - so redirecting to the lists pending further content seems a good solution for now. Ingratis (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to appropriate lists instead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the best solution now would be to turn the pages into redirects; leaving them as stubs doesn't do anything useful when there's a list page we could have the stub information on. If and when they become more notable, then a fuller page can be created. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article deleted by TParis per CSD A7 and CSD G11. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sestyc[edit]

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

The article looks like a product promotional page with NO references. It's notability is also in question. Amkgp (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no claim of notability + spam. Praxidicae (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per previous comments. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. I am closing the AfD for procedural reasons, but since the article already received a non-keep vote, a proposal to merge will be placed at the relevant talk pages. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of former members of JKT48[edit]

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

Unsourced, maybe move to draft for now since it is still in development. Flix11 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Flix11 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe I will pull out this nomination. Flix11 (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renounce nomination. As the nominator, I officially withdraw this nomination. Flix11 (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of JKT48 members. There is no need for this standalone article. If the AfD is withdrawn I believe that should be the course of action thereafter. Ajf773 (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cabayi (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northumbria Helicopters[edit]

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

No references, more promotional than encyclopedic, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG - just undeleted from previous PROD with no improvements. KylieTastic (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any significant coverage: the fact that two of the major editors are SPAs, combined with the heavily promotional tone, suggests a Conflict of Interests. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cabayi (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H. H. Fleishman[edit]

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

A biography, unsourced since creation in 2006, of someone whose most significant achievement seems to have been to negotiate a Coke-bottling contract in 1926. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing of note. He had a son (1923-1983) and grandson of the same name, neither of whom seem to have been notable either. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a totally non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mention at Grupo Tampico is sufficient. No sourced indication of standalone notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced article with no asserted notability, significant coverage about Mr. Fleishman, or reliable sourcing at all. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 03:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Falls, Glen Roy[edit]

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

I prod'd the article with "There is no indication this is a notable geographic feature. I did a quick search and was not able to find any reliable sources that provide significant coverage of it." The prod was removed and the edit summary was "Deprod. Appears to be part of a notable geological formation, the Dog Falls Psammite" I have gone back and done more extensive searching and still have not found significant coverage of this waterfall in reliable sources. The deprod suggests that the waterfall may be notable based on it being part of a geologic formation that may be notable. Notability is not inherited. If the geologic formation is notable and someone writes an article about it and this waterfall is included in that article, then a redirect to that future article would be appropriate. As it stands I do not see anything to suggest that this waterfall is notable. ~ GB fan 14:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC) ~ GB fan 14:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~ GB fan 14:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ~ GB fan 14:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find passing mentions of Dog Falls in hiking guides/reviews, no significant coverage. – ².O.^Boxing 14:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to List of waterfalls of Scotland. Hundreds of inappropriately mass-produced "articles" there. Reywas92^Talk 18:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of California, Irvine student housing. The rough consensus here is that the content of the article is well-sourced and should not be deleted completely from the encyclopedia, but it may fit better as part of a broader article about UC Irvine and its campus. I chose the student housing article because it was raised without objection in the discussion by Reywas92 and seems the most relevant. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Earth Housing[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of college dorms at UC Irvine. The coverage all seems to be in blogs or is routine coverage like would be expected of dorms - local news information of how many students live in it, construction of buildings, etc. Hog Farm (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a lot more coverage than dorms at a big college like this normally get. The nominator definitely mischaracterizes the nature of some of the references. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have edited and watchlisted the article (I think I have a neutral enough point of view on the subject for that), but as a UC Irvine employee I'm going to recuse myself from this discussion. I hope my presence does not pressure anyone not to express their full opinion, whatever it might be. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Our coverage of UC Irvine's campus seems a bit of a mess overall. The article on UC Irvine itself has a "Campus" section that points to a "main article" while being long enough to qualify as an article already. The point of linking to "main" articles is so that we don't do that ... though in this case the "main" article has been tagged for being under-sourced and advertisement-like since April 2016. I don't see much reason to delete Middle Earth Housing, since the content and the sources are unobjectionable and there are in principle merge targets, but those potential merge targets need work themselves. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge Absolutely no reason this cannot be discussed at University of California, Irvine student housing (or Campus of the University of California, Irvine#Housing since that page is full of OR and overly detailed cruft). Reywas92^Talk 22:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. It's a large college campus housing complex. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Housing complexes do not typically meet GNG and are best covered in the main university or campus article unless there is enough content to split into its own article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Magaña[edit]

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

Article was PRODded, dePRODded and AFD'd in 2018 surviving on WP:TRAINWRECK grounds because it was bundled with six other articles. She fails WP:FOOTBALL having never played in an WP:FPL or for a senior international team. WP:GNG is failed due to a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Ping me if sources are found which might meet GNG. Giant Snowman 08:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @Olivier: Feel free to userfy/do with the content what you see fit, if you wish to retain the history. DexDor's comment about blanking might be advisable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Index of China-related articles[edit]

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

The last two articles constitute an alphabetical index of China-related articles, the first one is a dab page of sorts linking to the other two. The total number of articles included in these lists is less than 3.5 thousand, which is a small fraction of the total number of eligible articles out there – WikiProject China tracks over 50 thousand. An index so incomplete is misleading to readers; there are no mechanisms for updating it that I'm aware of, and if one gets developed in the future it will still be unclear why such an alphabetical list would be of use to readers. If it's of use to editors, then the list should be moved to the project namespace. Further noting that the two index pages do not constitute a curated selection of important articles: they list some pretty obscure topics, but lack entries for Chinese ceramics or for Xi Jinping (and such a list exists elsewhere anyway). – Uanfala (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Romania-related articles. An incomplete alphabetical list of thousands of unorganized articles serves no purpose in an online searchable encyclopedia. Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the same reasons as Reywas92. Ajf773 (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. DexDor^(talk) 09:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too hard to maintain and will remain incomplete as well. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the 2 sub-lists Index of China-related articles (0–L) and Index of China-related articles (M–Z) back in early 2004. They were created out of a single-article list, which I cannot locate now (the current Index of China-related articles was actually created in 2007, after an original -now disappeared- article had been split into 2 parts). At that time, "Categories" did not exist as a feature on Wikipedia, and "Watchlists" most probably didn't either. I was for a while the main user maintaining these lists, which were at that time more or less exhaustive and served essentially as topical watchlists (through the "related changes" feature). With the availability of tools like "Categories" and "Watchlists", the original purpose of these lists has become obsolete, and unsurprisingly they have been largely unmaintained over the years. As a conclusion, I cannot disagree with the nom and I am ready to see these pieces of Wiki-history and the result of quite a bit of work go, with a heavy heart. Olivier (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My main concern is to get them out of the mainspace. No objection if they're userfied, or moved to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject China. If we've got a remnant from the now almost unimaginable days before watchlists and categories existed, then surely it's got historical value. – Uanfala (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There may be historical value in noting that such pages existed, but I don't see a value in keeping the pages themselves live (even in another namespace). If it is kept for historical reasons (in another namespace) then could the page be replaced by a notice saying to look in the page's history; that way it's not showing in what-links-here etc. DexDor^(talk) 18:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XML Copy Editor[edit]

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

This article was recently restored after being deleted by PROD in 2010. It has no citations - only an external link to the program's own web site. I've done some searching, and I can find no sources aside from the usual indiscriminate software download portals, and a few trivial mentions on Google Scholar where it is mentioned that the program was used, but not described in any detail. Accordingly I think this does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE and should be re-deleted. MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable software. No non-primary sources & significant coverage. Plus, it fails WP:PROMO. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 15:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, reliable source coverage in support of this article simply doesn't exist. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kenya Moore#Authoring, exercise video and hair care line. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 07:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Game, Get Some!: What Women Really Want[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the threshold standards for notability of books on Wikipedia: the Library of Congress does not catalogue it, according to their online catalogue search. The mere fact that the book is available somewhere listed on WP:Book sources doesn't mean that it meets the threshold standards. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 12:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 12:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article does not fail the WP:BKTS. By means of Wikipedia:Book sources, the book has a verified International Standard Book Number and it's available on reliable credible online bookstores/libraries such as Barnes & Noble, Open Library, LibraryThing, etc. plus, being written by the first African-American who won the Miss USA which is a prestigious honor and is being celebrated during Black History Month, adds more notability to it and discusses the book from an outside-literature perspective. Bionic (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Anyone can buy an ISBN. The book does not inherit the notability of its author. I looked for reviews at Kirkus and Publishers Weekly and found none. Library Thing is a metadata website for cataloging, not a library. Similarly, Open Library's Wikipedia article states that it seeks to create "one web page for every book ever published". The book has a whopping nine holdings in WorldCat. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. They are in fact, libraries; OttoBib, LibraryThing, Open Library & Goodreads are all library 2.0 which is a species of digital library.

And furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the book contains mémoire of the first black woman who won the Miss USA that would justify a standalone article for the book and discusses it from an outside-literature perspective which adds more notability & importance to the article. Bionic (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, library 2.0-- a term I have t heard I AGES-- is the integration with modern internet use and libraries (some of it is social media). GoodReads is a website where people make lists of their past, present, and future reads. The other that you list are also metadata sites...OverDrive and Hoopla are closer to digital libraries. And their holdings are on WorldCat. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add the book to her article? It didn't get reviews from any of the trade publications, newspapers, or any named critics so far as I have found. It's not had a big effect on... Anything. It's not a memoir but a (not very) popular nonfiction title. So add the title to her article if you want to see the info preserved on Wikipedia. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to tell me what those websites are. What I said is based on Wikipedia's content: They are all in W:Category:Library 2.0 which is subcategory of W:Category:Digital libraries.

and I didn't say the book is a memoir I said it contains her mémoire. There's a difference. Bionic (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you said. I'm saying that because it is not a memoir but a popular self-help title that it doesn't reflect enough of its author to have been of interest to those who care to read about her; had it been a memoir, it might have been a different story. Your understanding of the classification of libraries is tenuous. I'm guessing these are old categories that could stand some review and I'll look into that; I guess they could be categorized that way because they relate to the digital libraries, but this doesn't make them digital libraries. I'm done here for now. The chances of this surviving the deletion process are slim. I don't know what your editing interests are, but there are many more worthy hills to fight on in AfD related to women, people of color, and books... and the intersection of the three. I strongly recommend you add this book to author's page if you want to see the information preserved. Best of luck to you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with my 'understanding of the classification of libraries'! I just referred to WP's categories and that's it.

and 'hills to fight on'??!! I didn't know that we're 'fighting'!... Bionic (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are not. You are fighting to keep the article. In that fight, referring to Wikipedia's categories makes for a poor argument. You can believe these library businesses are libraries, but even if they were, that doesn't change that OCLC has the book in fewer than 10 libraries worldwide, and even if it were held in 900, if it never got critical reviews, and was not cataloged by LoC it's all moot. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It is better that this article can be kept as a redirect target to Kenya Moore. The subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail WP:GNG? It does have reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Bionic (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenya Moore#Authoring, exercise video and hair care line as a useful target for the search phrase. It lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The only useful source in the article is possibly Jet. A search of Book Review Index showed a single review in Ebony (Nov 2007; vol. 62, no. 1) but at 45 words, it's barely a mention. Expand summary style within the parent article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, a gsearch does not bring up any reviews from reliable sources (the Ebony snip review might be ok if there was another with more depth but definitely not by itself), btw, being listed/reviewed/discussed on Barnes & Noble, Open Library, LibraryThing, OttoBib, Goodreads contributes zero wikinotability to a book. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus of non-notable individual Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Grug III[edit]

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

I'm trying to make this happen, but other than one or two ComixTalk pages, there are just zero reliable sources on this man. I can't confirm any of the claims in this article at all. He's just not notable. For a biography of a living person, this is unacceptable, as we cannot risk spreading misinformation. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, there isn't evidence of notability and you are right that standards are high for living people. I did a search myself and wasn't able to find any evidence of notability. HenryCrun15 (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cartoonist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Quite an odd case, but there certainly seems consensus that there is insufficient reliable sources to confirm the weapon's existence (and thus certainly notability). Normally I'd be reticent to enact salting without prior issues, but given the indication within this AfD of an ongoing issue of citogenesis, including by the article's original creator, I'll implement EC salting. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At aero 088[edit]

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

Several users, including the original author of the article, have raised concerns that this weapon may not even exist. The article entirely relies on one source, which the author of the article themself says they're not sure is reliable (see Talk:At aero 088) - but as far as I can tell, there's no other reference to this weapon actually existing anywhere I can see. It's possible this was added as a sort of paper town-style attempt at preventing copying of the firearms book cited?

I'm including this in WP:GUNS' deletion sorting, and any commentary available from experts there would be appreciated. I'd also like to explicitly tag in the original author, Amendola90, for any contribution they can offer to the deletion discussion, as they presumably have access to the cited book. It's worthy of note that this article has been on Wikipedia since the end of 2008, and yet seemingly never been listed for deletion before, so it's possible that I'm missing something! | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 09:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 09:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for contacting me. For a short answer see the end of my comment. Though I still own the book, I do not have immediate access to it, but everything I have on this weapon is on Wikipedia. I had another user ask me about it in 2008 (User:Moeron) as they couldn't find it in their copy of the book, but they never wrote back and have been offline since 2011 as far as I can tell. Lastly, as I wrote in the talk page, that book is rife with image mistakes, putting photos of certain weapons in place of other weapons with surprising frequency. It happened in this case too, as this weapon was in the explanation page for telescoping bolts with no other text attached, and it was represented with the image of an Steyr MPi 69. So ultimately the only thing I know of the weapon is that it's a machine pistol with telescoping bolt, that is if it even actually exists.

The fact that the page existed for so long might just be that it does have one reference, and is not very well connected, so no one happened upon it thinking it should be deleted. On that topic, as it has existed for a long time, several wikis and sites outside of Wikipedia have picked it up more or less wholesale. This means that some well intentioned person might try to recreate it in the future, using these Wikipedia clones as primary sources, so if there is some way to block this page or put up a notice after deleting, in case someone tried to recreate it, that would be good.

To summarize, the book I got this article from is very unreliable, and I know pretty much nothing on this weapon, not even if it exists. I'd be ok with deleting it. Thanks again, --Amendola90 (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Amendola90 yes, it's possible to prevent re-creation of an article by SALTing it. In light of the risk of the page's re-creation by a well-meaning editor, I !vote delete and salt. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus notability not established Nosebagbear (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darken[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Looking around on the internet, I am finding two reliable sources covering this webcomic; Talk About Comics mentioned it once back in the day, and ComicsBeat mentioned it more recently. This is just not enough to write an article from. I can't even confirm the author's name with these two sources. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to be a notable webcomic. Of the two sources mentioned by the nom, the first does not appear to have been a reliable source as far as I can tell, and the second is extremely trivial, offering no information on the comic aside from its existence. I was also unable to find any additional information in reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mentioned article doesn't seem to be notable enough at least to have an independent article --unless by presenting more reliable related sources to support it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11, G12. – bradv🍁 02:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simphiwe Nhlangulela[edit]

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

Non notable musician who falls short of WP:MUSICBIO & a “before” search shows subject doesn’t meet our general notability guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be yet another example of the principle that "fame doesn't necessarily mean notability". The artist's work has gotten discussed online a bit, but we still don't have the reliable source coverage that we really need. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not fit any notable requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyviolation and promotional advert, G12 and G11 apply, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sulfurboy (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maitreyi Ramakrishnan[edit]

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

Well she has received recognition for appearing in an upcoming TV series which is yet to be released in Netflix. Though she passes WP:GNG, the subject is a kind of WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NACTOR. No one has seen her yet in any major films or TV series. The Afd might be controversial but the subject is matching WP:1E. She might not be considered to be noteworthy as a Wikipedia entry just because being chosen by a prominent actress Mindy Kaling. I believe the article can be kept as a redirect target to Never Have I Ever (TV series) Abishe (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep or redirect - Subject has received much coverage due to her new role. Could also restore the redirect to Never Have I Ever (TV series). Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. TJMSmith (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added in a variety of sources and this article meets WP:SIGCOV and I would argue TOOSOON does not apply because the show has already been reviewed by critics and she has been featured in multiple major secondary sources, as it comes out in a week. She also has sources consistently in major news organizations since the middle of 2019.Affied (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect: The nominator acknowledges that WP:GNG is not in issue, and I do agree that WP:NACTOR isn't technically met. So, I would agree that this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but I wouldn't be averse to letting the article stand, given the current media interest in the subject. If, however, the consensus is to "Delete" the article, then I would certainly support a "redirect", as proposed above. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as argued above. Maybe a little too soon to have a solid article, but the content is well sourced enough and GNG seems met. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article itself is well done, but I feel this is a case of Too Soon--Mpen320 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sulfurboy (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

A common enemy in D&D but lacks independent notabiity and fails WP:GNG. The mentions of these creatures are, similarly to the now-deleted/redirected Gnoll and Lizardfolk, not enough to merit their own article, and mostly appear in listicles. They are described better on the D&D Wikia anyway. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because there is treatment in secondary sources, some already present in the article, some not: Dungeons & Dragons: 10 Most Powerful (And 10 Weakest) Monsters, Ranked gives both commentary and in-universe description about the kobold, comicbook.com has another such article, The Monsters Know What They're Doing gives in-universe description as well as game mechanics analysis, there's the Game Informer article about one specific D&D kobold. Kobolds appear in Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies. They also appear in primary sources by other publishers. Lastly, they have a very short treatment in David M. Ewalt's Of Dice and Men, which is significant because it states why kobolds have a special place within the game: They are often the first combat encounter for new players.

If all that taken together is still not considered enough to meet WP:GNG, a merge is still preferably to deletion, e.g. to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, even though there's more to say then would fit nicely within the very condensed description sections mostly used there. Daranios (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources described by Daranios. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't delete notable topics to help Wikia sell advertising. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. The sources identified above do not contribute to notability. The Screenrant article is a trivial "Top 10" listicle, the Game Informer article does not convey notability onto the race as a whole per WP:NOTINHERITED, The Monsters Know What They're Doing is a Game Guide that never contributes to notability, and the mention in Of Dice and Men is nothing more than a passing mention. The ComicBook article probably does contribute to notability, but that is just one source. Of course, a Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons is still appropriate considering the existence of this one source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the Game Informer article: All examples of arguments to avoid in WP:NOTINHERITED are downwards comparisons. So if I argued "Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) is notable, Deekin is a kobold in D&D and therefore is also notable and should have his own article", then it would apply. I do not propose Deekin should have his own article. I say Deekin is a subtopic of "Kobolds in D&D". So if he is treated in relevant sources, that's relevant for that topic. (And of course sources about Deekin alone could not provide notability for the Kobold topic. But it's not the only secondary source.)

About Screenrant: Why should a "listicle" by definition be trivial? Daranios (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The writers of listicles essentially scour game minutia for ideas. It is not indicative of notability at large, as most popular game minutia has been covered in at least one listicle. They are written essentially for fans only and not for a wider audience._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source to back up this general assessment? Even if there would be several Top 10 lists which did not have the same entries, it's hard to image how, in this case, most of the thousands of monsters extant in D&D would be "covered in at least one listicle". Daranios (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One simply needs to search for "Top 10 D&D monster" on Google News to come up with massive amounts of similar listicles. Yet they are devoid of meaningful content and usually just describe their ingame appearance and lore. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, more than just a plot summary is needed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I see your point about many lists existing, I have several things to say about this:

First, any Top 10 list is not indiscrimate, as it limits itself to a very much smaller number out of the many existing monster, defined on some criterion. Even all the Top 10 lists found on that Google search together would be far away from covering almost all monsters in my opinion.

Second, many such lists are not "devoid of meaningful content": "ingame appearance and lore" is one part which should not be absent from a Wikipedia article about a fictional subject; the ranking itself is already an evaluation; the Screen Rant article evaluates the treatment of the kobold be DMs/gamers, which would not be found in primary sources

Most importantly, I do not propose that any such list found on the internet provides notability. But: Screen Rant may not be the New York Times, but it is a big and important specialized news website, self-proclaimed "one of the largest and most-respected entertainment news sources in the world - serving over 232 million readers in 2018 alone". The Google search also led me to a very similar evaluation of the D&D kobold at cbr.com, a very large news and community site dedicated mostly to comics. So neither is a lone blogger posting out his private opinion. Both are also sites which are not mainly devoted to D&D or role-playing games. So I do not think that "written essentially for fans only and not for a wider audience" is accurate.

To make this even more clear: If I open up a website and post my opinion about who are the 100 most influential people on this planet, that will not confer notability on those for Wikipedia. If Time magazine publishes just such a "listicle", that's an entirely different matter and will confer notability. So "many listicles exist, therefore they cannot contribute to notability on Wikipedia" cannot hold as a general statement. Daranios (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very thoughtful rationales provided by Daranios. Woerich (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have found one more source that should qualify for significant coverage, please take that into account for the decision: Hergenrader, Trent (2019). Collaborative Worldbuilding for Writers and Gamers. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 95–98. ISBN 978-1-3500-1667-5.
keep Lots of significant coverage, both academic (e.g., Mitchell-Smith, I. (2009). Racial Determinism and the Interlocking Economies of Power and Violence in Dungeons and Dragons. Co-opting Culture: Culture and Power in Sociology and Cultural Studies, 207) and genre-specific sources. There's even an outstanding third-party publisher called Kobold Press. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many sources identified above. The Hergenrader source is very nice - a several page case study of Kobolds in an academic book about collaborative world-building. Some bizarre claims by those seeking deletion. The claim that "most popular game minutia has been covered in at least one listicle" is baseless, for example, and, in the past, Devonian Wombat has been unable to demonstrate that "The Monsters Know What They're Doing is a Game Guide that never contributes to notability" has any basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. (Maybe (s)he can this time, but I'm not holding my breath.) Josh Milburn (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is quickly moving towards keeping. Maybe withdraw? Woerich (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't withdraw it, per WP:NOTAVOTE. A bunch of keep votes with no evidence backing them up is just that. Refbombing with numerous trivial mentions is not proof of notability - and all the "sources" noted here are very trivial._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the Hergenrader source? Is that "trivial"? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did, and it's hard to call the source a significant mention. It is essentially plucking a random description page, that happens to be the kobold, from a game book to use as an example. It describes kobolds not by their own merit as notable creatures but as a means to an end of making an example about descriptions. I think it's definitely usable were the article to be merged into a list of monsters, but too shaky to justify a separate article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, it's several-page (five page span - you could maybe call it three pages of text and one page of image) discussion in book about world-building by an academic published by an academic press. There's got to be a degree of judgement about what constitutes a "significant" mention (the relevant guideline keeps it vague), but that's way over the bar as far as I'm concerned - and I think this is a clear example of shifting goalposts. (Whatever is identified, there's always some reason it's not really significant.) As for your claim that this is "plucking a random description page ... as a means to an end of making an example about descriptions" - there are a lot of things I could say, but I'll leave it at this: it's a case study in a book about world-building. It doesn't pretend to be anything else. I'm not sure what else you want it to be. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've said everything I am going to say, but you or anyone else are of course welcome to reply. If you want me to see a comment, ping me. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my side about this specific source: yes I see that the kobold is taken as an example. However I have not seen anything in the guideline where the intent of the author has to be a specific thing. More importantly what is in the guideline: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail [...] it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". And then, even though it is only an example, what does this source say about the kobold: It's "iconic", "interesting", "they can provide additional twists and turns, as well as storytelling depth, to an RPG campaign narrative". And then it takes four pages to analyze the kobold entries in a number of books, including their art and to what use that's put, and more, even so it is a book about worldbuilding, not specifically about D&D monsters, that seems to show a great appreciation by the author to me. I don't see how these four pages can be "very trivial" then. Daranios (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People often confuse word count for significance.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

similarly, some often associate low word count with trivial/insignificance, i am reminded of haiku, small but often significant. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, a big thanks to above editors for highlighting the numerous sources available above, this looks like another case of "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.". Coolabahapple (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now I'll admit that I have often voted for deletion in the Fancruft filled realm of DnD, and think that it needs a solid cutting down. But Kobolds? The sourcing alone shows that they're an iconic part of the DnD universe, and I'd bet that a fair number of folks who've never played DnD could tell you what a Kobold was. DnD articles need a WP:FANCRUFT cleanup, but this is not one of them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 can put this somewhere outside mainspace if the content is needed for grading. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Mbusya Kavutu[edit]

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

Attempted to move this to draftspace to allow it to incubate in case there was maybe something else, but it was moved back to main and in my cursory WP:BEFORE I'm not seeing anything.

Per WP:NTRACK criterion 6: a marathon runner must either: 1) Win multiple notable road races 2) Finish in top 3 in ten notable road races.

Road race notability is determined by if it is an IAAF label event, receives broadcast or cable coverage (beyond local) or is a directly competitive race between at least 5 wikinotable racers.

Subject doesn't have 10+ top threes. And his two wins are at the Twin Cities and Little Rock marathon. Both fail the three above mentioned criterion. Note: The 2004 TC win was before IAAF labels, but from 2008-present IAAF has never listed the TC marathon as a label event.

Beyond that not seeing anything to pass WP:GNG as all coverage of the subject doesn't go much beyond WP:ROUTINE winner coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Does not satisfy general notability, which is vague. I prefer special notability guidelines over GNG because they are often clearer, and I would prefer to see them stand alone rather than be dependent on GNG. In this case we have a special notability guideline that is not much of an improvement over GNG, and there isn't any clear basis for inclusion either under GNG or SNG. I would prefer to clarify track notability, but maybe it is written the way it should be written. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Publish as Article — Hello to Sulfurboy and Robert McClenon! Thank you for your diligent editing in the Wikipedia digital realm. I'm an educator, trying out an assignment for the second year. The students in my writing course first created annotated bibliographies of athletes, most of whom are marginalized and not included on Wikipedia due to language barriers and cultural barriers (for example, Kavutu was not an All-American NCAA athlete because he was born and lived in Kenya).

In the class, we are working to practice principles of verification and clear, neutral writing. Another goal is for students to see Wikipedia as a collaborative text they can add to, even if it doesn't promote a financial interest (i.e. this is collaborative work for the public good).

All the students first wrote draft pages in Microsoft Word and were in the process of learning wiki-markup in order to draft strong, credible pages for Wikipedia entries (though our time was limited to two weeks for this project). They are conscious of the rules of Wikipedia, but still learning, as they are students. Your participation in this process (though unknowingly), may actually be helpful for students.

After they did the work early in the semester and (most of them) posted their drafts, they did get quite a response. It has not gone as smoothly as I hoped, and I've since learned about the educational Wikipedia site, which I hope to dig into later this summer before working on another project for a different semester.

As it is, the students are nearing the end of the semester, so I'm wrapping back around and attempting to help them move their drafts to Articles (I'm not an expert on here either, but I've been learning fast!)

Please recognize that one goal of mine is for college students to see Wikipedia as an active, growing document that they can contribute to—it is not a completed encyclopedia! This is a common conception for many students. "Wikipedia exists, and I can find all the answers there," they think, "but I can't be part of it because I'm not technical." My hope is that the students feel empowered to create and begin to think of themselves as belonging in a "technical" and collaborative editing space.

However, I know none of this matters unless the athlete is considered "notable." In this case, we have an athlete with top 10 finishes in many large marathons (though they are not all listed yet in the article), including World Athletics certified races. Also, the Twin Cities Marathon is a large race that has even been the USA Marathon Championship race for several of the years it was run. The prize purse is high, the competition is very strong.

I argue that the athlete is notable, but this student could use some more help with research and building the article. do need some help building the article more. Wouldn't it make sense to keep this just for the Twin Cities Marathon win if other runners such as Risa Takenaka and Sayo Nomura have pages?

Thanks for your work on this website, and thanks for your help with this article!

Comm260 ncu (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comm260 ncu, This is the very glaring issue with assigning creating a Wikipedia page as part of a class. Creating Wikipedia pages is one of the most difficult tasks you can do on Wikipedia, some editors go years without creating their first article. Another reason is because teachers, much less students, usually do not have a proper understanding of our policies and there is disappointments that occur when articles don't get published or get deleted that even further discourages students from ever editing again. Doubly so if a grade is tied to it. Some of the points of misunderstanding you might have are:

1) Just because other stuff exists WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, doesn't mean this article should. The two articles you bring up may have their own issues that need to be addressed (the second one in particular).

2) Wikipedia does not give special credence to articles just because the articles were written by students, nor would we lessen our standards to encourage people to continue editing Wikipedia, that would completely defeat the purpose.

3) We have notability standards in place (such as the ones I stated in the nomination). Instead of addressing these standards, you have responded with very subjective ones.

I would highly recommend reading WP:ASSIGN before using Wikipedia as a teaching tool in the manner you did again. Even many veteran Wikipedian editors run into mixed results when using article creation on Wikipedia as a teaching tool. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy Great tips, Sulfurboy! I appreciate your passion. How did you get into editing on Wikipedia? You are very knowledgable. I will definitely look into that ASSIGN. Rest easy knowing that something like this is graded on effort (there is too much beyond a single student's control). The mentality that the site is participatory (and that students, not just technocrats) can edit—that is more the point. As I mentioned, none of this matters unless a person is considered "notable." As for the standards, are you looking to have more details added about the races in which he has finished top 10? I will look into that next week. Thanks again! Comm260 ncu (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search for Augustus Kavutu and it seems as though more sources appear. Could be a name differentiation issue at work here as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Comm260 ncu (talk • contribs) 19 April 2020 01:44 (UTC)

Delete - I agree with Robert McClenon that we should use the specific notability guidelines in WP:NTRACK rather than use the WP:GNG. I don't think this subject passes any of the criteria in WP:NTRACK, so the subject should be considered non-notable and the article should be deleted. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 07:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable D&D character that fails WP:GNG. Almost no mentions in reliable sources and nothing significant enough to merit its own article. Previous AfD demonstrates little evidence of independent notability. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: There is treatment in secondary sources: Three are in the article (or four? How is it with Pegasus?). Two of them are very short. Most important should be The Devil's Web, but I cannot say how extensive the treatment is there. To show that the controversies are not long past, I found another short section in 30 Day Spiritual Healing Revelation from 2012. If that together is not found enough for an independent article, I guess Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) would be a reasonable merge target. Daranios (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). The 30 Day Spiritual Healing Revolution article does not give significant coverage, it just gives a single sentence of in-universe coverage to Dungeons & Dragons when it seemingly lists off every single time the word Asmodeus has appeared in fiction. Dangerous Games? Censorship and Child Protection is an paper written for an Undergraduate Degree, so that clearly cannot contribute to notability since it is not a reliable source. There is no evidence his appearance in The Devil's Web was anything more than a passing mention, since it is only used in the article to essentially say "This character appeared in this book". Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) per Devonian Wombat. The secondary sources identified are trivial mentions that would not be enough to sustain an independent article. He already has coverage in the main article on Devils in D&D, so a Redirect there would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. D&D Asmodeus specifically discussed:

Irwin, W., 2014. Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Read and Gain Advantage on All Wisdom Checks. John Wiley & Sons.
Littman, G., 2014. Sympathy for the devils. The Philosophers' Magazine, (65), pp.46-53.
Nguyen, Q., 2012. She Kills Monsters. Samuel French.
Arp, R. ed., 2014. The Devil and Philosophy: The Nature of His Game (Vol. 83). Open Court.

And then there is the fun moral-panic sources that discuss D&D Asmodeus specifically.

Lewis, J.R., 2001. Satanism today. ABC-CLIO.

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the first two sources are actually the same - the coverage of Asmodeus in the D&D Philosophy book is actually a reprinting of the Littman article. And the actual coverage of Asmodeus within that article that I can see is, as I mentioned in my recommendation above, extremely trivial, and basically nothing more than a name-drop. The "She Kills Monsters" book is actually a play, as in a piece of fiction, not a reliable source. The "The Devil and Philosophy Book", I can't actually find any mention of the D&D Asmodeus - I see some info on the mythological figure, and a mention of D&D, but not a discussion of the D&D version of Asmodeus. And the same goes for the "Satanism Today" book - I see a large entry for the mythological version of Asmodeus, a completely separate large entry on the moral panic of D&D, but not a mention of the D&D version of Asmodeus. Not a single one of these source would constitute any kind of coverage that could be said to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the coverage in Littman is trivial. Is there a specific policy that says use in fiction does not contribute to GNG? I read WP:GNG and didn't see it. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glabrezu[edit]

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

Non-notable minor D&D creature that fails WP:GNG. Almost no mentions in reliable sources and nothing significant enough to merit its own article. Wikia-level fancruft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. BD2412 T 15:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article fails WP:GNG as it is sourced entirely to primary sources and WP:PLOT since it is written from an entirely in-universe point of view. It is not mentioned at Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, so that is not a good redirect target. The article contains nothing of relevance to be merged. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage of this creature in non-primary sources or gamebooks is trivial, at best, and certainly not enough to pass the WP:GNG or to sustain an independent article. The lack of coverage also means that it is not a notable enough topic to be covered at the main D&D monster article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnDfancruft failing WP:NFICTION/NOTAGAMEGUIDE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no secondary sources. Redirects are cheap, so no harm if someone wants one. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Technically passes WP:NFOOTY; insufficient consensus to ignore that fact in light of the short duration he has played. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Torvund[edit]

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

This is a tough one as I feel like there is a possible case of WP:CRYSTAL as he has only played 5 minutes in a professional league which wouldn't really be enough to be notable. There is also this reference [25] but isn't quite enough for him to have an article here. Glaceon (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Glaceon (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Glaceon (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Glaceon (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY subject is 19 years and is actively playing see little point in deleting it.Further the subject has played for HungrayU19 team in the 2019 UEFA European Under-19 Championship qualification as per this.If he had retired or was injured it was different.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, when he was cut from Stabæk's senior team it was not even announced, he just disappeared from the roster. Players on this level of obscurity should be deleted or at best draftified. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obscure start of a career player. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory, but that is what we become if we include everyone who makes pro-team rosters just for that fact alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFOOTBALL and as is young and has ongoing career we allow grace to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 13:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFOOTY because Nemzeti Bajnokság I is an FPL. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject's notability seems to be rising, as he is still young and actively playing, but does not quite fit GNG. Article should be draftified for now.Mukedits (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, but keep votes are weak, not seeing anything at the moment that indicates GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTY. Hungarian version is very well referenced. English version needs improving not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here is a link to the Hungarian wikipedia article that may assist editors in assessing Torvund's wikinotableness. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a WP:CRYSTAL, maybe a draftify? If his career was over he'd be a clear delete, might meet WP:GNG, a tough one to determine. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 03:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diana González[edit]

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

She fails WP:NFOOTBALL by never playing in a fully professional league or for a senior international team. WP:GNG is failed due to the main coverage being after her death. Dougal18 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I appreciate GNG concerns but I think it is met. Giant Snowman 17:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has enough reliable sources coverage as shown in the article to pass WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about semi-pro footballer and Mexico youth international that is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the coverage relates to her untimely death, but there is coverage of her brief career before that. Jogurney (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't see how GNG is met here. --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would agree that GNG is probably met in this instance, but allowing more time for a clearer consensus to emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes WP:GNG and has enough coverage. Abishe (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above also suggest the nom refer to WP:CONFUSESTUB. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 12:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted by Materialscientist per WP:G7. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Top Island Countries[edit]

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

Article creator removed PROD but provided no explanation for reason. List contains no references, contradictory information (East Timor is attached to Indonesia) and incorrect information (Australia is a continent). Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA: "criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." Goldsztajn (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lake Junction, California[edit]

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

Someone at GNIS opened up "Welcome to Calaveras County and Western Alpine County" (date 1993), which apparently had the name "Blue Lake Junction" on it somewhere around the spot GNIS gives, and copied it into their database. What is there now is Blue Lake Springs, California, a high-end subdivision wich could enjoy notablity. Before that, there was a road. Period. For whatever reason this generated a lot more geo-clickbait than usual, but I could find nothing whatsoever indicating it was a real place at all, much less a "community". Interestingly, Geohack places the name at the entrance to the community, but there is nothing there but signs, and by all evidence there never was anything there. The name doesn't appear on topos at all. Mangoe (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything on this. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KFOR-TV. TVTonightOKC hasn't addressed complaints in four days. Like previous AfD, no sources have been provided that actually demonstrate notability. (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Morgan (meteorologist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Local television news (weather) personality. Has been involved in some minor controversies and garnered the usual run of the mill coverage. Also has received several awards none off which ring the WP:N bell. Subject fails WP:ANYBIO and the article feels promotional in areas. The previous AfD closed as a redirect, but is old enough that it could be seen as stale. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local level meterologists are not notable. The low level press coverage does not change that fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument concerning whether local level meteorologists qualify as notable is inaccurate. Quite a number of meteorologists who have only worked at the local level or currently work at the local level regardless of whether they have appeared on a national media platform, but have a reasonable degree of notability qualifiers (achievements including award wins, longevity and innovation, etc.) have articles on Wikipedia, including Dave Dahl, Troy Dungan, Gary England, Tom Skilling, Harry Volkman, James Spann and Dick Goddard. That, by itself, is not a disqualification for meriting a WP article. The information on this version of the Morgan bio article was developed with the intent of having more substantial footing than the original version, with more adequate information on his career and background and more references buttressing it. TVTonightOKC (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing an argument here that rings the WP:N bell. Please cite specific policy/guidelines and examples of how they are met. The coverage is fairly low and what there is, is run of the mill. None of the awards are major and thus do not individually or collectively establish notability. This is a weatherman, one of thousands, who has been involved in some minor controversies and garnered some, mostly local, news coverage. I'm sorry, but that's not enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I would lean more toward keeping it but like Ad Orientem says, it has a promotional feeling and needs rewriting. United States Man (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FTR I am fine with reaffirming the decision of the previous AfD and redirecting to KFOR-TV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lookout Junction, California[edit]

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

This used to be where a BNSF/ex-BN/ex-GN spur headed off to join up with the McCloud River Railroad, a short line largely devoted to shipping lumber, at a place called (by the railroad, at any rate) Hambone. It's not an "unincorporated community" by any evidence whatsoever, and every reference to it is railroad-related. Various pictures show trackwork in the woods and a few railroad sheds. Mangoe (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a rail junction, nothing notable here. –dlthewave ☎ 01:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find a single secondary source giving significant coverage. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Romania-related articles[edit]

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

Index articles make sense only if they're reasonably complete or else if they provide navigation between a carefully curated group of important articles. This is not complete – it lists under 200 articles, which is two orders of magnitude smaller than the over 20,000 tracked by WikiProject Romania. It's not selective either – it has entries for random railway stations but doesn't link to major articles like Parliament of Romania or Early Modern Romania. And there's no scope for the article to be expanded in either direction – Outline of Romania already covers one, while the other is not viable – we don't have a process for generating comprehensive index articles and we don't need one anyway, as readers nowadays can't be expected to navigate to topics of interest by browsing alphabetic lists containing thousands upon thousands of entries. – Uanfala (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The recently AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles resulted in a delete and many editors, myself included, agreed it should be extended to all other Index of ... articles in the same category. They're indiscriminate and offer little navigational compared to categories and lists that we already utilise. Ajf773 (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It’s interesting that the rationale here is the opposite of the one that was offered for the Index of India-related articles. There, it as argued that the list was too big and unwieldy to be useful; here the rationale is that it’s not comprehensive enough to be useful. I know some people don’t like these country list articles. Personally I hate the structured ‘Outline’ articles. If we’re going to start purging country list articles I think that ought to be done with an RfC, not by bringing individual articles here. Mccapra (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my comment there that indices like this serve no purpose in a online encyclopedia that is ever-changing, uses categories, and has a search box that doesn't require you to find a page number in an alphabetical listing. The India list was not called either too big or unwieldy but like this one not even big enough and lacked major topics and is unmaintained. An RFC for a bulk deletion would be welcome, but test cases like this are often needed to show it's worth starting one. Reywas92^Talk 04:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes you’re right about the deletion rationale. I’d misremembered it. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. DexDor^(talk) 09:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Query I was going to close this, but bluntly I was unsure of whether there was policy warranted based deletion, and then started having a viewpoint so thought I'd participate instead. Is this being deleted under NLIST, or because it doesn't/couldn't have a sufficiently delineated scope? Arguments that it's not of much use seem more variants of IDONTLIKEIT. While I somewhat concede @Reywas92:'s argument for test cases, those need fairly firm policy justifications. I would firmly hope that we wouldn't get another one in this vein without an RfC. Fixing ping Nosebagbear (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your ping probably didn't work: mentions can be counter-intuitive at times. I'll leave the policy exegesis to those more familiar than me, but I would just like to point out that WP:LISTN isn't a policy. – Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hadn't meant to indicate it was, apologies if confusion - I put both mentions of "policy" in different sentences to LISTN as a more general usage (there's other potential possibilities than LISTN etc). Nosebagbear (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for deletion is that the page does more harm than good. That wouldn't normally be a deletion rationale for an article, but pages like this are not really articles (e.g. they don't follow the WP:SELFREF rules). If indexes are for editors (rather than for readers) then we should assess deletion more like at MFD (i.e. for pages in the Wikipedia namespace) than for a normal (i.e. article) AFD. DexDor^(talk) 07:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Street (Ottawa)[edit]

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

Just an average road in Ottawa, a WP:BEFORE turned up only a single source, [26]. Hasn't cited any sources since 2009 and receives minimal views. No reason to believe it passes WP:GNG. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and content doesn't cite any sources. Abishe (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signs of notability, haven't found any coverage. Less Unless (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability for this street. Article has been unsourced for a while because of the lack of significant coverage. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 15:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It is one of the oldest streets in the city, and is one of the city's numbered roads (equivalent to a regional or county highway). It also was up until recently part of the city's rapid bus system. However, it's not exactly a major thoroughfare. Also, I have found a lot of coverage. Searching for '"Albert Street" Ottawa' or '"Albert St" Ottawa' at newspapers.com gets hundreds of thousands of search results.-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't just count the number of search results a thing has as a notability claim in and of itself — simply counting the number of hits obscures the major and important distinction between notability-supporting coverage about the street in real media, glancing namechecks of the street's existence in coverage of other things, primary source directories and completely irrelevant hits on the mailing addresses of businesses in their contact information. So just stating the number of search results you found is not a notability argument — you have to sift through the search results you found, and select specific hits that actually represent notability-supporting coverage about the street in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless somebody can actually find some evidence of notability-supporting reliable source coverage. Streets are not automatically accepted as notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they're old, or arterial, or numbered, or have transit routes on them — the notability test for street requires the ability to reliably source some genuinely substantive context for the street's political, social, historical or cultural significance. But this literally just describes the road's geography and cites no sources for that, which is not how you make a road notable enough for inclusion here. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://barbershop-org.s3.amazonaws.com/PDFs/International/BHS-Spring-2019-International-Convention-Quartet-Finals-OSS-FINAL.pdf

[2] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYSB5x5JoxE&feature=share

[watts-2020-3] Watts, Jonathan (18 April 2020). "Nobel laureates condemn 'judicial harassment' of environmental lawyer". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-04-18.

[4] ttps://www.thecitizen.co.tz/magazine/thebeat/How-Afcon-match-brought-Tanzania-and-Kenya-closer/1843792-5185300-avqmlez/index.html

[5] ttps://mpasho.co.ke/meet-meena-ally-radio-personality-serving-beauty-brains/

[6] Cavallin, Clemens, 1969-. On the edge of infinity : a biography of Michael D. O'Brien. San Francisco. ISBN 978-1-62164-260-2. OCLC 1076509629.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]