Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 February 15 February >

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Whisperjanes (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn of Fantasy[edit]

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

Doesn’t meet notability standards through WP:GNG because it doesn’t have sufficient coverage of reliable sources. Almost all sources are fan-created content or press releases, and there is nothing notable enough about the game to have an encyclopedic article written about it. Whisperjanes (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jovanmilic97: But what is notable about the game itself? These sources are mostly just reviews that don't show why the game is worthy of notice. They mention that the game was in development for a long time, and that when it was released, it was disappointing (which doesn't make the game seem very notable to me). Also, just thought I'd mention that source #2 (Vandal) is not a reliable source (see WP:GAMESOURCES). I personally don’t think 4 reliable sources makes a game notable — especially when all of the sources listed are from when the game was initially released (in 2011, and then re-released in 2013). Most games I see get reviewed multiple times upon initial release now, and I don’t think that’s a good judge of a game being notable enough to be in an encyclopedia.
Also, just having reliable sources doesn’t guarantee notability under WP:GNG. That's why I'm wondering why or how the game is notable in of itself. -- Whisperjanes (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that on WP:VG/RS that Vandal is not reliable, but inconclusive discussion of 12 years ago (!). As a matter of fact even, there is a new discussion which leans to reliable now Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Vandal! The point is that has been noticed by reliable sources, meaning it's notable in the context of WP:GNG. You said "doesn’t have sufficient coverage of reliable sources", which I already refuted in matters of seconds of my searches. I can feel your sentiment that some games that pass WP:GNG don't really seem notable at all, as not many of them have ongoing coverage past the release date reviews. But it is what it is, as WP:GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that - I sometimes misread the game sources section that says "inconclusive" and "unreliable" since they're both one after the other and written in a similar matter.
Comment I do see the point that it does "have sufficient coverage of reliable sources" unlike what I said before, but I also mentioned "there is nothing notable enough about the game to have an encyclopedic article written about it." I don't think it just is what it is, though, because WP:GNG only establishes "presumed" notability and states at the bottom: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article..." I still personally don't think coverage of a video game when it is released (especially if it's mostly just because it had a long development and a poor reception) makes a game very significant or note-worthy, unless there are verifiable claims that there is something about the game that makes it notable or outstanding (e.g. UnReal World for how long it was developed/updated, Daikatana for outstanding failure, or obvious ones like Pong or Stardew Valley). This game doesn't make any claim that I can see to being notable. -- Whisperjanes (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jovanmilic97 has found reliable sources giving it significant coverage. Dream Focus 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whisperjanes doesn't seem to understand the requirements for keeping articles on here. The game has significant coverage, thus it can stay. Bluedude588 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluedude588: I'm fine having a discussion, and open to changing my point of view if I'm misunderstanding Wikipedia guidelines. Saying "I don't seem to understand" and repeating what was already said doesn't actually help me understand. I mean this all in good faith, so I'll repeat: Wikipedia's WP:GNG has a whole part that talks about "presumed" notability - can someone explain why this doesn't apply in this case? -- Whisperjanes (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Whisperjanes: Generally a game is considered notable if it has sufficient reviews in RS. It doesn't have to have something particularly "special" about it, because it's hard to define what "special" is, especially in comparison to other games. If many reliable sources wrote in depth on it, it's presumed to be notable no matter how good or bad it is.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. I don't personally see the sources being convincing enough that this passes the assumption of notability laid out in WP:GNG, but I can see the community consensus and that this is how notability is usually passed for games.-- Whisperjanes (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a ton of reliable sources, but enough to justify passing GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Jovanmilic97. = paul2520 (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Per above, enough coverage can be found. Alex-h (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It has enough sources and passes notability. Ireneshih (talk) 19:40, 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 delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional canines in film[edit]

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

A "list" that, due to the ridiculous degree of specificity, consists of a single, non-referenced entry. As there do not appear to be any reliable sources discussing canines in non-animated films that are neither dogs nor wolves, this is a complete failure of WP:LISTN. As there is no sourced information, there is nothing to redirect or merge. Rorshacma (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This used to live at List of fictional foxes, which was mangled before being redirected to this article. That list is obviously supportable, even ignoring the tendency to accumulate cruft: foxes are common main or important supporting characters in literature and film of all eras, with many blue links in the last full version of that article. There's no reason not to have that list at its obvious name, and having restored it, a list of "canines" as it is now defined has no reason to exist, especially since the typical reader will understand it to encompass exactly the lists of dogs and wolves. Mangoe (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In its current state has almost no content, but previously was just an unreferenced list. Category:Fictional canines is definitely sufficient.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of fictional canines of which this list appears to be a spin-off, given that there is only one entry on this page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think the whole "fictional canines" structure needs to go away. With some exceptions, these are lists of lists or even just directories of lists, with dogs and wolves as a rule excluded, even though they are the main canines. I just don't see the use for this hierarchy, as there isn't a reason within fiction/film/whatever to group dogs and foxes and wolves and jackals and whatever else together: why not all carnivores? Organizing literary tropes by biological taxonomy just doesn't make sense. Mangoe (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Surely most English-speaking people, like me, think first of dogs when they see the word "canine". To exclude the most obvious example of a type of animal seems ridiculous. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG and therefore fails LISTN. (Note: the subfamily Caninae includes all of the living canids, which includes dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals etc. Unclear how the current division of lists came about, all of the others should fall under this list.) William Harristalk 12:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cavalryman (talk) 12:39, 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 speedy keep/nomination withdrawn. An additional bluelink, albeit one that's a redirect to a subtopic of a related article, has been added, so after conferring with the other participant, Matthiaspaul, I am withdrawing my nomination as "speedy keep," without prejudice, as is the case with all deletion discussions, to nomination in the future. Thank you to Matthiaspaul for his participation and for the good-faith and camaraderie. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 01:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

0 series[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page with only two articles extant to Wikipedia, per WP:TWODABS, and Zero batch is almost certainly the primary topic of the two, so I propose redirect-ing to Zero batch Pre-production (disambiguation), with hatnotes each of Zero batch Pre-production (disambiguation) and 0 Series Shinkansen. Amended nomination following comment from Toughpigs below --Doug Mehus T·C 21:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 21:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 21:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs: Oh, good point, and I even had greenlinks enabled in "Gadgets." I'll revise my nomination. Doug Mehus T·C 21:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation page. While there are only two entries at present it is easy to foresee that there will be more "0 series" topics in the future, and without a clear primary topic. Also, this disambiguation page is part of a network of crosslinked disambiguation pages of the "* series" type per See also links to aid user navigation. I would hate to see this already set up infrastructure destroyed just because of a too narrow interpretation of WP:TWODABS. I agree, however, that the piped link zero batch should be changed to a redirect to pre-production (at least until we find a better redirect target). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Applied the link change to zero batch for now. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Matthiaspaul, I would hardly say a specific model of a Japanese bullet train is primary topic. Primary topic only refers to articles we have on Wikipedia, not potential targets. If and when additional potential targets emerge, we can re-convert the redirect to a disambiguation page, and you'll still have article creation credit. Plus, per WP:DABPIPE, though, are we even alowed to pipe dablinks? Doug Mehus T·C 23:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note, too, that "no infrastructure" is being destroyed. When additional targets present themselves, we can revert it back to an earlier revision as a disambiguation page. I'm not proposing deletion, which, I realize, is unusual at AfD. Doug Mehus T·C 00:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiaspaul: Will you consider amending your !vote above, now that the related 0 series redirects have been retargeted? Simply use <s></s> surrounding your !vote, and then re-vote below. Note, too, that we would had a hatnote on each of the pages, and when this disambiguation page has more than the two extant Wikipedia articles to link to, we can convert it back to a disambiguation page. No deletion would occur. As such, if you were to change your !vote, I can withdraw this early as a speedy redirect/nomination withdrawn. Doug Mehus T·C 23:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking, but after rechecking the pages I still think that it should remain as disambiguation page. You will see, there will be even more entries in the future, and it would become impractical to maintain this through bunches of crosslinks on each of the target pages. That's exactly the purpose of disambiguation pages. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Matthiaspaul, Okay, fair enough. I will close as speedy keep/nomination withdrawn then, without prejudice to renomination in the future, of course. Doug Mehus T·C 01:20, 22 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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gunton, Manitoba[edit]

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

Article was created in 2004. Not much content has been added since.. Unreferenced. Doing a Google search comes up with only two items. Very small Unincorporated community, Jimj wpg (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Jimj wpg (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, barely The only real, solid source for this would seem to be Google Street View, which does show a "Welcome to Gunton" sign and a corresponding highway sign. There are consistent problems with anything talking about the place, though, in that nearly all references indicate that it was the site of a CP rail station and some sort of agricultural station (lots of references to poultry research). The first is the more dubious: the only rail line in the area is quite a bit south, and there's no sign of abandoned rail grade in the immediate vicinity. An ag station might be more erasable but I don't see an obvious sign of that either, leading me to wonder whether the historic Gunton and the current community are the same. GEONames hasn't heard of the place, and neither, apparently, has the Canadian postal system nor the census. There is clearly now a place called Gunton as far as its residents are concerned, and it's enough to imply retention, but I am mistrustful about any historical statements the article might make. Mangoe (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well all statements need to be sourced, and speculation about possibilities is good to vet everything. I would never rely only on Google Street View, though the historical marker about the history of Gunton pictured here ([6]) does sit in Gunton ([7]).--Milowent • hasspoken 13:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes me a bit more comfortable. Obviously GStreetview is too primary a source to rely on, but on the other hand the typical issue with "populated place" articles is that the claim is not consistent with the primary sources— that is, there isn't actually anything there. In this case, things do seem to check out. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places. Searching Google for "Gunton Manitoba Post Office" returns pages that indicate that it had a post office at one time - Google seems to think the Post Office is permanently closed. Gunton had a post office in 1905. It would probably be a good thing to debate the question as to what "Populated, legally recognized places" means. Does having a post office mean that a place is legally recognized? I think it does, but others may have different opinions. 23:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as a verifiable populated place. Lepricavark (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion, and WP:OUTCOMES. We tend to keep even the smallest of hamlets. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep described here as a discrete populated place, population 200, former population 3,000. That was a big town. ----Pontificalibus 06:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a populated place and officially is recognized as a city. Nika2020 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? This "unincorporated" settlement has 300 residents if that. A Town has a pop. of 1,000 (Niverville, Oakbank, Gimli, Headingley) . A City must sustain a pop. of at least 10,000 (Selkirk, Thompson, Morden, Portage la Prairie, Brandon, Winnipeg). Gunton doesn't qualify for City status. It's a Village at best. Jimj wpg (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have tons of articles on unincorporated communities (and ghost towns too). Also, although Gunton was never a city, there's no requirement that a city have 10,000 residents, e.g. Greenwood, British Columbia, population 708. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 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 redirect to Washington Nationals minor league players. (non-admin closure) buidhe 22:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Bacus[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: This article has twelve valid sources cited throughout and the player is currently participating in major league spring training. I see no reason to delete. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those sources are just WP:routine and some of them are not even directly about Bacus.-- Yankees10 23:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbo Jumbo (YouTuber)[edit]

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

Youtube gamer with almost no RS for GNG (outside of blogs and their own youtube account etc.). There was a small "event" when he was copystriked by Warner Chappell Music in 2019 for violations, but even that generated no quality RS on the event. Despite his "1.4 billion youtube views", no proper RS wants to do any piece on him (unlike genuine youtube stars which appear in RS); why would Wikipedia? Britishfinance (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Britishfinance (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 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 redirect to University of St Andrews. (non-admin closure) buidhe 22:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

STAR: St Andrews Radio[edit]

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

This is an article about a student radio station at the University of St Andrews. The article sourced only to sources affiliated with St. Andrews. There is no significant independent reliable sources covering them to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three references to The Saint newspaper, two to the University of St Andrews, and one to St Andrews in Focus magazine. These organisations are all reputable and completely independent of STAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ombtom (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ombtom: I wanna clarify what you said. Since the station is run by volunteers from the university, are the newspaper and magazine run by the community? SUPER ASTIG 11:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless, those are not sources that would establish notability. Student newspapers and the University's own web site are not really going to establish notability,. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources cited are all connected with the University of St Andrews and so do not establish notability beyond the University. If there was wider coverage then that might suggest wider notability, but as things stand I am not seeing this. I do think STAR could be covered in either the University of St Andrews Students' Association article or the main University of St Andrews article, but I do not see evidence that would persuade me that there is justification for it having its own article. Dunarc (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect preserving history. This is part of the university, the university itself is obviously notable, so adding information about the radio station in the university’s page, even if it only comes from the university’s own sources, is OK as per WP:ABOUTSELF Samboy (talk) 04:10, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marie C. Jerge[edit]

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

Withdraw - I know a blizzard when I see one. I think we go down a dangerous road when we assume auto notability for any subject, and I think the coverage found is very WP:ROTM, but there is clear consensus to keep, so we need not drag this out further. schetm (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable cleric. There are a few articles about her in church-related publications, but no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the ELCA.schetm (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:BISHOPS.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:BISHOPS, subject is the bishop of a synod of a notable segment of the Lutheran Church. Hog Farm (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hog Farm and I found several reliable secondary sources that verify most of the information in the article (and what remains, her degrees, could be removed for all I care). It seems the nominator is unfamiliar with bishop notability -- as was I when I nominated a similar article for deletion some time ago. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We aught to be very careful when it comes to conferring automatic notability on someone by virtue of their status, as WP:BISHOPS does. WP:BISHOPS is not policy. It is simply the notability guideline of one Wikiproject which, in my mind, seems to contradict WP:NRV. The two articles added from the Post Standard probably work to establish notability (I'm not shelling out 20 bucks to check) but, as "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability" we still need one more source, and neither the passing mentions of Jerge in reference to closing a church nor a wedding announcement cuts it. If another source like that from the Post Standard can be found, I'll withdraw. schetm (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also see likely outcome of bishop deletion discussions. It's an essay, not policy, but worth a read. The wedding announcement is a citation for the biographical information and of course isn't meant to contribute to notability--it was published before she was a pastor. I see multiple other articles about her installation as bishop in the various newspaper archives to which I have access. Do you not have a public or university library around through which you could avoid a paywall? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Living out in the country doesn't lend itself to easy access to libraries. schetm (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep She is not famous, but then bishops as a rule aren't. Nonetheless I find for instance record of her dealing with a misbehaving pastor, making statements about immigration, and the like, and I find one book reference to her as an example of a relatively early female ELCA bishop. I'm not terribly willing to step up to "bishops as a rule are NOT notable", and that's what deleting this one would imply. Mangoe (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are other possible ways to distinguish though. I think an argument could be made that ELCA bishops are less notable as a rule than Catholic or Episcopal bishops because their Church has a view of the episcopal office that is less "high".Jahaza (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: bishop, honorary degree, multiple sources - seems sufficient for notability. PamD 12:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep exercising WP:AGF the paywalled/offline sources seem sufficient for WP:Basic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Bishops and moderators of major denominations are usually notable. Possibly we could distinguish those who only hold office for a limited term from Catholic and Anglican ones who hold office for life. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We usually keep the bishops of major denominations. As one of the first female Lutheran bishops, she's notable for that alone. I also found additional news sources without her middle initial. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salifu Jatta[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Sources are not in-depth coverage expected for GNG, and he hasn't played in a league recognized by NFOOTY. Contested PROD. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

move to draft space — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.57.253 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:56, 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 no consensus. There are sources, but there is no consensus on the question if they constitute a substantial coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deathbolt[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. Sources added after the PROD are two junk listicles and a bunch of topical pop culture stuff about the character's casting that provide no actual coverage on the character. TTN (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added the new sources to this article and indicated I would make efforts in the future to find additional sources and expand the article further, but the nominator immediately took it to AFD anyway, which didn't strike me as a good faith move. In any event, I think the sources already added go a long way toward indicating notability for this subject, and there are others out there that can and should allow for additional expansions. The fact that this character has been featured on both comic books and television further indicates significance... — Hunter Kahn 17:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect to List of supporting Arrow characters where he is already covered - The character in the comics is pretty minor, and does not appear to have anything in the way of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Just a smattering of fansites/wikis and plot summaries. All of the sources currently in the article are actually covering the Arrow-verse version, many of them are not from reliable sources, and most of them are merely the casting announcement. None of it is enough to pass the WP:GNG as an independent article, but could probably justify a Redirect to the appropriate entry for the Arrow-verse version, as that appears to be the more significant incarnation. Rorshacma (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of supporting Arrow characters. Just plot information for a limited appearance, nowhere near enough to convince me this needs a stand-alone article (WP:NOTPLOT, WP:GNG, WP:SPINOUT). – sgeureka t•c 08:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see "topical pop culture stuff about the character's casting that provide no actual coverage on the character" as being supported by policy. Hunter Kahn located multiple references that are specifically about the character. "Pop culture stuff" is an acceptable measure of notability for a pop culture topic. -- Toughpigs (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a source can add zero relevant text to an article, it is not significant coverage of the topic. Simply mentioning that the character exists and is played by X actor requires but a single source. Adding ten fluff sources mentioning the character a single time does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the April 2015 article on Bustle.com: "Deathbolt is a DC Comics character, though the Arrow writers tweaked his powers to suit this universe. Jeff Simmons made his first appearance in 1983 as a convicted murderer who barely survives a plane crash. Supervillain the Ultra-Humanite saves Simmons, while also setting him up with some useful powers by essentially turning his body into a giant battery. Comic book Deathbolt can wield and control electromagnetic energy, which means he never has to deal with a smoke detector that won't stop BEEPING... IGN reports that the version of Simmons we'll see in "Broken Arrow" has the ability to harness and weaponize plasma energy... Lightning and fire are two of plasma's greatest hits, and per this description of him, will bend to Deathbolt's will. This is not great news for Team Arrow, since they need at least one week off from protecting Starling City just to deal with their interpersonal problems... It seems that Simmons' real superpower is in getting Oliver Queen to accept help from romantic rival Ray Palmer... One thing's for sure: Deathbolt won't be vanquished tonight. He's already booked for a Flash appearance later this season. Another metahuman with a bone to pick with the man we know as Harrison Wells, I suppose. Then what or who does he need from Starling City? It looks like the events of Wednesday's Arrow will just be the beginning of whatever Simmons is planning." -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And? There is nothing there. It's a summary of the comic character, basic details about the adaptation, and some basic pop-culture dribble. There is no commentary. There is no unique context that the news article provides to add to the article. There are nine similar articles currently cited. You only need one for the context of the character's casting. Anything else, unless it provides some kind of unique commentary, can be attributed directly to the show. If secondary sources can be replaced with primary sources, that means the secondary sources are useless. The issue with a lot of these comic AfDs seems to be that rather than an objective look into the topic's notability, it's rather an attempt to "save" the topic. While you would think those would be the same thing, the mindset of saving something leads to a major bias in what's acceptable for sourcing. TTN (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, that argument goes way beyond the notability policy. The article discusses the history and powers of the character, the differences between the original version and the television adaptation, and the casting. I don't believe there's a requirement for "unique commentary" from each individual source. You've moved the goalposts with each comment so far, first saying that the only coverage is "junk listicles", then that they "simply mention that the character exists", and now you're saying that the non-listicle multi-paragraph article is "basic" and "dribble". I agree that there isn't book-length critical commentary on this character, but the subject meets the basic grounds for notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles are completely devoid of relevant content. We need to take a look at the context sources provide and accurately judge the worth of their inclusion. It doesn't matter if the websites, books, etc are reliable sources if they do not provide anything substantial, like those encyclopedias of comic characters people in this space like to cite despite them having literally nothing the comics themselves could not provide. First and foremost, listicles and pop culture sites are the bottom of the barrel in terms of journalistic content. They should not be relied upon for the main content of an article. Secondly, these articles in particular are great examples of why not to utilize them. They're just the same thing spread over five websites with little deviation aside from the writer's speculation on what's to come. TTN (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the problem is that certain people get in the "mindset of saving something," as TTN puts it. I think the problem is that certain people are, for whatever reason, so set on deleting coverage of fictional content from this encyclopedia that they are seldom if ever satisfied when actual coverage of a topic can be identified, and they continue to argue in favor of deletion regardless. (I also disagree that TTN's subjective opinion of whether reliable sources are "bottom of the barrel" has any relevance. If it's a reliable source, it's a reliable source; there are no degrees of reliability, regardless of if individual uses don't like them.) The simple fact is that the article as it stands now after its expansion demonstrates coverage of the subject matter, beyond simple plot summary, in reliable sources that indicate notability. Could the article be further expanded and improved in the future? Yes. But I think it's sufficient as it stands now that should err on the side of inclusion and not delete it. — Hunter Kahn 13:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you pass off clear signs of poor sources as just an opinion is a bit frightening. If you were trying to do the same thing for a BLP on some obscure but still news-mentioned relative of a celebrity, I'm sure the article would be instantly deleted. TTN (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are missing the point. I'm not trying to defend a source that's not reliable; CBR already has long been considered a WP:RS for this type of subject matter. I'm saying that you are trying to ignore/bypass the question of reliability and argue against its use simply because you don't like it. In my view, this speaks to a personal bias you have against subject matter like this, which is why you continue to argue for deletion even after sufficient sources are added to articles that you PROD, like this one. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's more that you have very poor sourcing standards in regards to comic characters if you think either this or the other articles active at AfD are up to snuff. It's one thing to argue about the fine details of the definition of "significant coverage," but another to argue that a source that mentions something a literal single time is at all relevant to a topic. TTN (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument might make sense if this entire article hinged on this one single citation and nothing else, but there are multiple sources utilized to indicate notability. Sure, some of them have shorter mentions than others, but that only means we're limited in how much content can be used cited from each particular source. As long as the source is reliable (which it is), we can cite what we can from it. That's how this works. Fortunately, there is sufficient coverage about this particular topic across the sources used that go beyond one-sentence mentions. (And, again, I'll point out that these are not the only sources that discuss this topic; I've just added enough to demonstrate notability for now.) The subjective fact that you don't like it or think it's an important topic (as demonstrated by your dismissal of the source Toughpigs shared above) speaks only to your personal biases and the illuminate the fact that you will continue to argue in favor of deletion no matter whether notability is established or how much the article is improved. — Hunter Kahn 14:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like you're mistakenly conflating two things. Whether something is a reliable source in general has nothing to do with the relevance of a source's inclusion in an article. Each source needs to be judged for its relevance to the topic and necessity in the article. Regardless of my opinion on junk pop culture articles, pretty much nothing of what has been added to this article helps it in any way. It still massively fails both WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF. You can remove all but one of the articles on the characters casting with literally no important context lost. That's precisely why the significant coverage clause exists. That doesn't even begin with your OR-leaning writing in the Betty Clawman article. TTN (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I obviously disagree with your claim that nothing that has been added "helps the article in any way"; the article was previously unsourced altogether, so adding sources for verification purposes has obviously improved the article. (And, again, I'm not claiming these are the only sources available; I just added a few to demonstrate that there is significant coverage across multiple reliable sources.) Furthermore, this article is not all plot summary, and your off-topic WP:OR claim Betty Clawman is both 100% inaccurate and extremely insulting to me personally. But my feeling is that you want these articles deleted and no amount of sourcing or arguing will change your mind, so there's no need for us to continue this back-and-forth. — Hunter Kahn 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What real world context have you added? What have the sources provided? The other article isn't off topic because the the misrepresentation of the content of sources is about as close to OR as you can get without fully crossing the line, showing a lack of care in adding sourcing. TTN (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suffice it to say, I disagree with your above statement and believe you are bordering on violating WP:NPA. But it has been suggested that I refrain from continuing this repetitive back-and-forth with you, and I will do so. — Hunter Kahn 22:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I indented this right, but I want to point out that while CBR used to be the standard of excellence for comic coverage, it has fallen quite far since it was sold a few years ago. I'm personally very picky about what I'll use from them anymore. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:10, 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 delete and redirect to C. D. Howe. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minister of Everything[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2008, this article survived AfD in 2008 but is really a dictionary definition. There’s no real encyclopaedic content. Mccapra (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate This term is a political term that is used for the reasons as mentioned in the article itself. It is beneficial to have the page as it is, though it might be a better option to remodel this into a disambiguation page.Obinnaonye —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I generally concur with the nom that this is a dictionary definition, at best. I looked to see if we had a wikt:Minister of Everything to which we could soft redirect, but alas, found nothing. The disambiguation proposal has potential, and I'd like to see some disambiguation experts like Narky Blert and Crouch, Swale, called in by whoever relists this. Doug Mehus T·C 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to C. D. Howe. Just because other politicians are occasionally named MoE doesn't make it worth an article or dab page. (Lots of politicians have been called lots of derogatory nicknames too. Should we also have Lying weasel?) None of the other articles, with the exception of Dean Barrow, even mention it. A hatnote in the Howe article could link to Barrow and Walter M. Gibson, the only others to whom the title is seriously applied. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to C D Howe as per Clarityfiend and per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The phrase does not meet notability grounds. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:37, 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 redirect to Chabad on Campus International Foundation. Closing this earlier than I originally anticipated due to aspersions-laden arguments in full swing. El_C 03:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad at Texas A&M University[edit]

Chabad at Texas A&M University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant, in-depth coverage independent of the subject. Most of the citations in this article are primary-sourced to the organization itself. The few third-party sources almost exclusively represent routine coverage of local events and activities sponsored by the center. These activities are typical of many other Chabad centers and student/campus centers in general. Notably, there are more than 400 campus Chabad centers globally. Neutralitytalk 14:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, then you probably mean that this article should be redirected? In any case, IMHO this article can clearly stand on its own. Debresser (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good suggestion Debresser, then why not change your vote to Redirect then? By gambling on Keep you are risking deletion. StonyBrook (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with Debresser as to whether this article should be kept, I don't believe that this is an "all or nothing" gamble in terms of keep vs. delete. If the consensus is against keeping the article, a redirect could remain an option. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Debresser's request below, I still believe that deletion is appropriate, but as a second choice I would support a redirect. I don't have an opinion yet as to what the target of that redirect would be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have edited the article to remove some sources that stem specifically from the subject itself, other than sources about staff and the school which the source website would be the best source for. In addition, The vast majority of citations are to local and national news sources that are not tied to the source. Only 5 out of over more than forty sources are tied to the source itself, and only because that is the best place to get information about staff or specific building facilities. The Jewish Herald-Voice and Texas Jewish Post are both city newspapers in Houston and Dallas, and chabad.org and Lubavitch Headquarters News are international news sources. Also, many of the events cited by the sources are not recurring events at the center, but one specific even that was highlighted, for example the finalist in the Sinai Scholars Society competition cited by chabad.org. There are wikipedia pages for specific Chabad houses, and the fact that are many Chabad Houses should not be grounds for this not being notable. It is the only Orthodox synagogue in the city and in the county. A similar organization, Texas A&M Hillel, also has a wikipedia page, even though it is one of hundreds of Hillels across North America. AriH972 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. StonyBrook (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is not important enough for creating this separate page. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come this article has 46 sources? That seems to indicate importance. I mean, of the 8 articles on the DYK section of our main page of today, only one article had that many sources... Debresser (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REFBOMBING is not an insurance policy against deletion. StonyBrook (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case. Invoking some guideline does not mean it is relevant. Something that should be mentioned at WP:TE, by the way. :) Debresser (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not TE to appropriately respond to your loaded question, nor is it TE to rebuff an attempt to stifle a debate. If your presumption is that 46 references automatically convey notability, you should already know that many of them are primary references associated with the subject, and many others, such as this one [8], fall squarely under the category of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What is encyclopedic about a campus community center's 5-year anniversary party, and why exactly is that important? StonyBrook (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is a unique organization. Chabad on Campus, and the wikipedia page associated with it, is not the the parent organization and this is simply the local chapter. Chabad at Texas A&M University is locally managed and the national organization only provides educational materials. Otherwise, all programming and education decisions are made specifically by the center, and the sources reflect the uniquely tailored programming for the community. Both the KBTX and The Eagle are local media sources that note the distinct and special impact the center has on the community. Just because there are many Chabad on Campuses should not preclude this page from existing, just as there may be a number of synagogues in a given city and the existence of another synagogue within the same movement would not preculde it from having a page. AriH972 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of this (e.g., student newspaper coverage, local radio mentions) shows significant, in-depth coverage. The fact that an organization has a "distinct and special impact...on the community" is not a material consideration in deletion discussions. Neutralitytalk 20:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike duplicate !vote. You may comment as many times as you desire, but each editor is only entitled to one !vote. Thank you. --Kinu t/c 05:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a fairly large article with 46 sources. Also not a merge candidate. Debresser (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator refers to the stricter notability criteria of WP:ORG, but since this is a religious organization, WP:NCHURCH is the relevant guideline, according to which it is sufficient to meet the general notability criteria. Debresser (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reread WP:NCHURCH, which states Individual religious organizations, congregations and churches must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both. (Emphasis mine). WP:GNG alone doesn't necessarily provide a carte blanche to include this. StonyBrook (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You do understand what the word "or" means, don't do? Debresser (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the first and last definition [9], "or" here means it is uncertain whether to require one or the other alternative guidelines, or both, to any given organization, with each individual case requiring a separate consensus to be reached. The "or" in "or both" cannot mean it is an equivalent choice because it includes both elements of the first two, rendering the 3rd way logically unequivalent. In addition, NCHURCH appears under a section of N:ORG which begins by stating that it is only an "optional, alternative method" to determine notability, and goes on to require adherence to WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTBLOG, which this article mostly is. StonyBrook (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have an issue with the "or", you should take it up on that guideline's talkpage, but it seems obvious to me, even without the need to consult a dictionary, that "or" means that either criteria are acceptable. So this whole section, including all the votes cast, are based on an incorrect representation of the relevant guideline, so I think this should be relisted, and all editors asked to recast their votes based on the correct guideline. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Texas A&M University, similar to how UCLA Chabad House, a branch with an aesthetically significant structure, redirects to University of California, Los Angeles. This is a well-written article that is nevertheless a thinly disguised PR piece about a campus Chabad chapter that should have no place in an encyclopedia as a stand-alone. It is sourced exclusively to, and trivially mentioned in, local and/or primary sources, with no significant coverage at the national or even regional level per WP:ORG and WP:AUD. The passionate and (so far) only Keep voters are the WP:SPA article creator and a self-identified Chabad rabbi. StonyBrook (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not simply a thinly-veiled PR piece, this is an entry on a very specific Chabad center and does not advertise in any way. The religious organization has a ten year history in the area, and if you checked out all of the sources and where each publication is based out of, you would see that it is not just local news coverage. The center is based in College Station, Texas, but the overwhelming majority of news sources are not based in that city. The Jewish Herald-Voice and the Texas Jewish Post are based in Houston and Dallas, respectively, and many of the other other news organizations cover both national and international events. I do not understand how you can characterize this piece as only primarily and locally sourced when the vast majority of sources are either out of the city, out of the state, or international. AriH972 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no national or international news coverage of this subject, except for limited interest Chabad sites. The TJP, while secondary, is also limited interest, and the JHV articles cited are not neutral reporting but are in fact press-releases, as can be ascertained by the contact information provided,[10][11][12] with this one[13] complete with sales pitch: The Chabad House is not funded by any central organization or agency. Chabad’s sole sources of income are charitable donations from parents, friends and the local community. Chabad at Texas A&M appreciates and welcomes all donations. For more information about the Chabad Jewish Student Center at Texas A&M University contact Rabbi Yossi or Manya Lazaroff at... The Programs section itself reads like a brochure, and the Staff section is a typical "Meet the Staff" addendum of said brochure, as per this section in WP:IBA: It has section and subsection headers typical of a corporate website such as "Corporate social responsibility", "Mission and Values", "Meet our leaders", "Our Partners", "Become a member", "Stories and News", "Investor Relations", "Success Stories", "Community Outreach", "Get involved", "Contact information". StonyBrook (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but how is the fact that I am a Chabad rabbi related to my opinions here, which are, as you may have noticed, based in a firm knowledge of the pertaining policies and guidelines (more firmly than the nominator, in any case)? I demand you to retract your comment which tries to detract from the weight of my opinion and arguments by argument of association. And yes, I seem you told me that you have an issue with Chabad. So maybe you have some bias as well? Debresser (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have chosen to publicly state your associations, which is useful for other editors to assess whether or not you have a WP:COI healthy bias in any particular debate, which is very plausible here since you are not heeding policies such as WP:ORG. You are now straying into WP:NPA and WP:AGF territory, and the boomerang is now on you to retract statements. Where have I ever told you I have a "problem with Chabad? StonyBrook (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I, living in Israel, have a COI with an organization in Texas? It's like saying that every Catholic, including one in Paraguay, has a COI regarding some obscure Irish bisschop, like Neil Farren, for example.
It is the nominator who tries to use WP:ORG inappropriately, since the relevant section of that page, which is WP:NCHURCH has a less strict notability definition than he misleadingly uses.
I will remove (not just strike) my comment, as soon as you heed my demand to remove yours. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or alternatively Redirect to Texas A&M University (similar to how UCLA Chabad House is done, with just a short description section given to it). As it currently is this page is no less than common Chabad religious propaganda, which is one of the manners in which this organization leverages its financial resources all over the world and in the internet. warshy (¥¥) 16:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterate Delete My vote above is not based on any policy discussion. It is based on reading the page and on knowing the modus operandi of the religious organization, which I also described above. As it currently is this page is not more than standard Chabad religious propaganda. As such it should be deleted. Mention of the specific house can be done in a short section at the school page at the most, in my view. warshy (¥¥) 19:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This a seriously misinformed, ignorant, and borderline antisemitic comment. This article is not religious propaganda and referring to some imagined idea that Chabad uses some invisible vast network of money not only smacks of antisemitic tropes, it is so far removed from reality that it begs whether you know anything at all about Chabad houses. This organization is entirely self-sufficient financially and relies entirely on donations to it specifically. These comments should be retracted immediately and so should the vote since it is based entirely on a completely prejudiced and unfound statement. AriH972 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-religious, rather atheist, but still a cultural and ethnic secular Jew, or as a non-religious secular person of Jewish descent, who has also on occasion throughout his life been the target of anti-Semitic views and opinions, this is the first time I have been labeled myself as an "anti-Semite." Which is rather ridiculous. But it is not surprising at all that such a ridiculous circumstance would arise precisely from a public discussion about the Chabad religious organization. Since Chabad consider themselves the only true form of Judaism, and they view other Jews, particularly all other non-orthodox Jews who do not follow their rebbe or his doctrines, as not "real" Jews, it is not surprising that they would soon also start accusing these other "Jews" of being actually "anti-semites." As a non-religious Jew who has seen, and has also on occasion been the target himself of Chabad religious propaganda, throughout his entire life, I do stand completely by everything I have written above. This page is pure Chabad religious propaganda, and as such should be deleted. warshy (¥¥) 03:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality, Metropolitan90, in view of what I pointed out above, that the relevant guideline is actually WP:NCHURCH, which has less strict criteria, please review your votes above. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) hueman1 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungry Syrian Wanderer[edit]

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

hueman1 (talk) 13:37, 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 merge to The Ferals#After the Ferals. North America1000 07:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mixy (TV programming block)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. The are some mentions about the subject on non-RS websites but most of these seem to focus on the host, a fictional character from a long defunct TV program. There is also an apparent mention in a study but no significant coverage. AussieLegend (✉) 13:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABC Television#3.1.7 (former children's programming section) Otherwise completely unnotable 'here's what next' continuity. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to The Ferals#After The Ferals Second look found this is a much better redirect target...but the 'list of' duplicates the struck-through article and should not be retained. Nate • (chatter) 05:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • How are most of the programs related to the Ferals? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Mixy started out as a puppet on that show so it's a natural redirect...the list of is basically 'list of children's programs aired by the ABC in the early 2000s', so that has no use at all. Nate • (chatter) 01:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was my point. Mixy (the character) is certainly related to The Ferals, but Mixy (the programming block) has nothing at all to do with The Ferals other than that a character from the program is the host. That said, List of programs broadcast by ABC Television#3.1.7 is not an appropriate redirect target as it's about the American ABC, not the Australian ABC. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I have clarified the redirect target to the section dealing with the ABC continuity. And I have linked to the proper Australian ABC list of (which was already withdrawn as a rd candidate, thus the strikethrough). Nate • (chatter) 03:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:Mrschimpf. Yet another AfD with an obvious merger target that should never have been brought to AfD. Modernponderer (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. While there is not sufficient material to support notability in its own right, there is sufficient to support the content having encyclopedic value in an appropriate article. A better merge target would be Children's television in Australia, but alas ... Aoziwe (talk) 10:12, 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 keep. Consensus is not to delete. Whether or not to merge, if anyone wants to press for that, can be discussed outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persephone (The Matrix)[edit]

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

No evidence this fictional character passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. Prior AfD seems to have been improperly speedy closed. In either case, BEFORE does not show any in-depth discussion of this relatively minor character in the franchise, just some in passing comments and plot summaries, this time mostly related to a few lists of 'sexy women in movies'. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed above. BD2412 T 12:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears this character is discussed a great deal in various scholarly works. This article by Catherine Constable, the full text of which can be found here, describes Persephone's desire for pure sensation as demonstrative of a kind of existential authenticity, and discusses the similarities and differences between the Matrix character and the Eurydice of Greek mythology. This chapter by Martina Lipp discusses how Persephone is in some ways a powerful character, but is limited in other ways due to her gender. This article by Dana Dragunoiu, of which I am still attempting to find the full text, addresses how Persephone discredits claims of utilitarianism made by other characters in the films (according to the portion visible in the Google Scholar search). This book presents the character as an example of a "contrary position to causality/determinism" in the Matrix, and how "although love registers as a positivity, it is never guaranteed, and always subject to change". These are just a few examples I found with some brief searching, in addition to the expected news stories you can find about her casting and performance in the films. I think these help establish she has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources, meets WP:GNG, and that this article has great potential for future expansion. — Hunter Kahn 13:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • First source seems solid, but the the books seem to discuss her only in passing. I also cannot find a way to access the JSTOR article. Given this, we are one good source short of 'multiple' good sources GNG requirement, so at this point I am not withdraiwng. But good job finding the first source, I missed this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Piotrus Well here's another source for your consideration. The book Like a Splinter in Your Mind: The Philosophy Behind the Matrix Trilogy seems to dedicate quite a bit of discussion to Persephone, but a preview isn't available on Google Books so I couldn't read through it at first. But I found some scans from Chapter 12 online, (you can use the Look Inside function on the book's Amazon page to confirm this is indeed the book's chapter) where you'll see pp. 159-164 discuss the character in depth, discussing her obsession with experiencing genuine emotions in otherwise disingenuous surroundings, her search for meaning at her stage of technological and psychological development, how her phenomenological approach to living fits into existentialist philosophy, and how she embodies a concept French existentialists and philosophers (apparently) call "the lived body". It's possible Persephone is discussed in other chapters of this book as well; Chapter 12 was the only one I was able to immediately dig up... — Hunter Kahn 23:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Hunter Kahn's excellent job finding high-quality sources. Toughpigs (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The entire scope of the character can be handled by a single paragraph. TTN (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • TTN No offense intended, but you really think we could highlight the character's themes from the scholarly works I cited above and the usual elements of a fictional character (performance, appearances, reviews, etc.) in ONE paragraph, without making it an unwieldy long paragraph? — Hunter Kahn 17:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, she's like a ten minute character in four and a half hours of footage, so the scope of depth provided should be very minimal. That's especially true when the films should be describing her plot involvement, while a character section in a list should give relevant contextual details unfitting for a plot summary. TTN (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, given that a subject's notability is based upon coverage in third party reliable sources and not running time or your subjective opinion of the character's importance, I obviously disagree with you. — Hunter Kahn 19:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Articles on fictional topics are inherently splits from the parent work, so notability doesn't matter if there's no justification to split it out. All plot information can be disregarded when it comes to size. I don't particularly agree the notability threshold has been met either. TTN (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough. I disagree. — Hunter Kahn 20:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Hunter Khan has found multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, also some of the references in the article regarding popular culture imply that this is a significant character, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Surprisingly enough, this relatively minor character got some serious scholarly attention, which meets my minimum criteria of in-depth discussion in at least two reliable sources. Kudos to HK for finding quality sources I missed. I am no longer prepared to endorse this deletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per discussion and sources above. Samboy (talk) 04:20, 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 merge to List of minor characters in the Matrix series. RL0919 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraph (The Matrix)[edit]

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

No evidence this fictional character passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. Prior AfD seems to have been improperly speedy closed. In either case, BEFORE does not show any in-depth discussion of this relatively minor character in the franchise, just some in passing comments and plot summaries. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of minor characters in the Matrix series (and probably rename that to List of characters in the Matrix series, but that's a separate discussion). The article lacks multiple sources covering the character in depth, and I don't see any sign that any such sources would be available following a search. I agree the closure of the previous AFD was egregious, although to be fair the nomination was poor and (as one comment noted) a redirect/merge is a more obvious solution. Hugsyrup 12:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed above. BD2412 T 12:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, no evidence of independent notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge since no notability on it's own. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:58, 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 merge to List of minor characters in the Matrix series. (non-admin closure) buidhe 22:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Architect (The Matrix)[edit]

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

No evidence this fictional character passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. Prior AfD seems to have been improperly speedy closed. In either case, BEFORE does not show any in-depth discussion of this relatively minor character in the franchise, just some in passing comments and plot summaries, mostly limited to some fansites anyway ([14]). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of minor characters in the Matrix series. I tried to clean it up a little but there are no independent sources to back it up so it's full of OR. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, no evidence of independent notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Literally only one sentence is cited by any references. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 00:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I haven't had a chance for a deep dive for sources yet, but a cursory search turned up a couple that I think help establish notability, including this, this, this and this. A Google Scholar search turns up a couple potential sources, most of which I unfortunately can't access myself right now. The article as it stands now is in bad shape but it seems like enough sources exist to satisfy WP:GNG and allow for the article to be improved. — Hunter Kahn 02:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hunter Kahn: All the particular sources cited seem to be limited to WP:PLOT-like descriptions, I don't see any in-depth anaysis of this character. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even that alone would help to establish some measure of notability for the character, but I think it goes a bit beyond that. Some of the books discuss the character in the context of the film's overarching themes about choice, free will, and indepedenent human nature. One talks about how the character emodies Gnostic themes and specifically the concept of the demiurge, and another discusses how he serves as a foil to pseudo-Christian dogma embodied by other characters. But I do wish I could get my hands on the scholarly journals to see what is in those... :/ — Hunter Kahn 14:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - This article fails to establish notability. I don't think the above satisfies the need for significant coverage. The character list for the Matrix could very likely be reformatted and turned into something matching Characters of Carnivale if other articles are merged into it. Anything exploring the minor characters really should be developed from there to start. TTN (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the Matrix character list could be reformatted along these lines, but despite its FA star, I maintain that Characters of Carnivàle is not the best example to follow. Most of it is in very good shape, but there is enough material on the two lead character that they really need to be extracted into their own articles, with the narrative in the list scaled back to a synopsis and a {{main}} template added linking to the primary articles. Cramming them into this list and giving them 3x more content than any other entry creates unwieldy WP:TOOLONG and WP:UNDUE problems, and is actually a good argument for why individual articles about fictional characters is a good thing. If the Matrix list were to be reformatted, I'd suggest the better model to follow is List of Alien (film series) characters; its entries on major characters like Ellen Ripley, Davis 8, Ash, the Alien itself, etc. are good examples of how the Carnivàle list should be... — Hunter Kahn 14:41, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Deenanath Chauhan[edit]

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

No evidence this fictional character passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. I did review both prior AfDs which cite the same sources, half of which have link rotted by now. The only one that seems to be in depth is the video clip form NDTV, but video sources are problematic in light of WP:PUBLISHED (it may be ok, but it is not the best). As I said, nothing else seems to be in-depth, all I see are mentions in passing. I wanted to rescue this myself and add a sentence or two of reception, but I simply couldn't find sources good enough for that. I'd be happy if we could rescue this, but right now I am afraid there are no sources for that. If you want to prove me wrong, please suggest what we can actually say about this character because just a list of WP:GOOGLEHIT mentions is not very helpful (as proved by the fact that two AFDs and several years have not resulted in anything here that goes beyond WP:PLOT/list of appearances in media). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are 5 sources present here. Of them one is blogspot.com another is bollywoodlife which is not considered as WP:RS per WP:ICTF. The other sources present in the article is not enough to pass the article WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Current sourcing is insufficient to satisfy WP:N. TTN (talk) 12:16, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Chizz[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet WP:SINGER, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Found a few bogus links meant to appear as if its been covered by reliable resources. Nothing from GNEWS as well Lapablo (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:MILL. If you find any reliable sources, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails both the general and music notability guidelines. No coverage available, and no evidence he satisfies any of the musical artist criteria. PK650 (talk) 22:47, 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 Mahatma Gandhi Central University protests. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Mishra[edit]

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

Mishra is only known for WP:ONEEVENT. I had redirected to that event, Mahatma Gandhi Central University protests per WP:ATD-R, but that redirect has since been reverted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Reverting of a previous redirect is not a WP:DELREASON but the previous redirect was well-reasoned. FOARP (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that while I've brought this to AfD it isn't to seek deletion but as a venue to to "seek a consensus if a redirection is challenged" per WP:ATD-R. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect since I don't see the subject getting significant coverage to merit his own article. DBigXrayᗙ 18:04, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Yadav (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Plays supporting roles only. The references included are mere mentions. A WP:BEFORE search found snippets like this and this but nothing of substance. Draft:Sandeep Yadav (actor) was rejected as non-notable but they went on and created the mainspace article regardless. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While the subject has appeared in some big films, his roles seem to have been pretty small; therefore, I believe he fails WP:NACTOR. I can't find many sources, either, so I think he fails WP:GNG, too. It appears that the subject will have a more significant role in an upcoming film, Thappad, which is due to be released in a couple of weeks, and that may well raise his profile. In the meantime, I would encourage the creator and contributors of this article to continue working on it in its draftspace. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:28, 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. I am willing to provide copies if anyone wants to import this to a fandom wiki. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Command & Conquer factions[edit]

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

A list of factions that appear in the Command & Conquer games. Written in an in-universe tone, retelling the story from the factions' point of view. No actual encyclopedic information, i.e., conception, development, reception. A search on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine shows very little actual in-depth coverage, mostly about the units of the particular factions in-game. The 'developer's diary', while at GameSpot, is a WP:PRIMARY source, which doesn't prove notability. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ALLPLOT fancruft and pure FANDOM content. Fails WP:LISTN.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The material would be better used at a Wiki devoted to Command & Conquer.TH1980 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see the content associated with the developer diaries preserved, so I don't think a straight delete is appropriate. --Izno (talk) 23:19, 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 redirect to Green marketing. Consensus is that the current article is not appropriate for wikipedia, but that the term exists. Of the two proposed redirect-targets, Green marketing has the most support. Any content relevant to Royalties (brand management agency) can of course be merged there. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ecobranding[edit]

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

Ecobranding is not a movement; except the agency of the same name, hardly anyone has claimed to be part of this so-called movement. This is promotion for ecobranding-design.com. The claim that redesigning logos would have a meaningful reduction in their environmental impact is dubious at best, and not supported by any methodically sound scientific research. The suggestion that Google, Apple and Samsung "adopted" anything from ecobranding is blatantly false. Vexations (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry but all your arguments are all unfounded, false and biased.
    "Ecobranding is not a movement" Sorry but it is no longer written that Ecobranding is a movement on this page.
    "The claim that redesigning logos would have a meaningful reduction in their environmental" all the sources are checked (CNN, Fast Company, RTL…), when CNN writes an article about logo ink reductions with ecobranding they check before they publish. Sorry, but are you suggesting that reducing ink on billions of printed logos has no effect on the planet?
    "This is promotion for ecobranding-design.com" There are absolutely no external links to other personal or professional web sites except for the sources which all refer to authentic news web sites.
    "Google, Apple and Samsung "adopted" anything from ecobranding is blatantly false." It is written Google, Apple and Samsung had all adopted the "Dark mode" (not the ecobranding). You should check very carefully before threatening the work of others, please be careful. Thanks. Robert Petit (talk) 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Let me address the "movement" claim first.
      [15] calls ecobranding a campaign. Boyer has started a campaign called "Ecobranding"
      [16] quotes Boyer, who says Pour nous Ecobranding est un mouvement, une nouvelle philosophie design, comme le fut le flat design dans les années 2010, ou le skeuomorphisme dans les années 2000. (English:"For us Ecobranding is a movement, a new design philosophy, as was flat design in the 2010s, or skeuomorphism in the 2000s") Yes, we do have an article on Flat design and Skeuomorph. Note that in those examples, we don't have an agency by that name, or one making claims to have originated the concept.
      [17] is paywalled, no comment, sorry
      [18] refers to Boyer as saying that ecobranding is: a lens he calls “ecobranding”.
      [19] by doesn't mention ecobranding. It does talk about Boyer, and mentions that his designs have not been adopted by the companies whose logos he redesigned.
      [20] Here, ecobranding is not a methodology, a movement or a company name, it a "plan". Fastcompany actually published an other article about ecobranding (mentioned above), this one focusses on FriendUI. It fails to mention that FriendUI is not something you can use. It's not a functioning smartphone user interface.
      [21] Ad week by Tim Nudd September 26, 2017. The entire text is: "Corporate logos are reproduced millions and billions of times, which means even the smallest logo tweaks can significantly change the amount of ink used. Now, one French designer has hatched an idea for a service to help redesign brand logos—indeed, the who brand-deployment process—to be more environmentally (and economically) friendly." He doesn't say anything about the agency, or the "methodology". He doesn't even mention Boyer.
      [22] Creative Review by Eliza Williams 03/12/2019 calls the agency "Royalties Eco-Branding" The only thing it says about the company is "Royalties Eco-Branding is focused on creating a system of design that is environmentally friendly, which effects everything from the fonts to the use of digital dark mode".
      So, ecobranding is a campaign, a movement, a new design philosophy, a lens, a plan, a methodology or perhaps just the name of a company? Vexations (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me address my bias. Yes, I am biased. Aren't we all? I actually know a lot about the subject. Unfortunately, I cannot discuss the details, but I worked on projects to reduce the use of ink for a very large company (something that makes McDonalds look small) and on dark mode for a very large software company, years (if not more than a decade) before any of this occurred to Boyer and his associates. Both projects were successful and are in use now. I have fairly good idea of just how much ink is saved, but I don't think that ecobranding does, because they just do simple math, and presented design proposals. They haven't actually done any of this. Sure, their stuff "went viral". Remember that highschool science project that promised the US government could save $400M if it switched to Garamond? CNN covered that too. Turns out it wasn't quite so simple. So yeah, it bothers me that a branding agency is using Wikipedia to promote themselves using unproven claims. Their efforts were rebuffed the first time, at the first AfD, and they should not find it surprising that I still have them on my watchlist. To, perhaps not say outright, but hint at, or suggest that there is a connection somehow to Boyer's idea and what Apple and Google is disingenuous. It is WP:SYNTH, and we don't allow it. With regards to the environmental impact of saving power on OLED screens, consider that a cellphone uses something like a single-digit Kilowatt hour per year, perhaps a dollar's worth of electricity, likely less. That pales in comparison to the kind of savings you could achieve by lowering your thermostat by a single degree for those times that you're not home. A cellphone dark UI helps extend the battery life of an OLED phone. It won't save the planet. WRT promotion, you don't have to link to your own website to promote your business. And as for RTL fact-checking any of this, I don't think they got in touch with a lab to run some tests, or they would have mentioned it. Vexations (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:12, 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) 02:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 06:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In google books, there is a lot of mention of ecobranding as a term [23] - the furthest back mention I can see is from 1995 in the book Unasylva [24]
However, the current state of this wiki article seems wildly biased. It only focuses on the claim that this company invented the term or the idea of ecobranding, and even goes as far as to suggest that they created the "dark mode" concept for digital screens, which is not a verifiable fact.
This wiki article seems to be for the company rather than the idea, but I do not think the company in of itself is notable. Almost all of the press about the company was from an initial viral sharing in 2017 (see the company's press page [25]), and any subsequent press either: 1.) doesn't attribute the term to the company or 2.) rehashes the same exact imagery and content from the original viral sharings.
It's almost as if the company is only notable for a single event (which is a viral phenomenon), which was sharing design mockups for the concept of ecobranding. And as far as events go in WP:EVENTCRITERIA, this viral phenomenon doesn't seem to be notable because I don't see verifiable evidence that it has "enduring historical significance" or "widespread impact" -- especially since they were not the origin of the word "ecobranding."
I'm really concerned about this article in general. It seems almost as if it exists for promotional purposes for the brand "Ecobranding." The best action for this article might be to WP:BLOWITUP and start anew, because nothing currently in the page seems neutral, and the claims it makes don't seem verifiable. But I will attempt to clean up the article first. -- Whisperjanes (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - I just realized from reading the last deletion nomination of this page that the company already has it's own page on wikipedia: Royalties (brand management agency). This ecobranding article is just about a design experiment that Royalties-Ecobranding (the name of their company: http://royalties-ecobranding.com/) created. The concept itself is not notable enough to have it's own individual page, since it only got coverage for a temporary, viral phenomenon without any historical or widespread impact (not notable under WP:EVENTCRITERIA as I mentioned above).
If the wikiarticle is meant to be about ecobranding as a general concept and how the term has been used historically, then I still think it might be better merged or redirected towards Green marketing (since I'm not sure if there is significant, in-depth coverage about this concept). -- Whisperjanes (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or "redirect", largely per Whisperjanes. The term is general and should not be given over to the one company; redirecting to "Green marketing" seems appropriate. And possibly adding more general content about the general term there, or at least suggesting at its Talk page that more should be developed about the general term. Any specific info about the one company that is worth keeping (if any) could be merged to "Royalties (brand management agency)". Outright deletion is not appropriate, IMO, per several reasons given in wp:TNTTNT (a brilliant essay if i do say so myself that counters argument for "BLOWITUP"). For one thing, keeping the redirect and its Talk page keeps connection to this AFD. --Doncram (talk) 19:32, 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. SNOW Keep: no sense in leaving something opened for an article that has been significantly improved, clear demonstrations of notability and the nominator clearly meant to be disruptive Sadads (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seductio[edit]

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

It isn't notable. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This film, released in 1987, has no critic's reviews or user reviews listed in the Internet Movie Database, and it hasn't even received the 5 ratings from users which would be needed to calculate an average rating. I don't know how it could qualify as notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand using the several French-language sources referenced at fr:Seductio. Nominator appears to have been subsequently banned for trolling. ―cobaltcigs 05:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article does need improvement, but we judge notability based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current quality of the article — and the existing fr: article does have suitable, notability-bolstering sources in it that we can simply copy over. A film's notability does not depend on whether its critical or media attention has been indexed by IMDb or not — sure, that can be a valid place to check, but it's not the only place we need to check: the absence of such links in that source is not in and of itself a notability-breaker if other sources can be found elsewhere. And neither user reviews nor user ratings are relevant at all, either, given that we don't reference Wikipedia content to user-generated sourcing. Better sources are available here, it's just necessary to look at more than just IMDb to find them. I've been improving the referencing significantly; the trick, as I just learned, is that at the time the sources were spelling the filmmaker's name as "Bachar Chbib" instead of "Bashar Shbib" — once I found that out and made the necessary search term adjustment, the film's sourceability literally exploded. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article has good sourcing, passes WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has been improved with the addition of reliably sourced content from The Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette and other Canadian reliable sources so passes WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to Bearcat's excellent improvements. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:10, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Bolton[edit]

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

Non-notable banker who fails GNG. Sources are a smalltown obituary and a New Orleans news article that mentions his family but not the subject. Page creator banned from WP for persistent copyright violations. ミラP 03:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ミラP 03:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ミラP 03:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ミラP 03:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ミラP 03:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like most Hathorn articles, the sourcing does not suggest that he is anything more than a local businessman active in his community. I don't really think any of the Bolton family members he created articles on pass notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did some poking around, but the only claim to notability, that he was the president of the Louisiana State Bankers Association and the fourth in his family to be such, is pretty small potatoes. Meanwhile, clicking the links for the other relatives makes me doubt the accuracy of the article, because some of the relationships seem to be confused and we have no reliable sources with which to correct them.Jahaza (talk) 17:05, 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 merge to Computer Othello#Search techniques. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-Prob Cut[edit]

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

An article with very little meaningful content. Wholly unsourced since 2017 with no substantive added content beyond the author's first creation. Searches reveal some very eclectic blog and Wiki articles dealing with complex mathematics of game play. If there is value in the article title, it would still be better to blow this up and start again rather than try and rescue it. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   02:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   02:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   02:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Computer_Othello#Search_techniques, where the algorithm would have better context. GScholar shows a citation count of 87[26] for the primary paper that introduced this technique (added to the article), including research groups not connected with Buro. This isn't sufficient for GNG notability, but the algorithm is verifiable and shows modest impact. Othello is one game where this heuristic has seen the most application and impact, so merging to the article on computer Othello under search techniques seems like the best target. For verifiable material, merging to a reasonable target is preferred over deletion, per our policy WP:ATD. Hence, merge. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Update--added three more refs, all secondary and independent of Buro. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alpha-beta pruning#Heuristic improvements, not relevant enough for a standalone article.--Staberinde (talk) 17:46, 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. G. Marar[edit]

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

The article has no source. The person was not a legislator or parliamentarian. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL and other criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a politician who fails WP:NPOL as he was never elected to state or national legislature. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Couldn't find any secondary source on him other than him contesting elections (and losing) in 1977 once. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as he was never elected to state/national legislature. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to be clear, there is no obligation to delete articles on politicians who failed to get elected to legislatures, there is still scope for other criteria for notability. The article needs a clean-up and improvements, but notability can be established. From a quick google books search, keeping in mind that the article subject died before google came into being, we find a number of notability indicators; " K G Marar has become persona noa grata with the CP-M in Cannanore oecause of his BSS past. It may be of interest to recall that the very same Janata leader K G Marar was the CP-M's hot favourite in the March 1977" ([27]), "[...] the BJP leader was widely regarded as mediocre and intellectually shallow. A rare exception was K. G. Marar, state party president from 1984-8 and again from 1992 until his death in 1995. A former Malayalam schoolteacher and RSS pracharak from Malabar, he was an able orator known for his cutting repartee.59 Following his demise, leadership was mainly provided by two lacklustre former state presidents in their sixties," ([28], book also mentions his role as BJS state secretary), "Last week, a biography of the late state bjp president K.G. Marar, released in the state capital [...]" ([29]), some mentions in [30], "In the meanwhile, K G Marar, state president of the BJP in a press statement alleged that the fishermen's agitation in [...] ([31]), " leaders of Jan Sangh like K.G. Marar, Adiyodi and A.C. Nair and finally Ummer Bafaqi Thangal, Cheriya Mammukkeyi, P.M. Aboobacker, V.P. Mohammed Haji and Ibrahim Haji of All India Muslim League also reached the Central jail." ([32]), "The party's firebrand national council member, K.G. Marar, was in the assembly fray at Manjeswaram, bordering Karnataka." ([33]), "Prominent Bharatiya Janata partymen who lost were Mr Vijay Kumar Malhotra (South Delhi), Dr Murali Manohar Joshi (Almora), Mr K.G Marar (Kasargod) and Mr K.S.Hegde (Udipi)" ([34]), "The mortal remains of Swadesha- bhimani Ramakrishna Pilla, A.K.Gopalan, K.P.Gopalan, Pamban Madhavan and K.G.Marar are laid to rest near this resort." ([35]) There is also a 'K.G. Marar Smaraka Samithi and Trust' ('K.G. Marar Memorial Association and Trust', per [36]). Memorial organized by party, reported in national media: [37], similar post from 2019) --Soman (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Notability (people)#Politicians is a higher bar for a reason. The political candidates almost always get some amount of coverage for being associated with a notable party. I have reviewed all the sources and claims above and I stand by my assessment that the subject still does not pass out notability criteria for politicians. Many of the links only contain one word mention of the subject. having a trust does not make one notable. DBigXrayᗙ 05:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems to meet GNG per the dsources above. Article does need some work though. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the Analysis of the refs and the response inline to the refs and the quotes added above by Soman.
  1. Politicians are known to become friends and enemies of parties they join or leave. Nothing special here.
  2. states that he was state BJP president. But that is not a notable post. National president of BJP may deserve an article, not all state presidents.
  3. is the news about some allegations from this politician.
  4. Is the the mention of name among a list of of others.
  5. news about him contesting an election.
  6. news that he lost the election.
  7. mention of his name among a list of others whose funeral was held in this particular "resort".
  8. Mention that a trust exists in his name.
  9. [10.] and [11.] are about a Memorial that was organized by his party members and it was reported.
  • Nothing that was been mentioned so far explains why this person who never won any election deserves his own bio. DBigXrayᗙ 10:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is clear from the sources above, is that BJP treats KG Marar differently than their run-of-mill politicians. BJP is not a major party in Kerala, but from the coverage he had a high profile. He is describes him as someone that stood out from the crowd of 'lacklustre' BJP leaders, he is mentioned as 'prominent'. He is described as 'party's firebrand national council member'. And evidently, he's notable enough to warrant annual memorials by his party. --Soman (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't care how BJP treats its leaders. he was Kerala BJP president, so it is expected that Kerala BJP will worship him. That does not mean he passes for an article. We are concerned about what real and significant work the person has done. Kerala BJP hardly existed then, so it is expected that its president was non notable. It is inline with the sources that we are seeing here. DBigXrayᗙ 17:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After, @Soman:'s comment here, I don't think the person did not pass WP:GNG. And I have to say, we do not keep article for a person becoming famous or prominent. We consider our WP:GNG and other criteria. So, we keep notorious people like Osama, Hitler and so on. We don't keep article for those people who are doing social work relentlessly and considered as famous and prominent in their local area (I mean village, town, city etc) but, don't have coverage to pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or other criteria. And memorial and trust etc are not considered as notability sign. Even, naming an asteroid, process etc after a person is not enough to pass a person WP:ACADEMIC.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'prominent' was used as a comment on national election in an academic source, not in the sense of being 'prominent' at local level. --Soman (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it is said here, "Prominent Bharatiya Janata partymen who lost were Mr Vijay Kumar Malhotra (South Delhi), Dr Murali Manohar Joshi (Almora), Mr K.G Marar (Kasargod) and Mr K.S.Hegde (Udipi)", As he is his party's state president, he can be considered as prominient among his party leaders, which is not enough for having a Wikipedia article as it is covering result during election time. Secondly, this small prominient mention is not enough for passing WP:GNG or WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, looking at Malayalam sources, [38], [39] (note the photo of Amit Shah paying homage to K.G. Marar), [40] are indicative of the cult of K.G. Marar. In Deshabhimani (i.e. the CPI(M) organ in Kerala), K.G. Marar is referred to as 'eminent BJP leader' ([41]). Deshabhimani also has a full article of review of the Marar biography, https://www.deshabhimani.com/news/kerala/koleebi/789390 , and the article notes that Marar nearly won a legislative assembly seat in 1991 (margin of 1,000 votes). Here another commentary on the K.G. Marar biography and his role in the 1991 elections, https://www.deshabhimani.com/articles/iuml/792651 . The largest Malayalam daily, Malayalam Manorama has a number of articles dealing with K.G. Marar as well (plenty on his role in 1991 election), but they seem to have a script blocking use of google translate... --Soman (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Via google translate it seems to me that these sources enough for passing WP:GNG.
  1. Source no. 1 (janambhumi daily) may become a good point. But it was written by his partyman. And it is BJP's Malayalam mouthpiece. So this source fails to make any effect.
  2. Source no. 2 about Kerala wing of his party and his performance. Even paying homage by his partyman is not enough for notability.
  3. Source No. 3 Janam TV can be a good point. But, I think this source is not enough for WP:GNG as it is BJP's Kerala Channel. So this source also fails to make any effect.
  4. Deshavimani's mere mention prominent Marar wrote a book is not enough.
  5. Deshavimani's second source is mainly about Kerala BJP, 1991 Niyamasabha (Legislative Assembly) Election Tactics etc. This is not enough.
  6. Last source is typical election time coverage during Lok Sabha election. Even he did not have enough coverage there.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, New Indian Express, [42], "Since 1991 when BJP stalwart KG Marar contested in the constituency and lost by 1,071 votes", [43] "The northern-most constituency in Kerala had always given hope to the saffron party, which consistently fielded its top-rung leaders such as K G Marar", another sources: [44] "the most popular BJP leader KG Marar by a margin of 1,072 votes." --Soman (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He might be popular among the BJP workers but clearly he was not popular to general public,or else he would not have lost the elections throughout his career. Please note that he failsWP:NPOL for the same reason. DBigXrayᗙ 04:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These three souces are not enough for passing WP:GNG
  1. First one is a typical coverage during bypoll (byelection) fever in Manjeswaram. It was mentioned there about the performance of BJP in that seat. There is a small mention Since 1991 when BJP stalwart KG Marar contested in the constituency and lost by 1,071 votes, Manjeshwar continues to remain a mirage for the party, imprisoned in the No. 2 slot. is not enough for our WP:GNG.
  2. Source no. 2 The northern-most constituency in Kerala had always given hope to the saffron party, which consistently fielded its top-rung leaders such as K G Marar, C K Padmanabhan and K Surendran to get a foothold in the legislative assembly. In 1991, Marar lost by just 1,072 votes. just a day after P. B. Abdul Razak's death who was incumbent legislator of Manjeswaram. The article talked about the electoral history of the constituency and the performance of BJP in that constituency.
  3. The last source was Death news of Cherkalam Abdullah, former legislator of Manjeswaram. It was mentioned there "Cherkalam defeated the most popular BJP leader KG Marar by a margin of 1,072 votes." You mentioned earlier that BJP is not considered as a major party in Kerala. And even prominent, famous etc are not enough for passing a politician WP:GNG. A politician is famous, prominient, stalwart etc among his supporters. A local politician can become famous in his area as a tragic hero by lossing a small margin.
  4. After reviewing Malayalam (Marar's native language) wiki article, I think the sources present there are insufficient for passing WP:GNG. Two sources present there are from Janambhumi daily which is BJP's Malayalam mouthpiece. One is BJP Kerala website. Source no. 4 present there is electotial history. The last one is http://www.niyamasabha.org (I don't understand why it was given there.)S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Soman. The fact that something called "KG Marar Smrithi Dinam" (KG Marar Memorial Day) is observed every year [45] gives me the impression that he was a notable figure (within his party or otherwise is beside the point) during his time, and almost certainly received significant coverage in print and Malayalam sources from the pre-internet era. According to NPOL, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. With one source calling him "the once-towering figure of the Jan Sangh", I am somewhat convinced about the existence of sources required to pass GNG. The article needs some work though, but that would be a separate discussion. Dee03 08:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is "not" besides the point, we are looking for overall notable, not just notability among a closed group such as a fan club or members of the a minor state unit of a political party.
    • "KG Marar Memorial Day" is celebrated only by members of the state level branch of the party as a "sponsored" event and not by the general public,
    • Your quote seems to be missing an important word. "the once-towering figure of the Jan Sangh in Kannur" (i.e. figure of a political party in a city and not entire country)
    • Had he been a towering figure, he would have won at least once throughout his life, but no, he never won.
    • repeated insistence of party related source only confirms the lack of notability DBigXrayᗙ 08:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is this "overall notability"? Where is the policy regarding this?
  • Yes and that party is the ruling party in the world's largest democracy and not some local party from a remote island.
  • Once again, where is the policy that states a person is regarded notable only if his notability extends beyond the place he is from?
  • Read the quote I posted from NPOL. He can be notable if he meets GNG.
  • Last I checked, The New Indian Express and Newslaundry are independent from any political party. Dee03 09:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG
    • That party neither won from Kannur nor in Kerala state whose leader the subject is. Anyway this is not a contemporary topic, so this claim is offtopic.
    • yes, but where are the sources for GNG ? Without evidence in the form of sources, I am not sure how you can claim notability here.
    • Indeed they are independent but the Newslaundry is covering the Political strategy of BJP as the main topic and only gives a 1 line mention to Marar, (that is not WP:SIGCOV)
    • TNIE article is covering a "sponsored" party event (his memorial) and only contains the statements of the party office bearers This is a sort of obituary and cannot be used to claim notability. DBigXrayᗙ 09:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never used those two sources for establishing notability. I only suggested that based on how he is known more than two decades after his death, there is a high likelihood of existence of sources in print and local language newspapers from the pre-internet era to satisfy GNG. Dee03 09:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it was mentioned by @Dee03: I have to say here again naming an asteroid, process etc after a person is not enough to pass a person WP:ACADEMIC and here I think a memorial day observation by his partymen is not sufficient for passing him our notability guideline.
    • After google search in English and Malayalam (translating those via google translation) it does not seem to me that he will pass WP:GNG. The last chance is WP:ANYBIO. Via google it seems he will not pass WP:ANYBIO too.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully you are aware that there could be sources outside of Google too, especially for a pre-internet personality. And we are not talking about ACADEMIC here, are we? Ping me only if you have a coherent argument. Dee03 14:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick Google Books search yielded this book by Thomas Blom Hansen and Christophe Jaffrelot which has some detail in its snippet view: A rare exception was K. G. Marar, state party president from 1984-8 and again from 1992 until his death in 1995. A former Malayalam schoolteacher and RSS pracharak from Malabar, he was an able orator known for his cutting repartee. A simple WP:BEFORE from your end is all it takes to save a lot of community time. Dee03 14:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source was mentioned by you was mentioned by Soman in his first comment and it was analyzed by DBigXray why this mention is not enough.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Soman: Still fails our notability guideline. The sources you posted is an article during Niyamsabha election fever is a political analysis. Becoming the tallest/most prominient/famous etc of a party are insufficient for getting wiki article.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have already shared my views above (to delete). I went through all the sources and comments above and my opinion is unchanged. I note that users voting a keep are putting a lot of emphasis on passing mentions or the party dependent sources (press releases, party events etc). This is not how WP:GNG is judged, where the requirement is for " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which is lacking. DBigXrayᗙ 09:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a coverage by a mainstream newspaper on a party event is not a party dependent source. I only find Janambhumi as a dependent source in this conversation. --Soman (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes? I just said that Janambhumi is a dependent source, i.e. linked to the article subject. None of the other sources mentioned in this conversation appears to qualify as dependent. --Soman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mistakenly read dependent as dependable in your line above, apologies. Any coverage that is based on the party press release or statements by the party office bearers is dependent coverage. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources presented here called Marar famous, popular, prominient etc. Some gave mere mentions. Some are about celebrating Marar Memorial Day by Kerala BJP etc. These are not enough for notability. The best two sources are from Janambhumi (it was called BJP's Malayalam mouthpiece by Outlook) and Janam TV (It was called BJP's Kerala Channel by India Today). I think notability is not established here.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:05, 22 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. No consensus to merge as there are no secondary sources to cite in any merge target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regent (comics)[edit]

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

This particular comic book villain lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and all of the sources currently present in the article are plot. All I could find in a before was #9 in a listicle with one paragraph of non-plot commentary, but other than that, it's just brief mentions and user-generated wikis. The fact that it was created by an autopatrolled user in outright violation of a Wikipedia content guideline (whose rights have since then been revoked) doesn't help matters. ミラP 01:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:02, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_February_14&oldid=942152195"