Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 February	14 February >

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 no consensus. The proposal to rename the article List of large dogs has supporters and should be further discussed on the article's talk page. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giant dog breed[edit]

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

Fails GNG and the only sourced section fails NOTADVICE. Only one of the sources cited could be considered reliable (Mehus-Roe, Kristin (2005). "The Dog For You". The Original Dog Bible. BowTie Press. pp. 62–63. ISBN 1-931993-34-3.) and it gives little explanation of this supposed grouping, just some pros and cons of owning a big dog, the remaining sources are far from RS and of these, only the dod food company mentions “giant breeds”. A Google search revealed nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adjective + Noun does not make an established term or notable topic. Perhaps Dog_anatomy#Size could be expanded. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename List of large dogs. I am unsure why List of large dogs was redirected to this Giant dog breed title, but it should be the other way around. It serves our readers to be able to find information and to navigate large dog breeds with a list per WP:LISTN. We can clean this up and remove advice or OR. Lightburst (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the term "large dog" has no definition. William Harristalk 08:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and selective merge into Dog_anatomy#Size and any relevant articles. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ the "notable giant dogs" section into List of individual dogs#Dogs of unusual size. Pburka (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like all those dogs are already listed. Pburka (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Pburka, so the article should be straight up deleted? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do feel that giant dog breeds are a potentially notable topic, and I'm leaning towards keep. The term certainly is used among breeders and veterinarians, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]. Pburka (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pburka, well what about expanding the size section of the dog anatomy? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see an obvious connection between giant breeds (e.g. Wolfhounds and Great Danes) and veterinary anatomy. I certainly wouldn't expect to find a discussion of those breeds in the anatomy article. This topic is a reasonable complement to, e.g. toy dog and working dog. Pburka (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Giant breed appears to be indiscriminate and subjective as a descriptive term. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Closing this as delete would certainly be justifiable, but I'm not convinced we really have a meeting of minds. So, I'm going to go a bit out on a limb and see if another week of discussion will bring a more clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The claim that the terms "giant" or "large" dog breed are meaningless, undefined or subjective is easily refuted by searching Google scholar for veterinary medicine journals where the terms are commonly used and expected to be understood by the reader: [6]. While there may be some ambiguity about a precise definition, it is clear that these terms are widely used and understood by experts. The category of giant dog breeds exists, and Wikipedia can simply refer to reliable sources to determine if any particular breed is "giant." Pburka (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

. . . I don't even know how to use this, I'm not a wikipedian; all I'll say is this --- I'm tired of coming here and seeing my favorite pages gone. You people are killing Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.255.184 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Reinhart, Gregory A.; Carey, Daniel P. (eds.). Recent Advances in Canine and Feline Nutrition: 1998 Iams Nutrition Symposium Proceedings. Wilmington, Ohio: Orange Frazer Press. pp. 14, 62–63. ISBN 1-882203-21-6. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Brownlie, Serena (1992) [1988]. Beattie, Caroline (ed.). An Introduction to Dog Care. London: Quintet Publishing. p. 38, 59. ISBN 1-85501-272-3. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Glickman, Lawrence; Glickman, Nita W.; Schellenberg, Diana B.; Raghavan, Malathi; Lee, Tana (2000-11-15). "Non-dietary risk factors for gastric dilatation-volvulus in large and giant breed dogs". Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 217 (10). American Veterinary Medical Association: 1492–1499. doi:10.2460/javma.2000.217.1492. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Koch, J.; Pedersen, H. D.; Jensen, A. L.; Flagstad, A. (1996). "M‐mode Echocardiographic Diagnosis of Dilated Cardiomyopathy in Giant Breed Dogs". Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series A. 43. Wiley: 297–304. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0442.1996.tb00456.x. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Walker, Joan Hustace (1998). Saint Bernards: Everything About Purchase, Care, Nutrition, Breeding, Behavior and Training. Hauppauge, New York: Barron's Educational Series. p. 19. ISBN 0-7641-0288-5. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Morgan, Diane (2002). Feeding Your Dog for Life: The Real Facts About Proper Nutrition. Sun City, Arizona: Doral Publishing. pp. 206, 208. ISBN 0-944875-79-3. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Libby, Tracy (2008). Russell-Revesz, Heather (ed.). Puppy Training and Care. Neptune City, New Jersey: Discovery, Inc. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-7938-3793-9. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Mott, Maryann (2000). Your Family's First Puppy: Healthy Living for Your Dog. Neptune City, New Jersey: TFH Publications. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-7938-3093-0. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Rice, Dan (2001). Big Dog Breeds. Hauppauge, New York: Barron's Educational Series. p. xiv. ISBN 0-7641-1649-5. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Whiteley, H. Ellen (1996). Understanding and Training Your Dog or Puppy. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks. p. 37. ISBN 0-517-88436-4. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Randolph, Elizabeth; Ginger, Ginger (1987). How to Help Your Puppy Grow Up to Be a Wonderful Dog. New York: Fawcett Crest. p. 240. ISBN 0-449-21503-2. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Li, Yu; Deeb, Barbara; Pendergrass, William; Wolf, Norman (1996-11-01). "Cellular Proliferative Capacity and Life Span in Small and Large Dogs". The Journals of Gerontology. 51A (6). Oxford University Press: B403–B408. doi:10.1093/gerona/51A.6.B403. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Galis, Frietson; Van Der Sluijs, Inke; Van Dooren, Tom J.M.; Metz, Johan A.J.; Nussbaumer, Marc (2006-06-20). "Do large dogs die young?". Journal of Experimental Zoology. 308B (2). Wiley-Blackwell: 119–126. doi:10.1002/jez.b.21116. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Cherrone, Karen L.; Dewey, Curtis W.; Coates, Joan R.; Bergman, Robert L. (July–August 2004). "A Retrospective Comparison of Cervical Intervertebral Disk Disease in Nonchondrodystrophic Large Dogs Versus Small Dogs". Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association. 40 (4). American Animal Hospital Association: 316–320. doi:10.5326/0400316. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Kraus, Cornelia; Pavard, Samuel; Promislow, Daniel E. L. (2013-02-21). "The Size–Life Span Trade-Off Decomposed: Why Large Dogs Die Young". The American Naturalist. 181 (4): 492–505. doi:10.1086/669665. Retrieved 2020-02-11.

Sources with quotes

Reinhart, Gregory A.; Carey, Daniel P. (eds.). Recent Advances in Canine and Feline Nutrition: 1998 Iams Nutrition Symposium Proceedings. Wilmington, Ohio: Orange Frazer Press. pp. 14, 62–63. ISBN 1-882203-21-6. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The book notes on page 14:
Intuitively, the rapid growth of giant breed dogs should place stress on the development of the skeletal system. It is interesting to compare the development of giant breed dogs to humans. A person, born at 5–10 pounds, develops to skeletal maturity at a weight of 100–150 pounds in 16–18 years. A giant breed dog, born at less than 2 pounds, develops to skeletal maturity at a weight of 100–150 pounds in 12–18 months. Consequently, it should not be surprising that giant breed dogs are susceptible to skeletal abnormalities and that the adverse effects of poor nutrition, metabolic disease or other illnesses can be magnified in the skeletal development of these dogs and even in the smaller breeds.
The book notes on page 63:
Large and giant breed dogs experience a disproportionately high incidence of skeletal developmental disease compared to medium and small breeds. These diseases often become clinically apparent during the rapid growth phase which occurs between four to six months of life.
...
A brief review of some factors which influence changes in growth and development of large breed dogs illustrate the need for specific research on the nutritional requirements of these unique animals. First, there has been an increase in the mature size of many breeds of dogs. Breed standards for the American Kennel Club (AKC) show very few size limitations imposed on the large and giant breeds. As a result, most breeds have increased in size in an attempt to provide visual appeal and a positive response from judges in conformation competition.
...
A study using Great Danes as a model of large and giant breeds of dogs was conducted.
Brownlie, Serena (1992) [1988]. Beattie, Caroline (ed.). An Introduction to Dog Care. London: Quintet Publishing. p. 38, 59. ISBN 1-85501-272-3. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Quintet Publishing is owned by The Quarto Group.
The book notes on page 38:
The Giant Breeds

No one buys a giant breed dog unless they are prepared to reorganize their lives around it. They are expensive pets to buy, and to rear, and veterinary treatment costs more — the bigger the dog the more drugs they require. You may end up having a bigger car to accommodate it and even perhaps a bigger house, and at the end of it all you may only have had the pleasure of owning it for seven or eight years, because these dogs are not long-lived. Yet most people who have owned a giant breed dog will go through it all again with another, because no smaller dog can take its place. The giant dog must have a good temperament — it would be extremely dangerous if it did not — and most are very gentle and quiet. Although they need a large quantity of food while growing, their adult intake may be surprisingly low and they need much less exercise than the average gundog or collie. Because they are so strong, they must be trained to walk properly on a leash when young and not to bowl people over in enthusiastic greeting! The main problems arise if they become ill, since nursing is difficult and physically demanding, and, sadly, they are prone to many disease conditions.
Popular examples are the Great Dane, a tall, imposing yet graceful dog, the St Bernard, traditionally bred to assist stranded mountain travellers in Switzerland, and the other Mountain dog, the white Pyrenean. From the cold East Coast of Canada, the black Newfoundland also has a thick, weather-resisting coat. The Irish Wolfhound and slightly smaller Scottish Deerhound are the largest members of the hound group, capable of considerable speed despite their size. In contrast, the huge Mastiff does not need to move very fast to protect his owner's property — who would risk upsetting him?
The book notes on page 59:
Feeding giant breed puppies is a problem, and an art. If they eat adequate amounts of prepared puppy food, they should not require additional mineral or vitamin supplements. However at this age, it is still possible for a large puppy to develop bone diseases, often manifest by deviation of the limbs from the perpendicular when viewed from in front or behind, simply because it is growing too fast. Breeders may help but many of them do overfeed their dogs, because they want to achieve maximum growth rate to obtain well-developed puppies and large, mature specimens for success in the show ring. If you have a giant breed puppy, you should consult your vet regularly about his dietary needs, because any bone problems must be corrected at the latest by six months so that permanent damage can be avoided. Puppies of the smaller breeds very rarely suffer from growth problems, and accuracy of dietary requirements is not nearly so important.
Glickman, Lawrence; Glickman, Nita W.; Schellenberg, Diana B.; Raghavan, Malathi; Lee, Tana (2000-11-15). "Non-dietary risk factors for gastric dilatation-volvulus in large and giant breed dogs". Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 217 (10). American Veterinary Medical Association: 1492–1499. doi:10.2460/javma.2000.217.1492. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The article notes:
The risk of GDV can be high in some larger breed dogs. For example, in a recently completed 5-year prospective study of > 1,900 show dogs, incidences of GDV in 7 large (23 to 45 kg [50 to 99 lb]) and 4 giant (> 45 kg [> 99 lb]) breeds were 23 and 26 cases/1,000 dog-years at risk, respectively.1 On the basis of this incidence, lifetime risks of developing GDV for large and giant breed dogs were estimated to be 24 and 22%, respectively. However, the lifetime risk of developing GDV in the largest breeds, such as the Great Dane, was 42%. The high incidence of GDV, together with a case-fatality rate of approximately 30%, results in GDV being a leading cause of death for large and giant breed dogs.
The article lists large breed dogs as Akita, Bloodhound, Collie, Irish Setter, Rottweiler, Standard Poodle, and Weimaraner. The article lists giant breed dogs as Great Dane, Irish Wolfhound, Newfoundland, and Saint Bernard.
Koch, J.; Pedersen, H. D.; Jensen, A. L.; Flagstad, A. (1996). "M‐mode Echocardiographic Diagnosis of Dilated Cardiomyopathy in Giant Breed Dogs". Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series A. 43. Wiley: 297–304. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0442.1996.tb00456.x. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The article notes:
Dilated cardiomyopathy @CM) is a common cardiac disease afflicting especially young to middleaged giant breeds i.e. Great Danes, Irish Wolfhounds and Newfoundlands (Fox, 1988; TIDHOLM, 1993).
Walker, Joan Hustace (1998). Saint Bernards: Everything About Purchase, Care, Nutrition, Breeding, Behavior and Training. Hauppauge, New York: Barron's Educational Series. p. 19. ISBN 0-7641-0288-5. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The book notes on page 19:
Giant Breed Considerations

Giant breeds have a unique set of problems that go with their sheer size. For large-breed loving people or those who have owned a giant breed before, these problems can be readily worked around or just plain accepted. On the other hand, for dog owners who have never owned a breed of this size before, a giant breed can be quite a challenge.

Life Span

Giant-size breeds usually have a rather short life span. Though a Saint Bernard may live as long as eleven or twelve years, the more typical life span hovers around eight to ten years.
The book notes on page 27:
Traditionally, puppy mills have stayed away from breeding giant breed dogs; however, the Saint has been so popular at times that it, unfortunately, has been unable to avoid this fate.
Morgan, Diane (2002). Feeding Your Dog for Life: The Real Facts About Proper Nutrition. Sun City, Arizona: Doral Publishing. pp. 206, 208. ISBN 0-944875-79-3. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
Doral Publishing is currently owned by Lumina Media.
The book notes on page 206:
Owners need to take particular care with large- and giant-breed puppies. Large breeds grow faster and need less food per pound of body weight than small dogs do. They should use special puppy foods designed specifically for them. These foods are higher in protein and lower in fat than foods for smaller breeds. This is very important, since these animals continue to grow until they are at least two years old.
The book notes on page 208:
If you have a large- or giant-breed puppy, don't make the mistake of switching the puppy early to adult food in order to avoid calcium excess. Adult food doesn't have sufficient calories to maintain a puppy's proper growth rate. To maintain growth, you would have to feed more adult food. The puppy would probably end up getting even more calcium than if he had stayed on the puppy food. Instead, choose a puppy food specifically designed for large and giant breeds.
Libby, Tracy (2008). Russell-Revesz, Heather (ed.). Puppy Training and Care. Neptune City, New Jersey: Discovery, Inc. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-7938-3793-9. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The book notes on page 26:
Some puppies, depending on their breed, may benefit from specially designed foods. For example, large- or giant-breed puppies, such as Rottweilers, Great Danes, or Mastiffs, may benefit from a diet lower in protein, and here's why: In the past, all puppies were fed the same food regardless of their breed. However, many experts believe that feeding large- and giant breed puppies a diet lower in protein and fat may reduce the incidence of bone and joint problems that can plague larger breeds. The theory is that, when large- and giant-breed dogs consume too much fat and protein, they grow too quickly, resulting in skeletal abnormalities.
Mott, Maryann (2000). Your Family's First Puppy: Healthy Living for Your Dog. Neptune City, New Jersey: TFH Publications. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-7938-3093-0. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The book notes:
If you own a large-or giant-breed puppy, consider buying a specially formulated food to control their growth rate. These breeds, whose adult weight will be greater than 60 pounds, tend to suffer from skeletal abnormalities like hip dysplasia if they grow and gain weight too fast. Special diets, which have been reduced in total energy, calories, and fat, have been created to control the rate of growth and prevent these debilitating and potentially crippling conditions from developing. The diet won't affect how big your puppy will ultimately become; genetics have already determined that. Most pet supply stores carry large-and giant-breed puppy formulas.
Rice, Dan (2001). Big Dog Breeds. Hauppauge, New York: Barron's Educational Series. p. xiv. ISBN 0-7641-1649-5. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The book notes on page xiv:
For a multidie of reasons, more dog owners than ever before are selecting big and giant dogs. Large breeds have many and diverse appearances, taking every shape and color imaginable. Seen in a myriad of coat types, with widely differing temperaments, big dogs arose in all parts of the world at different times. The work for which they were developed varies greatly as well. There is practically no similarity or uniformity amoung the many breeds of big dogs. However, in the United States, a common thread runs through these dogs, and that is that the people who admire them own them primarily because of their size.
Whiteley, H. Ellen (1996). Understanding and Training Your Dog or Puppy. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks. p. 37. ISBN 0-517-88436-4. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The book notes on page 37:
Large Breeds (50–75 pounds)

German shepherd, Labrador, English/Irish setter, Collie, Labrador retriever

Giant breeds (greater than 75 pounds)

St. Bernard, Irish wolfhound, Newfoundland, Pyrenean mountain dog, Great Dane, Hungarian komondor
Randolph, Elizabeth; Ginger, Ginger (1987). How to Help Your Puppy Grow Up to Be a Wonderful Dog. New York: Fawcett Crest. p. 240. ISBN 0-449-21503-2. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The book notes:
All but the very large and giant breeds are fully mature by the time they reach a year of age. Large breeds of dogs usually have achieved full physical growth by the time they are a year and a half old, and they have become behaviorally stable by two years of age. Giant breeds probably reach sexual maturity sometime during their second year but continue to grow in stature and weight until they are two or more years old. Their full behavioral maturity is delayed until they are two or more years of age.
Li, Yu; Deeb, Barbara; Pendergrass, William; Wolf, Norman (1996-11-01). "Cellular Proliferative Capacity and Life Span in Small and Large Dogs". The Journals of Gerontology. 51A (6). Oxford University Press: B403–B408. doi:10.1093/gerona/51A.6.B403. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The article notes:
There is a significant difference in body size or mass among various breeds of dogs. Large breeds, such as the Great Dane and Saint Bernard, weigh as much as 75 kg and are 27-34 inches by shoulder height. Toy breeds, however, such as the Chihuahua, may weigh less than 1 kg and average 5 inches by shoulder height.
The article notes:
All dogs studied were grouped on the basis of breed size. The small breeds included the Beagle, Boston Terrier, Chihuahua, Shetland Sheepdog, and Yorkshire Terrier. The middle breeds included the Collie, Doberman Pinscher, German Shepherd, Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, and Standard Poodle. The large group I breeds included the Great Pyrenees, Mastiff, Newfoundland, and Saint Bernard, while the large group II breeds consisted of the Great Dane and Irish Wolfhound (Table 1). The separation among the large breeds was based upon American Kennel Club minimum male breed standards for shoulder height and upon our study findings. The dogs in large group II were 3-4 inches taller at shoulder than the animals in large group I.
Galis, Frietson; Van Der Sluijs, Inke; Van Dooren, Tom J.M.; Metz, Johan A.J.; Nussbaumer, Marc (2006-06-20). "Do large dogs die young?". Journal of Experimental Zoology. 308B (2). Wiley-Blackwell: 119–126. doi:10.1002/jez.b.21116. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The abstract notes:
We explore two datasets for dogs and find support for a negative relationship between size and longevity if we consider variation across breeds. Within breeds, however, the relationship is not negative and is slightly, but significantly, positive in the larger of the two datasets. The negative across‐breed relationship is probably the consequence of short life spans in large breeds. Artificial selection for extremely high growth rates in large breeds appears to have led to developmental diseases that seriously diminish longevity.
The article notes:
Why do dogs from large breeds die young? Dogs from large breeds usually die around the age of 6 years, which is young for dogs in general (and for wolves, Mech, ’70; MacDonald, ’84). This early mortality cannot be explained by oxidative damage due to size-related energy expenditure because dogs from large breeds have a lower mass-specific metabolic rate than dogs from small breeds (Burger and Johnson, ’91; Speakman et al., 2003). In addition, there is no indication that breeds were selected for anti-aging mechanisms that could explain differences in mortality between breeds. Rollo (2002) has suggested that the elevated mortality of large individuals might be caused by high growth rates, which would induce high rates of oxidative damage during early life. Indeed, growth rates in large breeds during the first year are very high. Great Danes increase in weight 100-fold from birth in the first year, compared to 60-fold in wolves in captivity, 20-fold in poodles and 3-fold in humans (Mech, ’70; Hawthorne et al., 2004). The proposal that a high free-radical production is involved in the early mortality is in agreement with extremely high rates of bone cancer in large breeds, 60–100-fold that of smaller breeds (Tjalma, ’66; Withrow et al., ’91). In addition, the high plasma levels of the growth-promoting insulin-like growth factor I (Igf-1) that are found in large breeds (Eigenmann et al., ’88; Tryfonidou et al., 2003), combined with the inverse relation between Insulin/Igf-1 signalling and longevity in invertebrates and probably vertebrates (Partridge and Gems, 2002; Barbieri et al., 2003; Holzenberger et al., 2003; but see Carter et al., 2002) supports the idea that high growth rates cause the early mortality in large dog breeds.
The article notes:
The size of giant dog breeds (Great Dane, Newfoundland, St. Bernard dog, Irish Wolfhound) has remarkably increased since 1800–1900 (see Fig. 3).
Cherrone, Karen L.; Dewey, Curtis W.; Coates, Joan R.; Bergman, Robert L. (July–August 2004). "A Retrospective Comparison of Cervical Intervertebral Disk Disease in Nonchondrodystrophic Large Dogs Versus Small Dogs". Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association. 40 (4). American Animal Hospital Association: 316–320. doi:10.5326/0400316. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The article notes:
Medical records of 144 small-breed dogs (≤15 kg) and 46 medium- to large-breed dogs (>15 kg) with surgically confirmed, Hansen type I, cervical intervertebral disk extrusions were reviewed.
Kraus, Cornelia; Pavard, Samuel; Promislow, Daniel E. L. (2013-02-21). "The Size–Life Span Trade-Off Decomposed: Why Large Dogs Die Young". The American Naturalist. 181 (4): 492–505. doi:10.1086/669665. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
The article notes:
As a result, resolution in body weight, especially for the larger breeds for which the last weight interval is “1100 pounds” (145.5 kg), would be poor.
The article notes:
The only conspicuous feature of this relationship is that the largest dogs (“giant” breeds, 150 kg) all start aging rather early—in fact, before they are fully grown.
The article notes:
Large dogs die young because they age quickly. Across breeds, body size is strongly positively linked to the absolute speed at which the mortality hazard increases. This relationship was still evident when looking at the aging rate relative to the current level of the mortality hazard (proportional scale); that is, large dogs age at an accelerated pace, suggesting that their adult life unwinds in fast motion.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow giant dog breed to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources found by Cunard seem to be reliable and proves this is notice and should be kept Dq209 (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was tempted to close this as "keep", but since the previous relist was tending towards "delete", I think it's worth listing this one final time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST for the sources identified by Cunard. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apply the appropriate references from among those above or Delete. Listing 15 references that mention the words "giant breed" is of no value and should not be the basis for a Keep. Only several of those references above give examples of what their authors believe is a giant breed. These need to be applied as inline citations to those dogs listed in the article, and all of the other unsourced dogs removed. If nobody is going to do that, then delete. William Harristalk 08:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth mentioning that only once in the above collection of quotes is the term “giant dog breeds” mentioned, if anything that shows the lack of notability for this as a topic. Cavalryman (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

That's only true if you ignore all the quotes that use the terms "giant breed" and "giant breeds of dogs", clear synonyms for "giant dog breeds". Pburka (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: informative content, but it seems better to rename the article List of large dogs. – 333 -blue at 08:45, 23 February 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of lowest scoring games in the NFL[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT. Per WP:LISTN, the list is not discussed together as a group in third-party, reliable sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTSTATS: purely trivia. Reywas92^Talk 23:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. The list also appears to have been copied from this site and be a possible WP:COPYVIO. Cbl62 (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTSTATS. ~~I don't think this qualifies as COPYVIO, though. These are just data that anybody could compile.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When a compilation is directly reproduced, formatting and all, Copyright in compilation can be implicated. Cbl62 (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There may be an argument to be made that this is a copyvio, however it doesn't meet WP:G12 for speedy deletion as there is clearly some ambiguity on whether or when a basic listing of statistics would meet the level of being eligible for copyright status. Either way, this discussion should hopefully resolve any of those issues. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per NOTSTATS. Pure listcruft. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total trivial listcruft. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial. what is the use of this list? Per WP:LISTCRUFT. Nika2020 (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a level of detail that seems more suitable for a sports almanac instead of an encyclopedia. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems weird to list any beyond the half dozen 3-0s. Only other of interest is the 6-2, lowest with scores on both sides. Mention those somewhere, if there is anywhere. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 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 12:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hampton Institute[edit]

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

Created by SPA, could not find sources to satisfy GNG as most of page is self-sourced, violating WP:IS. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The name is borrowed from the "real" Hampton Institute, now Hampton University. This page appears to be a promotion for a self described "working class think tank" with political commitments, but no physical office, paid staff, or notable members. It has a twitter account with a few thousand followers. And a Wikipedia page. But I can find no reliable sources. Searches using the name of the founder as a keyword turn up a handful of article he has written for political websites, stuff like: [7], and [8]. The number of references on the page is enormous, a handful seem to be articles published on political congenial websites by members of this "Institute", but almost all are primary, that is, sourced to this "Institute" itself. IceFishing (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think it's accurate to say the name is borrowed from what is now Hampton University as this group named itself after Fred Hampton. However I agree with the other rationale you offered. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Even in a search of the local newspaper, the Albany Times Union, all hits on "Hampton Institute" [ https://www.timesunion.com/search/?action=search&sitelinks=1&searchindex=solr&query=%22hampton+institute%22] seem to be about the University in Virginia, not about this local "Institute" .IceFishing (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:MADEUP, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. I lived in Albany, New York for over two decades until 2014, and was very active in progressive circles including Capital District Citizen Action, the Atlantic Chapter of Sierra Club, the Damien Center, Housing Works, and the Capital District Gay and Lesbian Community Center. I gave countless hours of pro bono to such causes and to working people. I proudly educated a generation of social justice warriors who work in public defender's offices, the Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York, and community centers. I visit the Capital District periodically, and still count over 300 friends from the area, including such progressive leaders as Sylvia Barnard, Lillian Moy, and Reszin Adams. I have never heard of any of the people named on the page, nor the organization. I can't verify that it actually exists, and it seems to be a made-up club started by some wannabe who's never worked in the trenches. We are not a soap box, and in 2020 everybody should know that we are a charity, not a free web-host for your cosplay. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 18 February 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 Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. This "merge" close was actually carried out by Nice4What but since "archive" templates don't work properly here I am doing a formal close too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Klomentum[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. No significant, in-depth coverage of the phrase itself. We already have Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign, where this neologism is already mentioned. Neutrality^talk 20:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Neutrality^talk 20:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 20:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. I added a notability tag after the article was created and was planning on a merge proposal when I had the time. It's relevant to her campaign for president which is why the term even exists so it should be merged to there. It isn't relevant enough in general to warrant its own article. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. While this term has gained some popularity related to Klobuchar's campaign, it does not merit its own entry, any more than Obama's "Yes We Can" merits one (that article is presently a redirect to the article about his 2008 campaign). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. Almy (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. A media catchphrase should be mentioned in the context of the campaign, but isn't suitable for a stand-alone article; it's extremely unlikely it will ever be used except to refer to her campaign. Per WP:NEO, I think the current coverage clearly uses the term, rather than is about the term. Schazjmd (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. Hog Farm (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign- It seems to already get a mention in the main article. If there is anything notable in this article that isn't in the main article then it should be merged. The term is only notable as it pertains to the 2020 Klobuchar campaign. The fact that the campaign and the media can't even agree on a single term Klobusurge/Klobucharge/Klobmentum/Klomentum is probably a good indication that the term itself doesn't meet WP:NEO as it is just used as a term to describe her "momentum" in the race. Aaron Booth (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign - Not every catchphrase needs an article, and this one is no exception. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. This is just a catchphrase, not a topic of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign per above and close per WP:SNOW. This article was rather irresponsibly cited by The New York Times [9] which hastens the importance of WP:DEADLINENOW. Sdkb (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. It's a catchphrase. If Klobuchar ends up winning the nomination or the general election, then I can see this warranting its own article, but as of right now, there is nothing here that warrants its own article. --Steelers3814 (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: even if Klobuchar wins the nomination, there is nothing notable to say about the term itself. Any information here would be better placed in the campaign article because Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign is a more accurate title than Klomentum.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. Typical WP:RECENTISM over the smallest shreds of churnalism What's next, Klomentum in March 2019? February 10, 2020 Amy Klobuchar CBS interview?? News agencies are desperate for readers so they churn out daily drivel and incestuously report on each other's content (or list reaction of random Twitter users) to fulfill their click-bait quota. Wikipedia articles should always be more restrained. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. This is a short lived catchphrase centered around a single Democratic primary; it does not have sufficient weight as a phrase to justify its own article. NomadicNom (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. A nonce word that will become irrelevant as soon as the next primary happens. Dylanvt (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. Pretty obvious, really. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign. An standalone "about" piece regarding a nickname to a phenomena is unnecessary. Bryan (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Per above , merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign, Alex-h (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign per above. Tvc 15 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively as suggested. FWIW, I have supported her campaign. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged the references that seemed most relevant into one paragraph in Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign#February_primaries. At this point I think this page can be replaced w/ a redirect to that section. – SJ + 07:19, 19 February 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Max Marinaio[edit]

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

I made a mistake and put this article in draftspace. This article doesn't follow WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG JaneciaTaylor (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Comment Moved from an MfD discussion per JaneciaTaylor, who meant to nominate for AfD. --Doug Mehus T·C 20:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:GNG. Google news and web searches don't find a single qualifying, independent, and reliable source which meets our definition of "significant coverage." There's a fair number of social media pages, directory listings, and other primary sources, but nothing that is both independent, reliable, and, equally crucially, in-depth. Doug Mehus T·C 20:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, clearly this person doesn't satisfy any of the notability criteria imaginable. I couldn't find coverage at all. PK650 (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can find nothing beyond self-promotions and the typical streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:23, 19 February 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Tolkien Quizbook[edit]

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

I can find no evidence this book passes either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. All of the mentions of this book that I can find are trying to sell it to me. It has a Google Books entry, but so does most everything. Hog Farm (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This book has not been reviewed by reliable reviewers or discussed in reliable publications. Disturbingly, one of the first Google Books results is Hypnosis for Female Orgasms. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I did find a real review mentioned here [10] (Dragon (magazine) #29 Sept., 1979). Another one appears to be in here (Mythlore > Vol. 9 (1982-1983) > No. 2 (1982)). Third one is here Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review, #8, October 1982. Fourth at [11] (Library Journal [v104 #3, February 1, 1979). And fifth: [12] (Tolkien Studies 2014). That said, there is a problem that there are at least FOUR books named such: (1979 : Tolkien Quiz Book — Bart Andrews & Bernie Zuber, 1981 : The Tolkien Quiz Book — Nigel Robinson & Linda Wilson, 1990 : The Tolkien Quiz Book — Andrew Murray, 2001 : Tolkien trivia quiz book — William C. MacKay). Perhaps the best solution would be to make a single page about all of those books...? The first and second one may have two reviews each which is borderline enough to call them notable... Ping User:Susmuffin.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's about the Murray book, and all of the review predate it's publishing. So this subject would not have notability, and I'm unsure about combining similarly-titled but apparently unrelated books; we don't combine books with the title "Gettysburg" into one article if they aren't individually related or notable. Hog Farm (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of reviews alone do not show notability. I think we need to show some actual impact to show that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My understanding of WP:NBOOK is that reviews do suffice: the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. I agree the works need to meet the basic requirement of WP:SIGCOV, but a review can pass that bar. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More than that, reviews are the first and most obvious way that books are shown to be notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BenKuykendall and Chiswick Chap: - Yes, reviews would suffice if they're in-depth. That issue's moot though, because the reviews Piotrus found are not actually about this book, but instead about others with similar names. Hog Farm (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The best solution is likely to change it into a disambig, as two of the four books with similar title seem to be notable. I concur that the 4th book which the substub is about does not appear to be notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic of this article is a single book which appears to be non-notable; whether another book with the same title is notable or not is irrelevant. Before we start disambigutating, the notable quizbooks, if any, would need articles. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:32, 20 February 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Tolkien Miscellany[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. You can argue with me that since Tolkien is a very important author, that it would meet NBOOK #5, but my response to that is that this is just a collection of works by Tolkien, not a volume written by him with the intent of publishing together. I can find no reviews for this compendenium, or any other coverage that would indicate a GNG or NBOOK pass. Hog Farm (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources either. We have a brief mention in Tolkien Studies but nothing significant. Other results on Google Scholar discuss the works that comprise A Tolkien Miscellany, but none seem to discuss the collection itself. As a non-notable collection of previously-published works, we can mention the Miscellany, e.g. in the articles on the notable stories it contains. But I see no possibility for an article without significant coverage in sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how this article has existed for 14 years with 0 sources would be a mystery to me if I did not understand how the defence "it is Tolkien, it is for sure notable" had worn down many a protector of Wikipedia for junk articles over the years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that this book was ever reviewed by a reliable reviewer. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find a single non-blog-like review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the often-cited WP:OSE points out, "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items". Maintaining comprehensive, complete, well-defined sets of articles "serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference." Ultimately, an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. It is also clear that there are more than enough sources available to write a worthwhile article about the contents of the book, even if there is little specific to this particular edition. The book has been in print for nearly 20 years, and been issued by at least two different publishers. It is a very plausible search term, and if Wikipedia is being operated to provide information to its readers, rather than as an arcane game for its editors, this content should remain available. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the category of "Works by J. R. R. Tolkien" is a category of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable. There are many dozens of works in Tolkien's bibliography, and most of them don't have potential for articles. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:41, 20 February 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 draftify. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi[edit]

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

Non notable Islamist from India. Fails even WP:GNG. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 19:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 19:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aaqib Anjum Aafi here. I request you elders here that please move the page to Draft. I would like to work on it. I'm concerned with biographical studies of Indian Deobandi scholars, and as well writing a 7-volume biographical encyclopedia about them. The page isn't qualified to be kept on mainspace. It must be deleted. The subject of the page though is notable under: Islamic Scholar, and educationist. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as requested. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as requested. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 20 February 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 Mahidol University. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University[edit]

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

I redirected it to the parent institution; When I first came across this I redirected it to the parent instition; this has been undone twice, so seeking a broader consensus. Obviously the redirect is my favoured solution. TheLongTone (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like many old institutions in Thailand, there doesn't appear to be much in the way of web coverage. I did find quite a bit of TV documentaries and news programmes on YouTube covering the subject's operations, museum and research, though. Not all of it is necessarily in-depth, but I'll provide descriptions for each clip. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- An episode of an educational web series by Dek-D.com focusing on studies and student life[13]
- An episode of the history TV documentary programme Jod Mai Hed Krungsri covering its origins and history[14]
- Two segments of an episode of the TV documentary programme Kob Nok Kala covering its prosthetic services[15][16]
- An episode of the TV documentary programme Nueng Nai Phra Ratchadamri covering its stem cell reseearch[17]
- An episode of the TV documentary programme Krajok Hok Dan covering its museum and orthodontic services[18]
- News scoops on NBT covering its operations (launch of an elderly dental clinic and a public exhibition event)[19][20]
- A news scoop on Spring News covering its museum[21]
- A PR news scoop on TNN covering its offering of free services[22]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While Paul's detail is not a specific objection, I do think a participant's provision of at least potential sources and only the nomination !vote warrants a relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on the overall university.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The university article doesn't currently carry descriptions for each faculty, though it probably should, seeing as not every faculty will be notable enough for a standalone article. I'd be okay with a merge without prejudice to the recreation of a more substantial article once better sources identified. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sastravuth1786, the article creator, doesn't seem to be currently active, but I'll quote his comment (along with TheLongTone's response) from the article talk page for the sake of including his perspective. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TheLongTone. I have undid your redirect as I believe after all this article is about a DENTAL SCHOOL in Thailand. Other universities in the country eg. Chulalongkorn also have an article for their respective faculty of dentistry: Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn Unviersity. Furthermore, other countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States also have article for dental schools in those countries, even if they are sub-units of a university, as observed here: List of dental schools in the United Kingdom and List of dental schools in the United States, as an example. I believe this particular topic is notable enough and I feel it would be unwise to exclude Thailand, whilst including other nations. Furthermore, it would increase Wikipedia's coverage regarding this field of higher education. Sastravuth1786 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm restoring the redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 13 February 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) 09:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tashkent Derbies[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Nothing to suggest these m\tches represent a notable rivalry. Football fancruft. TheLongTone (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have personal knowledge this is a prominent derby (I had no role in its creation) and it's split off from FC Bunyodkor#Capital derby but the article itself needs to be sourced better. A quick search of "Тошкент дербиси" shows it's notable (and not at all fancruft) but am open to suggestions on its improvement as it could easily be "merged" back into the FC Bunyodkor page until it's ready to go. SportingFlyer T·C 06:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notable derby. We have numerous articles for the derbies in the west, but we somehow can't have it for the biggest derby in Uzbekistan. This is just another instance of systemic bias against eastern football. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

No, its a bias against the relentless accretion of football trivia.TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't see enough for WP:GNG, way to weak in the way of citations and web searches. Govvy (talk) 21:10, 16 February 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. A clear consensus to keep is formed after the discussion was relisted. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev Day and Night[edit]

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

A non-notable television show failing WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources. At a glance it looks good, but upon review there is one good source and all others are either not in-depth, not independent, or not reliable. I don't think TVSERIES adds any leeway either as the show was broadcast on a single national channel to no acclaim. Despite author's best efforts at sourcing and improving through draft process, I do not believe this passes GNG, let alone to have enough reliably-sourced article content.

The sources are all in Russian and Ukranian, so I will elaborate on my conclusions about them:

The detector.media review/critique appears to be a good source. The site lists their editorial policy and I believe it's reliable.
Other three detector.media sources are not significant coverage and are basically PRish news blurbs (and it's the same site/source if we are counting unique sources).
hochu.ua and starbom.com are identical -- talks about show's characters from in-universe almost exclusively. I have no idea which source copied the other, but the hochu.ua lists an author. The content fails at writing about fiction, so I am not sure this is usable. If (and that's a big "if") it is, I don't see any information on the site about editorial policies or other usual indicators of reliability. I see little to differentiate it from a typical content farm.
telekritika.ua is a shortish news article, not significant coverage.
teleportal.ua and novy.tv are not independent sources (they re-broadcast the show).
segodnya.ua is an interview and all content is a primary source. While probably good for content, this isn't suitable for GNG.
tvdate.ru is a directory entry, not significant coverage.
pikabu.ru is user-posted website (ala Reddit) and this is a user review, with no author credentials or indication that this is a reliable reviewer/source.
otzovik.com, irecommend.ru and otzyvua.net are user-generated rating aggregators and not reliable.

There may be other sources, but I doubt any will be GNG-suitable since the author would have likely already added them already.

Disclaimer: I previously reviewed and declined the draft and replied to user's AfC help desk queries pointing out the lack of GNG sourcing before leaving it to another reviewer. The draft was copy-pasted to mainspace (I asked for a histmerge), so I'm taking it to AfD after re-reviewing. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You've obviously done a lot of work evaluating this article, and I respect your diligence, but I think this looks like enough to qualify under WP:AGF. It's a national TV show that ran for five seasons. The detector.media article, which you said has an editorial policy, ends with: "In short, the plot twists and turns in the Kyiv day and night series are so unpredictable that they hold the tone of all their fans. For Ukrainian television, this phenomenon is more than atypical. Therefore, the New Channel can only be congratulated on the first successful serial on Ukrainian television." That may be puffery, but it looks like a reliable source and I don't have any reason to be suspicious. My caveat is that I don't know Ukrainian media well enough to know what coverage of a truly notable show looks like in Ukraine, but this looks to me like a successful, nationally broadcast nighttime drama, and I would assume good faith on the part of the creator. I would be willing to change my !vote if someone who knows Ukrainian media explained why this wasn't notable. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "qualify under AGF" mean? Notability is about sourcing and personal arguments do not come into this. Are you saying this passes GNG with a single qualifying source? I could equally counter it was a latetime soap opera on a single channel that no other critic deemed important to review in 5 seasons and received poor user reviews to boot before getting unceremoniously cancelled. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm basing my judgment on WP:NEXIST: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." You said above, "There may be other sources, but I doubt any will be GNG-suitable since the author would have likely already added them already." I think that is an assumption based on the idea that the one person who's been involved so far with knowledge of Ukrainian TV shows must know every possible source that exists. The one reliable source review that we know about is very positive, and I'm willing to give this subject the benefit of the doubt, until someone with more knowledge of the topic area weighs in. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Verifiability places the WP:BURDEN to show sources and consequently WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST in not a good AfD criterion. But I accept your point of view that the show has uncited but GNG-qualifying sources, even if I don't agree. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've found few sources that is likely dedicated to the show (maybe you judge it). The first one is from Ivetta website indicating that the director statement about the show. The author is shown above the website. If you mean that the article needs an author based website, I will find and try to add them. In my knowledge, the word WP:GNG are websites that entirely cover the significant information about the topic as well as they must reliably sourced the article. The rest entire sources in the article can make enough coverage in their composition, not only a single source itself. Why they didn't pass the WP:GNG generally? The Supermind (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bar for notability for TV shows is very low. This one ran for three years. The show may be stupid, but the Ukrainian version has plenty of sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nationally broadcast show for several seasons. Sourcing, while could be improved as you indicate, is sufficient for verifying it meets the criteria. matt91486 (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. detector.media is a reliable source.--Yakudza (talk) 01:17, 18 February 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. There are some reliable sources, but there is no consensus if the coverage should be considered substantial. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twinbow[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Did not chart nor received awards and recognition. Made by a sockpuppeteer. hueman1 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:SIGCOV - there has been significant coverage by Billboard and other sources; no evidence it's charted. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whether or not a song charts or receives awards or nominations is not the absolute test of notability. It should be more focused on whether or not the song has received a significant amount of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. This song appears to have received some coverage, but I am uncertain if it is enough to qualify as significant. I just wanted to point out that a large part of the nominator's rationale is flawed as WP:NSONGS clearly states that charts and awards suggest that a song may be notable. Aoba47 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep Marshmello is a well known EDM producer. People might be researching this track, so based on that it is notable enough to keep. Perhaps more sources should be dug. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, hueman1 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with an emphasis on "weak". The Billboard and EDM Sauce sources aren't that substantial with content, though Billboard would unquestionably qualify as RS in this context. I also found Your EDM which goes in depth; it's not a great source but it does have multiple writers so it's more than a single-person pop blog. The Slushii article additionally cites Wonderland in Rave, a Portuguese language website that is probably of a similar tier. feminist (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONG, which requires coverage in multiple notable sources. --BonkHindrance (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marshmello: per WP:NSONG. There aren't many sources outside of music-related ones. Or perhaps it is better to move the content there. – 333 -blue at 08:52, 23 February 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 National Ski Patrol. No prejudice to recreation if significant coverage found. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denali Ski Patrol[edit]

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

No sources given to support the page. While there may be scope for the page to be improved with credible sources, as it is there is nothing to suggest it meets WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My WP:BEFORE turned up plenty of passing mentions, but nothing indicating that the subject meets WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, your notion of WP:BEFORE is a Google search and nothing more. This and a catalog search indicates that there's offline sources galore to peruse; I'll let you know when I have time for that. This AFD is the usual tit-for-tat game-playing, responding to a contested PROD, a fact the nominator chose not to reveal. The goal here is once again using deletion to hide the fact that a new user contributed content that wasn't ready for prime time and a bunch of regulars responded by picking low-hanging fruit and polishing turds instead of helping that user out or performing any other sort of actual collaboration. Per the information in the link I provided above, the outcome should be Merge to National Ski Patrol before outright deletion, since it falls under their umbrella. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 13 February 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 12:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namah Pictures[edit]

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

Seems to have not met with WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. Non notable film production company which hasn't produced any big budgeted films. It was already Afded before. Abishe (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a G4 if there are no significant differences with the original. This seems to have been recreated by an WP:UPE (his user page has an empty COI template) who moved the draft directly to mainspace. If significantly different then Delete as the sources do not show the company meets WP:NORG as the coverage looks like the usual run of the mill rewrites of press releases and no indepth coverage of the subject. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:07, 21 February 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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Jordana[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

I came across this article because an IP boldly attempted to convert this to a redirect. IP's methods were questionable, but I think that they're ultimately right in that this subject does not meet WP:GNG. Her solo career after Cobra Starship does not appear to have attracted any attention in reliable sources; I searched online and on Rock'sBackpages. Given that she is not mentioned on The Howard Stern Show, I would suggest redirecting to Cobra Starship_signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will investigate. I have heard of Cobra Starship and Berkley School of Music one of the world's best music schools. Lightburst (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many of the claims are simply bogus. She did not write that range of articles claimed, they were written by other people who quoted her briefly in the articles. Some have tried to use IMDb to show notability, but that does not give notability. Nor can we source notability to interviews with her. The bank she was part of is notable, but people do not inheret notability from bands. Being one of many guests on a radio program is also not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I found were minor mentions in poor quality sources. No SIGCOV. Best I could find is this, which she wrote herself. No other indication she's notable, therefore GNG takes precedent. PK650 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the fact that she was in a platinum selling band like Cobra Starship (MTV Article on her), did some solo music (Apple Music Profile), was a part of a huge storyline on the The Howard Stern Show for close to 5 years (Featured on The Howard Stern Show's official website), wrote for some big online publications like XOJane (proof) and Marie Claire (proof), starred in a Fuse TV reality TV show (Redemption Song, source) and had an appearance in a film like Sharknado 4 (proof) all warrants a legitimate Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeafK1 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. The MTV article is basically just a wrapper for quotes from an interview with the subject and doesn't include much of any independent analysis
2. Her independent music career is only relevant if independent, reliable sources have published secondary coverage of it. An Apple Music listing is not secondary coverage.
3. Howard Stern's website is not independent of the Howard Stern show. Can you find independent coverage of this storyline?
4. Her writing is not relevant unless secondary sources have written about it. Simply providing links to her work gets us nowhere.
5. It seems more accurate to say that she was a contestant on Redemption Song (TV series)
6. IMDb is not a reliable source. Moreover, it seems that her role was trivial enough that it's not even mentioned in our article for Sharknado 4. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability does not ban MTV interview from counting for notability. Requires looking at elements. MTV is a big name in music news, so. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Rosguill's source analysis. That which was presented above simply does not constitute SIGCOV. PK650 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm inclined to agree that her experience with Cobra Starship as well as Howard Stern and some acting has her passing GNG. She has an AllMusic page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can have an AllMusic page. As for the previous statement, you might be muddling guidelines? If she satisfied the GNG, then she should have SIGCOV in reliable sources, which I think we all agree she doesn't except perhaps for the MTV interview that's brandished above. As for Cobra Starship and Howard Stern, what criterion of which guideline is she fulfilling as you seem to be implying? Because there is no reliable quality coverage about her in those contexts that would improve her general notability standing. If she fulfilled any other guideline, please point it out. Best, PK650 (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She's been the focal point of articles on Radar Online [23], Blasting News [24], and OK Magazine [25]. That fits notability, yes? - LeafK1 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 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 Sky Galleons of Mars. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudships & Gunboats[edit]

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

Article is sourced to a single reference, a WP:ROUTINE product review. A BEFORE on JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, and newspapers.com finds no further WP:RS. Due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in RS, article fails the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge and Redirect (to Sky Galleons of Mars) <amended> In addition to the RS Space Gamer review, this miniatures game was also reviewed in independent source Future Wars (Issue 19) ~~and in Miniature Wargames (Issue 409)~~, and also discussed in Storytelling in the Modern Board Game: Narrative Trends from the late 1960s to today. Need I go on? GNG clearly met. Newimpartial (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<amendation>I am changing my !vote to Merge and Redirect to Sky Galleons of Mars because, although two RS are sufficient to meet the GNG, and others exist, I see clear advantages to consolidating the Space:1889 miniatures games in one place. If the content were to grow to support a standalone article, the split should be done only with quality sources for each article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just checked these and they appear to be incidental mentions in a single sentence that don't amount to WP:SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely some mistake, Chetsford. The Future Wars and Miniature Wargames references are full-length reviews in print sources. None of the three are identical. Care to retract? FAKENEWS does not become you. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe we're looking at different things, but that's not what I'm seeing. Sorry. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You might want to confine yourself to sources you can actually see. Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - As pointed out in the AN thread you started, I have misread the mention in question and it was apparently about a different game. I apologize for my error. It appears, in fact, there are no mentions of any kind - either incidental or substantial - in the sources you cited. Based on that, I reaffirm my delete nomination. Chetsford (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        As I noted on the Administrators Noticeboard, this is a false statement on a factual matter, which Chetsford really ought to retract. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the link to your post. I disagree with its conclusion. Chetsford (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Just to be clear, you disagree with former administrator Fram's conclusion that one of the three references I found reviews the game at length, and another mentions it in passing? If so, on what grounds? Newimpartial (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Unless you're Fram's sockpuppet then, no, my statement that I disagree with Newimpartial's conclusion does not mean I disagree with Fram's conclusion. I haven't read Fram's conclusion and am unlikely to do so. I've made my case for deletion to the extent I choose to make it. Others can agree or disagree as they see fit. Chetsford (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that you change your !vote, Chetsford. I was just giving you an opportunity to retract your erroneous statement, It appears, in fact, there are no mentions of any kind - either incidental or substantial - in the sources you cited, just as I have retracted the citation I gave that was in fact a review of another game. All editors are expected to remain factual in their AfD comments, Administrators perhaps doubly so. Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The related article Sky Galleons of Mars shows where this article could go. I am not entirely sure that either is truly notable, but I think that Sky Galleons of Mars makes the case that both could be. Yet this one is no more than a few lines of stub. It is not ready yet for mainspace, and it may be that there is no more that can be said. This can be worked out in draft space. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I for one have no problem with a Merge and Redirect until the article is improved, and it could be made an additional section of the Sky Galleons article unless Chetsford sends that one to AfD as well. But I don't see the advantage of draftifying. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sky Galleons of Mars. All the supplements should be part of the same article, and considered as parts of the main board game, which is more notable when it and the supplements are taken as a whole. To be clear, there does seem to be a bit of coverage for this supplement, but I feel combining articles makes more sense in this case. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Sky Galleons of Mars per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main game article as there are not sufficient reviews of the game supplement to justify stand alone entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:31, 19 February 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cupcake Aisyah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Supported mainly by primary sources and no clear indication of the importance of the subject. Abishe (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs arguments, not votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the awards won do not add to notability. gnews reveals only small mentions. as nom said, article based on primary sources. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 18 February 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. Clear consensus that the subject passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tetyana Ramus[edit]

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

First, it's an advertisement; second, the woman does not satisfy any criteria of WP:BIO.

In fact she is not a professional actress, artist or journalist, she is rather a socialite. To be more precise, she is a wife of a very wealthy businessman, and just participates in many activities using his money. I do not believe we have a criteria for such cases, they are probably almost always deleted (and should be). Wikisaurus (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Be careful about how you phrase a nomination. Wikipedia is already known for being hostile to women's topics. And what is wrong with a woman being a socialite and doing things with her husband's or father's money. For generations many civic and charitable institutions have been created and supported by individual women or groups of women who fall into the category socialite. For example Isabella Stewart Gardner. What matters is has the woman become well-known as supported by reliable, independent sources who treat her accomplishments in depth. Just getting interviewed everywhere isn't enough. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs some minor cleanup. YouTube links should be done away with. Other than that, article has a lot of sources about her. Therefore, it's more than good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding at all. I'm not looking for an argument or debate here. I'll still stand for my vote no matter what. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this looks like a cleanup job not a deletion. Also I take issue with this "she is a wife of a very wealthy businessman, and just participates in many activities using his money. I do not believe we have a criteria for such cases, they are probably almost always deleted (and should be)". Frankly , it would not matter even if she did just use her husband's money. It would not matter if she robbed children's hospitals to finance herself. Articles are deleted over issues like notability and references, not personal assessments of merit. I have no respect for a great many people on Wikipedia and I think they should have pages. Honestly, there are serial killers and rapists who have surely contributed less to society who have pages. I might be willing to change my vote but I would need a better rationale for deletion than "I just don't feel that socialites are notable". IphisOfCrete (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like there is enough here to meet GNG in sourcing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject of this article meets GNG criteria for notability by way of article sources. The article needs to be cleaned up and trimmed, but that is not a reason for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needs cleaning up but clearly meets WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Although the article needs to be worked on but can stay as an article. Alex-h (talk) 14:04, 17 February 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 12:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Shortt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or any other notability guideline. Aside from gossip and tabloid sites (i.e., sites unsuitable for referencing a BLP), there are only passing mentions of the article subject in other sources. International Bodyguard Association is his own organization, and as such the references from IBA are unsuitable for establishing notability. Please note that BLP-violating material has been removed from this article. Risker (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Risker (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not notable and all sources appear to be unreliable, self-published, or otherwise from sources inappropriate to a BLP article. Notability fails WP:AUTHOR on multiple counts. Page appears to be an old attack page, created with no intention other than disparagement, that survived due to article subject's relative obscurity. Regarding prior AFD, the user who strong-armed keeping at that time has since been blocked for sock-puppetry.Legitimus (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if Otfried Deubner satisfies WP:AUTHOR for 1 book (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otfried Deubner) then Shortt as author of 4 books must do so also. Mztourist (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both linked AFD discussion and article suggest notability of Deubner was for far more than just authoring a single book. Also per WP:AUTHOR, its not the number of books published, but the significance of the book(s).Legitimus (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was the only basis for his notability, 1 book. Mztourist (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is not the best place to compare an article about a person with *no* significant reliable source references to one about an early 20th century academic whose work has been discussed and referenced by significantly more recent peers. It's really not about the number of books the article subject has written. Risker (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am making the point that the WP:AUTHOR criteria don't appear to be applied consistently.Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:AUTHOR. A search on Google Scholar gives these citations of Special Air Service: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3691399119079748637&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see Shortt's name or the title of his book when I click on that Google Scholar search, nor do I find him quoted or referred to in the google book links found there; you may have different results. What aspect of WP:AUTHOR does Shortt meet? Please be specific; there are four possible criteria, and I do not believe he meets any of them. Risker (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1 of WP:AUTHOR. Mztourist (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That search doesn't seem to provide evidence to support that - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - closest he comes to notability is the Sun article, and that should frankly be removed - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I just removed it, I can't find those claims in any RS. While I understand people's concern over such claims, we really can't use the blog or forum information on this in a Wikipedia bio - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence that he meets any of the notability criteria for authors and there doesn't seem to be any significant independent coverage of him. Brief mentions of changing claims he made about his military service do not qualify as meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 19 February 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 12:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Snow Papers[edit]

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

A book that appears to be non-notable. The article is currently unsourced, and when I looked for sources, I was only able to find one review from a reliable source, from the Washington Post. And while it was a good source, it, by itself, would not be enough to pass WP:NBOOK or the WP:GNG. I initially PRODed this, but failed to notice it had already been PRODed back in 2006, so I am bringing it to AFD as a result. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The contemporaneous WaPo review is more about Smart than this book, no clear assertion of notability here. Reywas92^Talk 20:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've had this on my watchlist for awhile, and I couldn't find any in-depth reliable reviews. My Newspapers.com account is lapsed at the moment so I can't search it fully, so if anyone has that it might be worth a peek just in case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IceFishing has been blocked as a sockpuppet of PE65000. ミラ P 15:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep book and author got quite a lot of coverage when the book was published, I have added enough of the coverage to the page to establish notability.IceFishing (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see an argument for moving this to a page about the author; the coverage I read is about the book, though often in the form of articles about stuff he descirbs in the book, or about him and the stuff he did as a member of a category or group of cocaine addicts in high-level jobs. But I could see more coverage that I didn't read or couldn't access.IceFishing (talk) 20:49, 17 February 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) 20:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Condenanza[edit]

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

Another non-notable businessman sourced entirely to "pay for PR" news sites, unreliable sources. No coverage elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 13 February 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. Stunning fashion blogger is, stunningly, deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefania Lo Gatto[edit]

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

non-notable blogger (and vanity spam!) with no meaningful coverage, all sources here are press releases pushed to various sites or otherwise unreliable. Searching the usual places reveals no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 14:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 14:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to laugh. ⌚️ (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is obviously a non-notable individual. IphisOfCrete (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any WP:RS for her, in Italian nor English. All sources seem to be variations of the same press release or interviews, as Praxidicae pointed out. Achaea (talk) 10:10, 16 February 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goblins in modern fiction[edit]

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

Essentially just "Goblins in popular culture" by an alternate name. A crufty example-farm that was spun out unnecessarily from Goblin in 2007 rather than deleting unreferenced content and is almost entirely WP:OR. The single significant reference, from The Ashgate Encyclopedia, can easily be incorporated into Goblin instead, in the relevant section. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a whole lot of WP:OR combined with a whole lot of WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia that fails WP:LISTN. What very little sourced information here is easily covered in the main Goblin article, making this an unnecessary WP:SPLIT. In fact, taking a quick look, it already is covered there, meaning that any kind of redirecting or merging is not needed. Rorshacma (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks the secondary sources to support its claims about the evolution of Goblins and their level of evilness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary content fork. Hog Farm (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ORcish trivia. Also, this is the first time I've heard role-playing and video games called "modern fiction". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be renamed to "in popular culture". Unprecise name is not the reason for deletion. While some lists are technically unsourced, sources can be find in the linked main articles. EchoBlu (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - removing this article will make original Goblin page to grow over time. And that is inevitable. In addition, this "in popular culture" list is the same as any other with the fictional creatures. Does it mean that majority of the lists from Template:Fictional biology need to be removed at some point in the future? Existence of this list is a consequence of the big impact goblins have on popular culture (it can't be described in one sentence, which will inevitably lead to unproportional expansion of the "fiction" section in the main and only Goblin article). Removing only this list and keeping all others (and some of them are in much worse state than this one) will be very wrong. And again, you will need to hard manage main Goblin article, which is not possible - every article with high/mid popular topic become mess if it doesn't have some kind of list to support him. Think again please. EchoBlu (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"That is inevitable". No it's not. Unsourced cruft can be removed immediately, per WP:BURDEN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removing this list won't cause the main Goblin article to grow, because nearly everything here is unsourced, indiscriminate trivia. That does not actually need to be placed anywhere, and can be simply removed if it is added to the main Goblin article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean that the most of the lists from Template:Fictional biology need to be deleted, because some of them are even in worse state then list of goblins in modern fiction? EchoBlu (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over such shining examples as List of fictional rodents in comics, the answer is a resounding yes. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My personal favorite when I looked into it was List of fictional canines in film. A "list" that by being about such a specific category, has exactly one, unsourced entry. So, yeah, as Clarityfiend said, the answer is most certainly "Yes". Rorshacma (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are digging a rabbit hole. List of unicorns - completely unsourced and unorganized; List of ghosts - unsourced and WP:INDISCRIMINATE; List of fictional pinnipeds - completely unsourced and unorganized; List of fictional snakes and List of fictional worms - unsourced and WP:OR; Mermaids in popular culture - completely unsourced and WP:OR, etc.

I mean, yes, there are many articles and lists that need to be looked at and either be massively improved or, in many cases, deleted. But as this particular AFD is examining one, specific list, arguing to keep because there is a lot more work to do is more or less an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Rorshacma (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what WP:OTHERSTUFF means, but you can't apply it when you have systematic problem - or we don't need to call it a problem - it is the way how wikipedia learned, from experience, to organize that content. As I already said, it is some kind of entropy phenomenon, 'in popular culture' content have tendention to grow over time, you can't pretend that this phenomenon doesn't exist. And it is impossible to hard manage all those articles all the time. You can prohibit and automatic remove any new content in "popular culture" section of Goblin article, but that is the worst thing we can do. Wikipedia needs moderation, but it also needs to breathe. It is impossible to hard moderate every new "in popular culture" content. We need to make difference between systematic organization and "hey, why we delete this article when random_one still exists" . EchoBlu (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to delete, but maybe they should stay as place holders which can be improved. I checked, for many entries sources can be find very easy. As I already said, it is some kind of entropy, 'in pop culture' content grow over time - it's always better to organize it then pretend it doesn't exist. Goblins will need constant hard moderation if we remove this list, (which is not possible from my experience - because goblins in fiction is not the only one of that kind on wikipedia), Template:Fictional biology exists for the reason. EchoBlu (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it's possible to discuss their impact in a meaningful way, it's currently not shown. TTN (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice piece of WP:OR that as written does not belong here. WP:TNT at best.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 19 February 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of futures studies[edit]

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

I don't know what this is, but it isn't an article, I think. Guy (help!) 13:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree - definitely not an article, but unsure what it actually is — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyCaribou (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a WP:OUTLINE. Why should it be deleted? Thincat (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article's being a WP:OUTLINE is not sufficient reason for deletion. The related article is Futures studies. Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines covers many such outlines, which are auxiliary to the main article. The referencing appears adequate, and the subject notable.Dialectric (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Outlines are an accepted form of Wikipedia list-class article and are fine as alternative navigational articles per WP:CLN. As Dialectric noted the subject is notable, and the referencing not bad. The article could use some cleanup of unreferenced redlinks, but that is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have purged the article of non-notable subjects and Outline articles like this are legitimate for navigational purposes, but I have serious concerns about whether the list is able to be maintained. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not knowing about something is not a legitimate reason to delete, nominator could have asked questions on the article talkpage or the relevant projects. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Outlines are generally kept if the subject is broad enough. Hog Farm (talk) 14:35, 17 February 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) 20:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amrinder Goraya[edit]

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

Auto-biography of a non-notable director with a single, non-notable film credit to his name. No sources in the article at all, and my own search turns up absolutely nothing except a few social media hits. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Probably A7-able but you could argue there's some kind of claim of importance made, so bringing it here to be safe. Hug^syrup 12:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 12:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7, bio with no credible claim of significance. I wouldn't call the number of music videos, his status as an assistant director, or the "rare privilege of directing so-and-so", nor being an assistant director a CCS. If we don't go with the speedy, delete anyway as non-notable autobiography. creffett (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by subject of article, originally autobiographical. No real significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyCaribou (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A7 is perhaps not applicable as there is a credible claim for notability, but G11 (promotional) certainly applies. --Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete: A7 doesnt apply, and G11 is borderline too. But this discussion can certainly be closed as snowball. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

now User:AmrinderGoraya has added a lot to the article. Given no evidence/verifiability A7, and G11 can be applied. But I think we should let the AfD run its duration, so that we later can speedy delete the recreations. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:54, 16 February 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) 20:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sencore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd say this fails WP:A7 and could be CSD'd

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7 and WP:G11. Not a very active user (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The article is an unambiguous copyright infringement and can be speedily deleted per WP:G12. The entire text of the article is from a press release. See http://www.sencore.com/company/blog/sencore-continues-expand-mrd-ag-6000-platform-recent-software-release for example, or https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Sencore Vexations (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11 and per WP:G12. Tagged for both. Hog Farm (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any non-neutral sources or non-press material to rewrite this article to meet our inclusion guidelines. All of you please read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the section "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". Also read the criteria for speedy deletion, which says a page can only be speedy deleted if every revision of the article meets the criteria. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, that's a good point. Here are all the sources used in the article's history: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1602777,00.asp,

http://www.pcworld.com/article/174270/how_we_test_hdtvs.html,

http://www.sencore.com/about-us/index.php?id=8 (dead link),

http://www.tvtechnology.com/nabshow/nab-show/95302 and

https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1602777,00.asp Vexations (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ten years of (article) life and little to indicate notability. Dorama285 00:31, 19 February 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) 20:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chirag Shah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Film Producer, no independent coverage on the subject in question only passing mentions. Article mentions he is a film producer but does not mentions the films he has done. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 08:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 08:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 08:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 11:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP being creator I would definitely want it to be kept, but here goes the reason I assumed that he's some film producer but he isn't he is One of India's largest event management company's Producer so basically he's an event producer and thus I have corrected it in the article. and added 2 more refs to that. Hrahaldhotre (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable films/event producer and founder of a non-notable company - possibly a case of undisclosed paid editing. GSS ^💬 17:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both he and his company fail notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 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. Not enough alien ambassadors manifested in this discussion to swing the consensus away from delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldan Nidle[edit]

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

The world may be "moving towards a new reality" about this article... Other than short mentions among other people in a few news articles, the only possible indicators of notability are the Randi prize (that is basically a trout from a skeptic about something that year) and about three pages of independent coverage in Guesses, Goofs & Prophetic Failures: What to Think When the World Doesn't End. A lot of self promotion on social networks and various fringe websites with mentions, but that's fringe "in-universe". —Paleo Neonate – 10:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 10:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 10:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 10:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Summoned here by telepathy) Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was informed of the existence of another related article, Ground Crew Project by EricR. Since other possibilities than keep/delete exist as solutions, I thought it'd be worth mentioning here as well. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 20:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ground Crew Project contains the same bio, so no need to even merge content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may be better to have a Sheldan Nidle article, rather than Ground Crew Project article, but going by the current content delete per LuckyLouie and other issues can be fixed later.—eric 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per LuckyLouie, there is no need for a merge. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 19 February 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) 09:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Queens Chess[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. A single source and the company's own web site. Searches are difficult and tend to be dominated by subjects other than this game, but, despite this, nothing conveying notability could be seen. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I clicked the "books" link as well as the "news" link in "Find sources." Neither one returned anything that made me think this subject was notable. Colin Gerhard (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable chess variant. Searching for sources turns up some sales pages, and the usual database entries in sites like BoardGameGeek, but no actual coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 16:33, 13 February 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brix (abstract strategy game)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability even though tagged for notability and lack of sources since 2017. Created by a blocked and persistent sock puppeteer. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NGAME. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 14 February 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. There is a clear consensus to keep and discussion has petered out. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renae Maihi[edit]

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

Director of some non-notable short films with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as required by the general notability guideline. The article is a victim of WP:REFBOM as most of the sources are about short films or about the defamation case against. GSS ^💬 07:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 07:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 07:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Keep NZ Herald has dozens of articles that mention the subject: "Renae Maihi" site:https://www.nzherald.co.nz. But they are all about the defamation lawsuit, an issue that should be dealt with at Bob Jones (businessman). Add. I noticed that she has directed at least one feature (Waru) that has received significant coverage. If you add that to the coverage related to the Bob Jones lawsuit, she passes WP:GNG. Colin Gerhard (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is notable in NZ Drstuey (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has had WP:SUSTAINED coverage since 2017 from her films (specifically Waru) in addition to the Bob Jones events. -- Whisperjanes (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whisperjanes: Can you please point our those sources here and explain how they support notability? Thank you. GSS ^💬 18:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: There are sources from 2017 [26] [27] [28] [29] and 2018 [30] [31] and other supporting articles [32] [33][34] [35][36] about her involvement with the film Waru and other work. There has been some critical analysis of her movie Waru (shown above) and of the events surrounding Bob Jones, so she has at least had significant coverage over time, which establishes presumed notability with WP:GNG. Just because the sources are mostly local New Zealand sources doesn't make them unreliable, either (although I am not from New Zealand, so it would be helpful for some New Zealanders to give input on their reliability). And I apologize for not being more clear before - I meant to say that WP:SUSTAINED mentions "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability." She does seem to be notable in New Zealand for the Bob Jones events (which don't seem internationally notable, but seems to be notable in New Zealand, especially in the Maori community), so if one reason for deletion is that sources only cover her in that one event, then it's important to note that there has also been coverage of her film-making. She seems notable in New Zealand for not just Bob Jones, but also her work. -- Whisperjanes (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Honestly, neither the petition nor the coverage of her films would be enough on their own to support notability, but taken altogether she more than meets requirements for notability. IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this thought, although it appears that her petition against Bob Jones and his subsequent defamation suit against her may have increased her profile, she has nonetheless received numerous awards and her films have screened at a number of international film festivals.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to disagree with IphisOfCrete. I have just written up the defamation case and it easily passes GNG by itself. At this point, the case is part of this bio. This may cause issues with WP:WEIGHT, although I see ~~another editor~~ IphisOfCrete is in the process of expanding the film career of the subject. Maihi's career in combination with court case passes the notability threshold with ease. Should consensus fall otherwise (which I consider highly unlikely), we should turn the court case into a standalone article. Schwede 66 20:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per huge coverage across dozens of sources in New Zealand in the last eight weeks. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obvious to me after reading the article and seeing the comments above. I'm puzzled why, when 17 minutes after being created as a new article, this was moved to draft space as a "possible WP:TOU violation". I couldn't see a violation, but then.... Later after being restored in articlespace, the AfD tag was placed on it when [[expand]] could have been more useful IMMHO. No mind, it clearly justifies being kept.Moriori (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The original creation may have been as an auto-biography, and was an 100% an appropriate move (and infinitely preferred to deletion options). As for the current discussion, I invite User talk:GSS to take a look and withdraw the nomination. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:18, 15 February 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) 09:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Learning and Advanced Development[edit]

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

No RS. This institute does not seem affiliated to the University Grant Commission (India) or All India Council of Technical Education so an illegal fake educational institute. Google Map reviews (though not reliable) exposes that it is fake college. They are possibly using Wikipedia to present themselves as legitimate institute. The creator has been blocked. - Nizil (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All signs point to scam. But scam or not, there doesn't appear to be any viable material for an encyclopedic article. -- Visviva (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of it being a potential scam, 2 gnews hits points to a lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 18 February 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) 09:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Patel[edit]

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

The only claim in the article is deputy mayor of Vadodara. The one source which is presented in the article is about his sworning. Clearly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet the notability criteria. Doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Almost no coverage, just a single article mentions his name inside. The9Man | (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NPOL & WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing to show a local politician as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deputy mayor of a city is not an inherently notable role under NPOL — to get a person into Wikipedia on those grounds, you would have to write and reliably source a substantive article that contextualized his political importance, not just "he exists, the end". But one very brief mention of his name in an article whose core subject is somebody else isn't enough coverage to get him over the bar that he actually has to clear. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, barely any secondary sources which mention him. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 01:38, 17 February 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) 09:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadi Asadpour[edit]

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

Not notable. deleted 3 times with 2 AfD in fawiki ([37][38][39]). The creator of the article was blocked before for paid editing and most of his articles are deleted. ARASH PT talk 07:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ARASH PT talk 07:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fails WP:GNG and per WP:G5 and WP:G4.Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:21, 13 February 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Familiar of Zero characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

not sure how that last afd went but there is no significant coverage from reliable sources. The only sources currently on the page and what I could find on a cursory search were mostly niche website that wouldn't pass the threshold of WP:RS and the fictinal works themselves. See similar deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of F-Zero characters Prisencolin (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The last AfD had no policy based arguments, the character list appears to be WP:ALLPLOT. Fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (in spite of article quality) as a valid content fork. Has anyone tried searching the Japanese name "ゼロの使い魔" and those of the characters? ミラP 14:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I did google it WP:BEFORE, but I'm still not convinced any of those sources are valid. Besides, if there are reliable sources, why aren't they on the article in the first place?--Prisencolin (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's most articles. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These lists tend to be kept as they cover notable series that may be WP:SPLIT due to WP:SIZE. A better option would be to trim down the character details and include them in the main article (The Familiar of Zero). Deletion isn't cleanup, and pointing to other deletions falls under WP:WAX. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a valid split/spinoff article. Notable series often have character lists. Dream Focus 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate split of List of characters from the light novel and anime series. Deletion is not cleanup. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A spinoff is not a valid spinoff if the resulting article violates inclusion policies or guidelines, as here: It fails WP:NOTPLOT (is only plot summary) and WP:LISTN (no indication of coverage of the topic as such in reliable sources). Sandstein 12:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added some reception (real-life context) so it's technically not only plot summary and while coverage of the topic as such in reliable sources is cited by WP:LISTN as [o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable, there is actually no specific indication there that this is the only accepted reason absent Wikipedia articles for any of the list items, and in fact it also says lists that fulfill recognized informational [...] purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Closing admin/user, if you're reading this, both delete votes have been addressed by the real-life context being added to the article. ミラ P 19:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 22:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are lists of characters for many series. The main article will be way too long if merged. – 333 -blue at 11:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The characters have received coverage as shown in the real-life context added by Miraclepine. Lagoona Blue (talk) 13:40, 23 February 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) 09:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dark one (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG, as it cites no non-primary sources. A google search finds no non-primary sources discussing the creature, just the usual mix of fan wikis, forums and other non-RS. It also fails WP:PLOTONLY, as it provides no real-life context other than the publication history. Not a very active user (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable monstercruft, as usual. Fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The generic name of the monster makes it hard to search for sources, but I searched under the "Dark One" name, as well as the more specific "Dark Creeper" and "Dark Stalker", and in all cases, came up with nothing in reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnD cruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 19 February 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) 09:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flind[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG, as it cites no non-primary sources. It also fails WP:PLOTONLY, as it provides no real-life context other than the publication history. A redirect to flint as an {{R from misspelling}} might be possible if this article gets deleted. Not a very active user (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches bring up the usual array of primary, non-reliable, or trivial mentions of the creature, but nothing in reliable, secondary sources. Fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnD cruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 19 February 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 Shedd Park (Lowell, Massachusetts). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Lord Pavilion[edit]

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

Couldn’t find sources suggesting any WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING notability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shedd Park, Lowell, Massachusetts, where it is located.Djflem (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shedd Park (Lowell, Massachusetts). I haven't done a thorough search yet, but the notability of Shedd Park appears to be questionable as well. There's definitely no need for a separate article on the park's pavilion. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. All material and source (external link) are already at the "Shedd Park" article, created in 2013. Photos at this article, created in 2017, could be merged over, though, so "Merge" might be more descriptive. The two articles seem unaware of each other, do not link to each other. That happens and then a routine merge makes sense, with or without a merger notice being given. Nice catch, User:Djflem, for noting the duplication. If the deletion nominator had noticed the duplication, then IMHO an AFD would have been unnecessary: it could/should have just been merged (with or without making a formal merger proposal), and then the overhead of AFD could have been avoided. --Doncram (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (nominator change): I agree with the above comments; I didn’t notice that Shedd Park (Lowell, Massachusetts) existed. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:26, 17 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015–2018 curling statistics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unencyclopedic collection of fairly miscellaneous curling results with no context. The article has no references and no other articles link to it. A202985 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A202985 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not for excessive listings of unexplained statistics per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Bait30 ^Talk? 02:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced statscruft. Ajf773 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's get rid of this eyesore once and for all! -- Earl Andrew - talk
Delete. I don’t know who made this but it’s horrible. Thank goodness it will be deleted -- TracyFleuryFan - talk
Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Hog Farm (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sweep it away, hard! A weird agglomeration of stats that needs to be taken out of the Wikipedial house (I've watched too much curling). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My question is why is this even a page of Wikipedia. HawkAussie (talk) 00:32, 18 February 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.