Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 February 6 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 merge to Arc Dream Publishing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Kerberos Club[edit]

The Kerberos Club (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 currently sourced only to a single, questionably RS source. A BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com finds only two references in non-RS ("diegardgamefan.com"). Insufficient WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the RSN, Designers and Dragons is a reliable source, so I hope you are not engaged in trolling, Chetsford. The work is discussed in The Routledge Companion to Cyberpunk Culture, and a casual search reveals multiple RS reviews. Perhaps you jest? Or is this the Hillfolk AfD all over again? Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "per the RSN, Designers and Dragons is a reliable source" Please see WP:SIGCOV. "a casual search reveals multiple RS reviews" Sources must be demonstrated, not simply declared. Chetsford (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chetsford, SIGCOV considerations never affect whether a source is reliable (which was the consideration you raised in your Nom) but only whether they count for the GNG.
    • As far as reviews are concerned, let's start with this one, which is independent and has effective editorial oversight. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. The "flamesrising.com" fanszine is not WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per policy, it is. When professionals are edited (independently) by professionals for publication, the result is a reliable source. Even if the word "fanzine" is on their "About" page. An easily-made rookie mistake. Newimpartial (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I appreciate your passion, but the fan blog "flamesrising.com" is not RS. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Chetsford, now that you have the tools, you should feel some responsibility to reflect WP policy rather than your own ideosynctatic convictions. Per policy,we evaluate sources based on their reputation and their editorial insight, not keywords found on about pages. But thanks for your passion. Newimpartial (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't done a thorough search for potential sources yet to form a recommendation, but I did look at the suggested The Routledge Companion to Cyberpunk Culture, and that is completely inapplicable for establishing notability. Its just a single sentence mention, in a footnote, and not even the primary topic of the sentence. This does not demonstrate sufficient coverage of the topic to establish any kind of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps not by itself, but being used as an example in an academic text is certainly an example of recognition that corroborates the notability established through significant mentions in RS.Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Potential Merge to either Wild Talents (role-playing game), if that survives its own AFD, or Arc Dream Publishing if it does not. Both reviews linked above (in the nomination and in Newimpartial's response) do not appear to be from reliable sources - the latter, for example, is a self-professed fan site. My own searches, while coming up with a few more results, were similarly from non-reliable sources. While I don't know the level of content that "Designers and Dragons" has covering this supplement, a single reliable source is generally not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG as an independent article. If Wild Talents (role-playing game) is not deleted during its own current AFD, then merging the information from this supplement would make sense. If it is, then this could still be potentially Redirected to Arc Dream Publishing, which was its publisher. Rorshacma (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flamesrising is a professional publication that has editorial oversight over professional reviewers like Ken Hite; it is not a "Fan site" in the sense of WP:SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the site itself it is a "horror fanzine." [1] It also claims a majority of its writers are volunteers (AKA citizen journalists). The article cited is pseudononymously or anonymously written by someone or something called "spikexan." It solicits members of the public to write for it for free [2]. It publishes no physical address. Finally, the fanzine has not, itself, been sourced to reputable mainstream outlets. These are not indicators of a professional publication. These are, however, indicators of a fan site. Chetsford (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The site itself reveals that the review was written by Anthony Todd Cash, one of the most respected RPG reviewers around, and edited by Matt McElroy, both of whom have professional publications in the field. It is therefore a RS: you can't be misled by the term "fanzine" (or "blog", as you have in the past) but must look at the actual nature of the publication. Perhaps your allergy to Monica Valentinelli got the better of you. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Anthony Todd Cash" I've never heard of him. "one of the most respected RPG reviewers around" This must be established by RS, not by a Wikipedia editor's declaration. Chetsford (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited in the article is certainly reliable. I can't seem to re-find an on-line version of the book, so no meaningful opinion as to if there is enough coverage to meet WP:N, but yeah, the book in question is a fine RS (per discussions at RSN and, well, it being independent, reliable and in-depth). Hobit (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Arc Dream Publishing (as I'd rather not vote to merge to an article that may be deleted shortly anyway). Frankly, even assuming that the two sources mentioned above are reliable (seemingly the two best available), that still leaves this article short of WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, if one source is even questionable, then it falls far short. Waggie (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Arc Dream Publishing per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Pagamentos[edit]

Stone Pagamentos (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)

Probable spam created by now-blocked WP:UPE. Of the 12 sources cited, 1 is 404, 1 is a two-sentence market cap valuation, 1 is a consulting group report about credit processing generally, 2 failed WP:V, 3 are WP:MILL business transaction stories, and 4 are WP:SELFCITE. These are all either not independent of the company or not significantly about the company. WP:BEFORE discloses similar limited coverage. No logical target for redirect or merge. Fails both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it appears from their talk page that the editor is trying to figure out to to propely declare, so in my opinion, UPE should no tbe taken into account in evaluating this. The refs are not good, but if the company isatually worth US$1.5 billion, it might be notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see only one reliable source, reuters (3 citations). Press releases from investors.stone.co are clearly not usuable. Data from Brasil's central bank is usable to verify some claims, but does nothing to establish that the subject is notable. lavca.org is an advocacy organization and blogs.oglobo.globo.com is well, a blog. I'm finding lots of mentions, mostly in Portugese, many related to their IPO, but I don't see that the requirements of WP:NCORP are met here. There simply isn't any significant coverage of the company; it's routine business news. Vexations (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am astonished why editors are talking about its notability without giving a second for evaluation to check the notability. If the references are not good, it doesn't mean it doesn't pass the notability. There are hundreds of reliable references on the web and the nonreliable references can be removed and reliable ones can be added. It is unfair to say that a company listed on Nasdaq which raised around $1.5 billion in funding and has more than 5000 employees doesn't pass the notability. Just have a look at the coverage by Reuters alone, if one is not sure about the coverage by reliable media. This is just a glimpse, there are so many other reliable media coverages as well. I am going to analyze all the links and update the content. Hope this will resolve the issue.Albelard (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Albelard have you read WP:NCORP? It may addresses some of your concerns.Vexations (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Expertwikiguy:, have you seen WP:LISTED? There is no inherent notability to NASDAQ. As to the "plenty" of references, there is only one WP:RS among them, as stated above. Abelard has done excellent work removing the promotional content but even the improved version is now almost sole-sourced to Reuters and those references are to WP:MILL transactions. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RS is clear and there is no ambiguity that all newly added references are reliable and pass the WP:NPOV. As long as WP:LISTED is concerned, it says; However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. This comes true for the company. Detailed coverage like this would rarely be found on companies.So, I'm again in favor of Keep. Albelard (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Albelard, which newly added sources? sources that have been introduced since revision 938191801 are:
    • https://thevaluefirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/StoneCo-Thesis.pdf Alright,bear with me. Most of the particpants have never been to Weert, the Netherlands where The Value Firm is based, so you could be forgiven for not knowing that it's address, Markt 1, 6001 EJ Weert is the (former) location of a low-budget retail outlet. Perhaps Peter Coenen, the author of the report lives above the store, I know there was an apartment for rent a while ago. If this is a reliable source, then I'm the king of France.
    • https://www.bnamericas.com/en/news/stone-pagamentos-raises-us115bn-from-ipo bnamericas.com is not a traditional news outlet (like a newspaper or a magazine), it is a "networking platform". It has no editorial policy that I can find. The article is oddly similar to the reuters one listed below though. Reuters: "Even before setting the price for its shares, Stone had already lured for the IPO big-pocketed investors, such as Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc and Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba’s payment affiliate Ant Financial." bnamericas wites: "The IPO attracted interest from Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway and Ant Financial, the payment arm of Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba, which both purchased shares in Stone." It doesn't offer anything that reuters doesn't. Including it is just reference-stuffing.
    • https://www.leadersleague.com/en/news/interview-with-augusto-lins-president-stone-pagamentos regarding Leaders League: it is "a media and rating agency for top executives at the international level" that "connect[s] senior business leaders to a dynamic network of business information". It offers three products: Market Intelligence Reports & Top company rankings, Professional events for top executives and Career management & digital communication. That last one is for "companies aiming to actively shape their reputation". That's not what reliable sources offer.
    I have no problem with reuters, except for the dead link.
  • Delete: Soooo many press releases, so little real journalism. Even the "not press releases" listed above are actually press releases, just not titled as such. A tip for those looking to determine whether something is a press release or not, one good indicator is a lack of a proper by-line. It's not a definite indication, but it's certainly indicative. The writing style is also indicative, and the city name at the beginning. Put a few of these things together and you have a 99.99% guaranteed press release. Also, quotes from the CEO (when it's a large company) are also a dead giveaway. Real journalists almost never get lucky enough to interview a CEO of a large company for a hard news story, they're usually lucky to just get someone high up in Public Relations. No, I'm afraid that there's just tons of WP:CHURNALISM and similar here. Waggie (talk) 04:25, 10 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. Sandstein 18:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chakzam[edit]

Chakzam (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)

These are all partial title matches. buidhe 02:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. buidhe 02:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:D Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Creator here. The 1st (Chushul Chakzam) and 3nd (Luding County) items would have the same spelling when romanized using the same scheme (Wylie, THL, Tibetan Pinyin), both literally means "iron bridge" in Tibetan. The reason I created this DAB was because the original article at "Chakzam Bridge" conflated 2 different "iron bridges" in Tibet (1 near Lhasa & 1 near Shigatse). I would suggest deleting the -ka entries. --Voidvector (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: Does this aide navigation for our readers? Per WP:D It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek. I cannot imagine anyone typing in these varied search titles and getting lost. Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, because previous editors have "gotten lost" because they added coordinates for a bridge near Shigatse to an article about a bridge near Lhasa. Though I think that might be resolvable via hat notes. --Voidvector (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia article doesn't list all possible romanization ever used. Example of this spelling from Google Books. --Voidvector (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chushul Chakzam. There are at best two entries. Luding County is a bit weak, but a redirect hatnote could be added to Chushul Chakzam. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hadn't realised that Chushul Chakzam, according to its article, is also known as Chakzam. There's at least one more article, Luding County, alternatively known by the same name, and neither appears to be the primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Voidvector has convincingly demonstrated that at least Luding County and Chushul Chakzam are both also known as Chakzam, and a Google books search returns other notable Chakzams such as Chakzam Tulku and Chakzam Monastery. -Zanhe (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetsford (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 170 pageviews over the last 30 days suggests some-one is using this as a search term, and therefore a WP:CHEAP way to help readers. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Voidvector and Eggishorn make convincing arguments here. Waggie (talk) 04:28, 10 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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Mingus[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and community organizer, whose claims of notability are referenced almost entirely to primary sources rather than reliable or independent ones. As always, people are not automatically notable just because their work self-verifies itself in content self-published by directly affiliated organizations -- the notability test is not the things she does, but the amount of media coverage she does or doesn't receive for doing them. But even the small amount of "media" sourcing shown here is almost entirely from WordPress blogs, not real media -- and the only footnote that's actually from a real, established media outlet is a brief mention of her existence in an article that isn't about her, which isn't substantive enough coverage all by itself to exempt her from having to have any other legitimate sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep She seems notable for being honored by the Obama Administration, even if other coverage is poor. -Jordgette [talk] 17:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the "API women's Champion of Change" a government award? Source? And if so, is it notable? And if so, and she's only known for this award, would that be enough to warrant an article? Best, PK650 (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think that the award may not be major enough to constitute WP:ANYBIO#1. Is it well-known and significant? — MarkH21talk 04:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mia Mingus is a notable disability activist, who is especially well-known in LGBTQ+ spaces and disability justice spaces. There are plenty of mentions/features of her in LGBTQ+ media sources that are independent of her writings and publications. As per WP:AUTHOR points 1 and 2, she is both "widely cited by peers or successors" and "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" for her naming and analysis of "Access Intimacy". Rachoote —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems pretty notable to me based on the sources and activity. Expertwikiguy (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes Notability with the current sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even when discounting Forbes, because that is one of those contributor articles, I see six magazines: outsmartmagazine.com, belatina.com, thestrand.ca, thefeministwire.com, advocate.com, gomag.com. There is sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article. Vexations (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject meets WP:GNG, thought I believe it can be improved. Angus1986 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep recognized notable activist Dartslilly (talk) 15:02, 11 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. kingboyk (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Tour de Hongrie[edit]

2020 Tour de Hongrie (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 future event. Lack of coverage in independent sources. buidhe 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. buidhe 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. buidhe 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The race is a professional event that is part of 2020 UCI Europe Tour. --Racklever (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:15, 5 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) 06:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holland-Mark[edit]

Holland-Mark (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 company does not appear to be notable enough for its own page. Any coverage of the agency seems to either be the type that would originate from a company press release, or brief coverage of a prior closure. It appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Editor10293813 (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Editor10293813 (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Editor10293813 (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. A handful of web search results, and the copy reads like an ad.-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 04:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For same reasons as already provided. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agreed with prior posters. There's just no coverage here that indicates notability, and too much of it smacks of PR. Maybe, now they've reopened, they'll be notable at some point, but not now. Waggie (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comcast Television[edit]

Comcast Television (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 local cable channel, uncited, is it even still running? ViperSnake151  Talk  19:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate more feedback. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn't look like a significant topic. Dorama285 19:29, 07 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV. If it must be kept, I definitely agree that it needs to be moved to something like suggested above. Waggie (talk) 04:35, 10 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 do not find the arguments for keep persuasive, as there are no sources to back up these assertions of notability. DGG's rationale has debunked the usefulness of the sources in the article, so we are left with a failure of WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remitly[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Remitly (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)

Every reference here is either a mere notice, a promotional write up, or an article about the general industry where the firm is only mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for want of WP:SIGCOV. The first AfD was closed in error, IMHO. WP:TOOSOON indicates deletion, not keeping. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now this is a company expanding rapidly and handling 121 billion in transactions. I think we have enough for WP:BARE and more will follow. WP:NORUSH. Wm335td (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate more comments! Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it seems plenty notable to me, if only based on Bezos' and Schmidt's involvements.-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 04:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bearian. "Rapidly expanding" (reliable source for that?) isn't a reason to keep and regarding the involvement of Bezos and Schmidt, notability is not inherited. If it becomes notable in the future, we could certainly revisit. Waggie (talk) 04:38, 10 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) 06:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dow-Key Microwave[edit]

Dow-Key Microwave (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)

Per WP:GNG Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero references, doesn't seem to pass WP:N.-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 04:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They clearly are not notable on their own. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 8 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) 06:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional books[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional books (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)

Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional books from periodicals Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional books from non-print media. Really struggling to see why anyone thought such an indiscriminate collection of passing mentions like those in this image in the list have any significance whatsoever. No indication that any of these have bearing on the books' plots or relationship to each other. Reywas92Talk 20:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Also nominating[reply]

List of fictional books in the works of Stephen King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fictional works in Gargantua and Pantagruel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have not read these, so exclude them if you want, but if any of these mentioned have any significance they should be in the book's own plot summary.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 20:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 20:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider purging the first list of all non-notable fictional books (Category:Fictional books) and deleting the other two per WP:NOT. Most of this is basically fancruft with no LISTN/encyclopedic value. Keep arguments in the last deletion discussion (2006) boiled down to ILIKEIT. I would not object to deleting all three. buidhe 21:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three. The two specific lists are definite deletetions, per WP:NOT and failure of WP:LISTN. The broader list should also be deleted since, while the overall concept of Fictional books may be notable, this huge, almost entirely unsourced mass of cruft is not, and completely fails WP:LISTN. The already existing article on the concept of Fictional books can, and already does, cover notable examples. Rorshacma (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Total WP:INDISCRIMINATE cruft that is mostly WP:OR. Fails WP:LISTN.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- This is quite blatant listcruft. Reyk YO! 05:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all This is an indiscriminate list. Lists are not a way to do an end run around notability guidelines. Many of these works never exist as more than name dropped titles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the reasons already stated above me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:LISTN Dartslilly (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional books from periodicals[edit]

List of fictional books from periodicals (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)

Zero in-universe significance, zero references. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 5 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. Might meet NFOOTy but there seems to be consensus that after a search there is little to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Tosch[edit]

Pierre Tosch (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 appears to be a non-notable footballer. I ran across this article when I was looking for orphan articles to rescue. The only actual appearance I was able to verify was a single appearance in 2008-09 for IJsselmeervogels (an amateur club). I did find a Dutch-language article that indicates that he was anticipated to join Stormvogels Telstar in the 2005-06 season, but I have yet to locate any source that shows that he actually made an appearance for them (the website the article refers to, www.stormvogelstelstar.nl, was giving me some strange errors and referring me back to the Wikipedia page, and FBRef.com for Eerste Divisie only goes back to 2007-08). I located this source that showed he was a member of AFC Ajax at some unknown point for some unknown period of time, but evidently did not appear in any matches for them. I'm not finding any reliable evidence that they pass NFOOTY. More importantly they also appear to fail GNG, as I cannot locate any non-routine coverage for this player. In fact I can find almost no coverage beyond what I've already linked to. CThomas3 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This confirms he played three matches for Telstar (it doesn't specify, but apparently 2 were league matches and 1 was a cup match). I didn't see any significant coverage in reliable sources, but I'd like to look a bit more. Jogurney (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also found [7]. He was a Jong Ajax player who was loaned to Telstar but only played a couple matches and didn't quite make the grade. SportingFlyer T·C 06:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meets NFOOTBALL with sourcing out there. GiantSnowman 08:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g., This is a brief interview in a local paper from his time at an amateur side, and this is a very superficial note in De Stentor about his time at another amateur club, plus this note about his selection to a beach football training camp). I think this is an example of a clear failure of the GNG, so the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL doesn't hold. Jogurney (talk) 15:06, 10 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) 06:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers on Napkins[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I'm sure this was created in good faith by an editor eager to give exposure to local bands from Phoenix, but there doesn't seem to be enough coverage of this band even within Phoenix, never mind outside the city. The band's record label is 100% owned by one of the band members, so all their records are effectively self-released – according to the article all their records are out of print, which isn't a good sign for notability if your own band on your own label isn't pressing up any more copies. The effusive Punknews.com biography cited in the references is almost certainly provided by the band themselves, and still doesn't give any indication of anything more than local fame. There are two reviews of their albums in the Phoenix New Times, one included in the citations [8] which gives no biographical detail at all, and the other isn't included, possibly because it's less than flattering [9]. The non-notable movie that includes two of their songs was made by first-year film students at Arizona State University. I can't find any other sources about this band, reliable or otherwise. Richard3120 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:33, 5 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Plane[edit]

Outer Plane (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 search found nothing in the way of WP:SIGCOV in any sort of secondary, reliable source. Lore content that is more fit for a rulebook or a fan Wiki, that lacks any relevance for non-fans and fails WP:GNG entirely. The article is completely sourced to game-related books and handbooks, many created by Gary Gygax or Wizards of the Coast. I'd say it should be transwikied, but it already exists in far greater detail at the Forgotten Realms Wiki. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons Planescape. Haven't had a chance to check for any significant independent coverage in reliable sources (I'm guessing there isn't any) but on the surface at least it appears it could be a searchable term for the main D&D base, so a redirect seems appropriate. — Hunter Kahn 18:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing about "planes" is mentioned in the main Dungeons & Dragons article, so it wouldn't make sense as a redirect there. There is Plane (Dungeons & Dragons), but right now that article does not demonstrate any standalone notability either and is entirely WP:PLOT.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it's still appropriate for a redirect because it's a term someone might use if searching for Dungeons & Dragons-related content, so a link to the main page is still useful even if the Outer Plane is not discussed on the article. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't believe there's a specific policy that says it must be discussed in some level of detail for a redirect to be made? Though, to your point, perhaps the D&D page should have information about this topic, so maybe a Merge is more appropriate, or I suppose this could be an argument for keeping the page... — Hunter Kahn 22:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to Planescape - The fictional concept is really only covered in-depth in primary sources. The only non-primary sources are extremely brief or tangential mentions of them. And, the majority of the content in the article is unsourced, in-universe WP:PLOT information. I agree with the nom that the main Dungeons and Dragons article would be inappropriate to redirect/merge to. However, the article on Planescape, the setting that dealt specifically on the planes of the D&D multiverse, does talk about the Outer Planes, so if anywhere, that would be the most logical place to serve as the redirect target. Rorshacma (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge & Redirect to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons) - I still think 99 percent of this article should go - most of it is unsourced plot information that even the sources brought forth in this AFD do not cover. However, some of the sources below, particularly the "Dread Trident" book Rendall found, show that there are some reliable sources regarding some of the non-plot elements of the concept of the Planes in D&D in general. Not enough that a independent article on the Outer Planes is necessary, but enough that, if all of the cruft is excised, could be discussed in the main article on Planes. Rorshacma (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the above, it seems a redirect to Planescape is probably more appropriate, so I've adjusted my vote accordingly. — Hunter Kahn 22:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because secondary sources exist, even if few of them are used for the article so far. This is a merge target for a number of articles not deemed notable on their own, so both secondary sources dealing with the concept of "Outer Planes" in total as well as individual planes should be taken into account:
Four secondary source are already used for short sections of the article.
This source has a number of things to say on the topic: Bornet, Philippe (2011). Religions in play: games, rituals, and virtual worlds. Theologischer Verlag Zürich. pp. 288–291. ISBN 978-3-290-22010-5. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
Then there are many sources with shorter treatments: Schick, Lawrence (1991). Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games. Prometheus Books. p. 106. ISBN 0-87975-653-5., wired, Cindy Yans, The Ontological Geek, Tor.com, Pyramid #8, Eisenbeis, Keith H. (March 1995). "Capsule Reviews". White Wolf Inphobia (53). White Wolf: 78–82., Webb, Trenton (March 1996). "Games Reviews". Arcane (4). Future Publishing: 73..
Also, a low number of Google hits is often used as an argument for deletion of an article. Here on the contrary "Outer plane dungeons and dragons" leads to 1,100,000 hits. I expect a few more among these will be secondary sources. And that's before searching for the individual fictional planes. Daranios (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources merely existing is not grounds for an article. It has a total lack of WP:SIGCOV. All of these minor sources can be incorporated into Planescape - which, wouldn't you know it, is actually what they are referring to, rather than the Outer Planes specifically.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have one source which does significant coverage, and many other sources covering individual aspects, which together, in my view, represent signficant coverage. WP:SIGCOV does not require siginficant coverage in one specific source, and the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". So how do we improve Wikipedia by removing this article?
That said, I stand by my opinion to keep this article, but if the independent judgement would be against this I obiously prefer merge and redirect, and Planescape would be a reasonable target. Daranios (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:SIGCOV does say that the subject in question doesn't need to be the main topic of the source, it also says it needs to be "more than a trivial mention", which are pretty much what is the case in those sources. Not to mention that a number of them are not from reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wired.com article and the "Dangerous Games?" only touch on the subject, ok. Schick is very short, but gives a definition and some planes. All the others, as far as I could see, have some information of which/what/how these planes are, or development history, or reception of the concept (or individual planes), or some combination, so I don't think that's trivial. Daranios (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. The first sentence of this delete nomination is not correct. With not much effort, I found these secondary sources that mention or cover Dungeons and Dragons Outer Planes:
* Dread Trident: Tabletop Role-Playing Games and the Modern Fantastic (covers the Outer Planes and the history of its conception quite extensively, and even supplied a needed citation in the Planes article)
* Game Magic: A Designer's Guide to Magic Systems in Theory and Practice
* Celtic Cosmology: Perspectives from Ireland and Scotland
* Dangerous Games: What the Moral Panic over Role-Playing Games Says about Play, Religion, and Imagined Worlds
* Jason Salavon: Brainstem Still Life (artist's work interpreted as a reaction explicitly to dnd cosmology)
* 30 Years of Adventure: A Celebration of Dungeons & Dragons
Arguments for deletion citing WP:SIGCOV are refuted by the above list of sources.
2. WP:SIGCOV does not strictly apply to spin-off (and -out) articles such as this one in any case. Splitting out an article for length is allowed according to policy, particularly when the split is into a list as is the case here, irrespective of notability. q.v. WP:SPINOFF and WP:SPINOUT.
3. Merging to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons) is the 2nd best option, but after merging, the original article will bump up against WP:Article size, necessitating a revisit to this solution again.
4. Redirecting to Planescape as suggested above is not ideal as that is a specific "campaign setting", a kind of fictional chapter, within this game, while Planes and Outer Planes and such are canonical cosmology that apply to all "campaign settings" by default, not just Planescape. qv. Dread Trident, above.
Rendall (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The choosing of Planescape as the target was for two reasons, mainly. One, that article already has a section discussing the cosmology of the D&D multiverse as a whole, including the Outer Planes. And two, it is an article that actually demonstrates notability through reliable, secondary sources, and would be very doubtfully ever be nominated or deleted by an AFD. The Plane (Dungeons & Dragons), on the other hand, arguably does not. Rorshacma (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Chapter 3 of Dread Trident: Tabletop Role-Playing Games and the Modern Fantastic entitled "Dungeons and Dragons Multiverse" pretty much alone crushes any argument against the Planes or Outer Planes that cites a lack of suitable secondary sources, in my opinion, because it covers its history thoroughly from an academic perspective. If you want to read it yourself, search for cosmology dungeons and dragons in Google book search and maybe the Google sprites will let you see it. I can't link to it directly though, because then definitely they won't. Rendall (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That book is a pretty good find. I don't think it can be used to support this as an independent article (the discussion on the outer planes, specifically, is pretty light), but I think I can get behind a selective merge to the overall Plane article now. Rorshacma (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: ZXCVBNM's statement "Sources merely existing is not grounds for an article" is explicitly contradicted by policy. WP:NEXIST says: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Daranios' citing of Religions in Play: Games, Rituals, and Virtual Worlds and Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games are reliable secondary sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Keep in light of the sources identified above. — Hunter Kahn 13:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability for this articles is not inherited from those sources, which only indicate notability for Planescape in general.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the sources suggested by me, some have Planescape/one Planescape product as their topic, some talk about Planescape, some don't mention Planescape at all. None of them were suggested to demonstrate the notability of Planescape and then use that as a justification to have an article about the Outer Planes as a topic within Planescape. All of these sources, no matter their main topic, say something either about the Outer Planes as a group, or individual Outer Planes. Therefore WP:NOTINHERITED should not be an issue here. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CHEN-K[edit]

CHEN-K (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)

spam article about a non-notable musician/creative individual. no real sources, no coverage elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the mistake before delete so i will make changes according to that plus this is noteable musician with over 300K following on youtube as an artist as well as featured in alot of websites as links add in refrences tab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.12.199.22 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Khan Durrani[edit]

Sunny Khan Durrani (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)

probably WP:TOOSOON but no evidence Durrani is notable yet. Praxidicae (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Durrani is noteable in my view he have all relateable links there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.173.164 (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

now please check i added all links there thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammadmuneeb2.0 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:GNG Dede2008 (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - somewhat piling on (as I believe there are 2 Keep votes), apologies, on notability (BASIC/MUSICBIO) grounds. Creator and another editor keep reverting promotional content back in which probably doesn't aid the process. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Muhammadmuneeb2.0: - do not delete the AfD notice, it's specifically prohibited and won't stop it taking place. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure about notability, but the current article is written in a promotional style like "pushing freestyle rapping and tracks to a further level" and "He always try something new and fresh". It might be possible to write a notable article. Based on sources from a Google search he does seems probably notable.Dartslilly (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dartslilly: - I keep removing that content and one of two editors keeps reverting it back in - it could probably use either an AIV consideration or an altered RFPP look (I think I must have been unclear in my request, as we just got AC which none of the involved editors are) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:52, 12 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. No valid deletion rationale, but also not much of a case for "keep" here. Sandstein 19:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Segun Adebutu[edit]

Segun Adebutu (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)

Seems to have been created and edited by paid editors MesutOzula (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep nominator's rationale is not a valid policy based reason for deletion. Talkpage discussion has addressed whether it is eligible for BLPDELETE, and I think that TransporterMan has shown it is not. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If an editor has been blocked because {{COI}}, is ot not safe to subject their edited pages to scrutiny? Anyways, I am a newbie, I guess I have to watch and learn. MesutOzula (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MesutOzula You don't get to vote in your own nomination. Praxidicae (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, there are two parties editing this page, first group is of the people who want to edit the page and make it positive, other ones are who wants to add controversy and make sure that it stays. All edits made by User:Opelogbon is only on this page which cannot be of a new editor, he seems to talk like a super Wiki expert, who knows each and everything about the Wikipedia, a possible sockfarm. Apart from it Segun Adebutu deserves a place. 04:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashanksinghvi334 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG per Bri this seems to have some history on the talk page as well Dartslilly (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pressian[edit]

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

Company/website that seems to fail GNG/WP:NCOMPANY/WP:MEDIA. Contested prod, undeleted, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Results on Naver seem to revolve solely around a controversy involving the site reporting sexual misconduct by politician Chung Bong-ju: [10], and I'm seeing the same thing on Google, with a few exceptions that consist only of name mentions, such as [11], [12], and [13]. GWU's research guide lists it, but only says it's an alternative SK news source. It seems to be treated as an established news outlet by other media sources, but without anything meeting WP:CORPDEPTH, there isn't much to base an article on. I'd suggest a merge to Media of South Korea#Internet journalism, but further expansion of that section would be necessary for inclusion of Pressian to make sense, and there isn't currently any real content to merge anyway. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:55, 5 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 Pitzer College#Campus. (More) content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 19:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Rodman Arboretum[edit]

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

Article created in 2005 that fails WP:GNG; only one source (a trivial mention in the L.A. Times), and only 3 Google News results, all very trivial mentions. I've merged everything worth keeping into Pitzer College (on whose campus the arboretum is located). Sdkb (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sdkb (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting the 2018 merge discussion which one against and no support. My key concern is that of Recentism; the formation of the arboretum in the 1980s seems to have been contentious, and newspaper (and other) sources from the time are likely to have significantly more coverage. Just hard to find, I think. Klbrain (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain: Are you characterizing ElKevbo's comment as the one against? That wasn't at all what they expressed, and no one else commented on the merge proposal but you (as closer). Sdkb (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; to quote ElKevbo: The arboretum article does seem to be missing some basic information (e.g., history) so it may be a better idea to expand that article so it's clear that it stands on its own. I was closing as an (at that stage) uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your selective quoting has the effect of mischaracterizing and is concerning. Here is the full quote (with emphasis added): I have no strong opinion on this proposal - sorry! I have no particular expertise with arboretums (not even enough to know if that's the correct plural) or articles about them. This is already a rather long article so I don't think that the arboretum article could be merged into this article without trimming it down considerably so the question may hinge on whether that could be done while still presenting all of the necessary information about the arboretum. The arboretum article does seem to be missing some basic information (e.g., history) so it may be a better idea to expand that article so it's clear that it stands on its own. Sdkb (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pitzer College. I found nothing on newspaperarchive.com and only several passing mentions from the 2000's on newspapers.com. Nothing to indicate notability now or in the past. According to this it was established by an academic on Pitzer's property so doesn't have an independent history.----Pontificalibus 14:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's at least one good LA Times articles on the place: [14], though there was a second but it was just a passing mention. Honestly expected there to be more. A merge would be a good result here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brimley[edit]

Sarah Brimley (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 of notability Rathfelder (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reason listed, fails WP:N.-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 04:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note that WP has an earnest article about Brooklyn Beckham. I suppose this illustrates the contrast between notability (as generally understood) and Wikipedia-style notability. -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: By randomness I came across this AfD, but I created Brooklyn Beckham when I was very new to using Wikipedia regularly, my original draft was rejected and (separately) that page had been blocked from creation for years before I got here, but after trial and tribulation the article eventually it got there because he gained his own notability. As for this Sarah Brimley, the notability factor is not even near the bare minimum for a Wikpiedia article, so it's a speedy delete as A7. ⌚️ (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
⌚️, I don't question the notability (in the Wikipedia sense) of Brooklyn Beckham. Now let's look at A7: "No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) [...] This [...] is a lower standard than notability." The (extraordinarily feeble) article on Brimley cites two sources. One of them is "Interview - Sarah Brimley, theprintspace". The website that hosts this -- not one of major importance, but all the same not negligible -- chose to interview her at some length, and to illustrate the interview with five photographs by her. I don't claim that this is a sufficient indication of notability, but it is an indication of importance. A7 doesn't apply. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But at the same time, the article (if you could even call it that) is 2 sentences. Neither of which display any indication of importance or accomplishment whatsoever, let alone with any reliable sources on her to back it up. So, how is it not. One sentence of opinion in an article about Brooklyn Beckham's career because she happened to be there that day? The bar can't be at this nadir. ⌚️ (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searching found a few fashion magazine pieces shot by her, and an article about the Beckham controversy quoting her, but nothing reliably published with any depth of coverage about her. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. This could also be an A7 speedy deletion, as our article makes no claim of significance for her. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - after a BEFORE search, I did not find anything to substantiate notability as per GNG or NARTIST, just a lot of social media and blogs. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankheg[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ankheg (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 fails WP:GNG, lacking significant non-primary sources. It seems the previous AfD keeps argued that appearing in other games counts, but that's in no way significant considering the many usages of monsters inspired by D&D over the decades. TTN (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know consensus can change but the arguments regarding the non-primary sources that resulted in two past Keep decisions appear to still apply, so I'm not sure why the third time around should be any different. — Hunter Kahn 14:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were mostly staunch inclusionists and involved D&D editors. As many like minded people advocating for deletion can result in an article that actually has potential being removed, many like minded people can argue for a horrible keep stance. There is no real validity whatsoever in their argument. TTN (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aslo, the previous AfD can hardly even be called a "consensus", as user 129.33.19.254 seems to have canvassed users who !voted "keep" in previous Dungeons & Dragons-related deletion discussions into that discussion, compromising the consensus decision-making process. Not a very active user (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources used in the prior AFD as claims of independent sources are just two game products published under the d20 System and the open gaming license, which allowed other publishers a license to use WotC owned concepts. They weren't an actual discussion about the creatures, or anything that would indicate real world notability, they were just in-universe usage of the creature in games. The only non-primary source I'm finding that isn't just a game book is the usual The Monsters Know What They're Doing which, as usual, is just a guide describing the creature as it exists in the game. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article currently cites two non-primary sources. The first one, "An interview with fantasy artist Erol Otus" is merely a trivial mention of ankhegs, as it mentions ankhegs only once, and the only thing it tells us about them is that they were designed by Erol Otus. It doesn't address the ankhegs directly and in detail, making it insufficient to establish the topic's notability. The other source, a Computer Gaming World article, is not enough to establish notability alone, as multiple sources are generally needed to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am starting to think we should do away with all articles specifically on D&D things. We can have a general article on the monsters without being either an exhaustive list or giving too much detail, and if the thing being in D&D is notable, we can include material on that on a more general article on the topic, but we should not have articles just on a monster in D&D.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Formula One World Championship[edit]

2022 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. There is no 2022 specific information available. This article is basicly a list of contracts with some expiring after 2022 and some before there is no additional content (this is insufficient for an article per Wikipedia:NSEASONS). Article therefore fails WP:SIGCOV.
SSSB (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's clearly to soon for this. This doesn't have independent notability yet.Tvx1 15:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom; too early to start article. Eagleash (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft - It’s clear there isn’t enough 2022-specific information to warrant an article, and notability is questionable, but I think it warrants a draft.
    5225C (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty clear WP:CRYSTAL/TOOSOON (also a minor spellcheck on SSSB, no other refactoring otherwise). Nate • (chatter) 16:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON Lightburst (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – Per User:5225C. Sr88, talk. 00:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's too soon even for a draft, 2022 is a long way off Dartslilly (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. The 2021 article existed last year when it was two years in advance, and 2022 is now only two years away. I understand and agree there is not enough content for an article, but I believe a draft would be useful in is situation, particularly to reduce the workload required to track team/driver/track contracts and regulation changes.
      5225C (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason 2021 started so early was because there was a lot of discussion in the media. Until discussion starts in the media for 2022 having a draft serves no purpose. Any contracts can be easily found simply by looking at the 2021 article and driver articles. We can simply carry the sources over when there is enough info to warrant a draft.
        SSSB (talk) 10:44, 12 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 List of Ocean's characters. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Ocean (character)[edit]

Danny Ocean (character) (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 GNG/NFICTION. No sources, no reception seciton, no analysis, pure WP:PLOT/appearances in media. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:23, 5 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 10:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Ocean's characters - Surprisingly for such a popular, long running series, I'm not finding much that talks in-depth about the titular character himself. He is mentioned a lot in article and books that discuss the plots of the films, or in articles that talk about his crews in each movie as a whole, but I'm having trouble finding anything that would allow an article on him individually that would be more than just WP:PLOT. A redirect to the character list would be useful to keep, or to the main Ocean's (film series) article. Though, in both cases, they seem to be covering only the remake trilogy, and not the original Sinatra version. Rorshacma (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Ocean's characters, per Rorshacma. — Hunter Kahn 15:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Just because a character appears in multiple films does not make them notable enough to have a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 7 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. The "keep" opinions are entertaining but unhelpful. Sandstein 19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soborno Isaac Bari[edit]

Soborno Isaac Bari (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)

Not a prodigy by the normal definition of doing as well as an adult expert'

I notice from the caption that an educator named him the "Einstein of our time" for his proficiency in the math, physics, and chemistry.. ." Einstein did not show signs of his later genius at an early age, so it's a rather strange comparison. I cannot read most of the references, but they seem PR/human interest, not genuine news stories, for there is no genuine news.

When I see articles like this, my thoughts turn to parental exploitation of their children. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soborno just won "Global Child Prodigy Award" in Chemistry. He went to India last month to receive this prize from Nobel Prize Winner Kailash Satyarthi.GyllenhalMike (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That someone received a prize from a notable person does not make them notable DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soborno Isaac received this title from Former City College of New York President Lisa Coico. Check this, https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/a-wunderkinds-battle-to-trounce-terrorism-by-unleashing-a-love-for-science/article30498316.ece ([User:GyllenhalMike|GyllenhalMike]] )
I omitted the name deliberately, out of politeness to her. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All this article need is a better tone. The content could be improved.GyllenhalMike (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: further reading: this closed AfD. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the subject doesnt pass general notability criteria. However, churnalism, paid articles, press releases, and routine coverage give an illusion of significant coverage. User generated websites are not reliable sources, but an answer to this question on quora sums it nicely: he recites physics without understanding it. This article (used in the wikipedia article) is a reprint of "Arabian Post", as can be seen at the bottom. Most of the sources are like this. I could not find any reliable source stating he has been to "Voice of America". There is a huge difference in knowledge, and intelligence, this kid has knowledge, not intelligence. None of the sources say he has been scientifically proven to be a prodigy. All the sources say someone or other called him a prodigy. Everything I saw was a puff piece praising the subject. Not genuine news or article covering him. Having meetings with head of states, or educationalists/academics/scholars, does not conform notability. These people always meet bright kids. I spent a lot of time searching about the subject (a little every day, for 4-5 days). Now I believe this is a work of strategical PR agency. In any case: there are no genuine articles/news with significant coverage of the subject. Whatever out there is routine coverage, press releases, and churnalism. Hence subject fails general notability criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per DGG and UNK. I'd prefer to wait on a BLP about someone like this. Wait to see what happens rather than relying on all these press releases that purport to be news but really aren't. If he's a smart kid, he will accomplish some stuff and be notable, but at the moment we aren't doing the BLP criteria justice as it is a bit WP:TOO SOON. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this article because I fell in love with the ideologies he espoused in his book, The Love, which is a bestselling book in Bangladesh right now. Hundreds of people line up everyday to buy this 7 year old child’s book at the Ekushey Book Fair: https://www.rokomari.com/book/193546/the-love.

In fact, The Love has spread all over the world to the point that SP Pune University, one of the best universities in India, invited him to give a speech in front of hundreds of students and faculty on Jan 6, 2020. You think the Vice Chancellor of the best university in India would make such a huge decision by mistake? Are you calling The Hindu a PR stunt for reporting that historic event? https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/a-wunderkinds-battle-to-trounce-terrorism-by-unleashing-a-love-for-science/article30498316.ece

The Hindustan Times is very near and dear to every Indian’s heart. Are you calling it a PR paper, just because it reported about Soborno Isaac?: https://www.hindustantimes.com/pune-news/7-year-old-child-author-to-grace-pune-varsity-stage-for-lecture-on-the-love/story-7gtJWKU3hwgvQO1rCMkylK.html

Marathi TV also aired this report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9w7G4193DI

Pune Mirror also aired the report: https://www.sakaltimes.com/pune/child-prodigy-bats-world-without-terrorism-45100?fbclid=IwAR3oJDLu1ydxtswD4FT8RJhiBzijl7tM5UHjvrn59Rd5L9urwSD-XfREFBY

Do you think Nobel laureate Kailash Satyarthi Gee recognized Soborno with the Global Child Prodigy Award on January 3rd in New Delhi by mistake? Why don’t you call him and ask him what criteria he used to select Soborno? Are you calling Sakal Times a PR stunt for reporting the event? https://www.sakaltimes.com/pune/child-prodigy-bats-world-without-terrorism-45100?fbclid=IwAR3oJDLu1ydxtswD4FT8RJhiBzijl7tM5UHjvrn59Rd5L9urwSD-XfREFBY

Do you think Ruia College of Mumbai University invited Soborno as a visiting professor by mistake? https://www.ruiacollege.edu/ (The College is using Isaac’s picture to inspire their own students; click through the slideshow to find Isaac’s image)

Are you calling the Bangladesh Protidin, #1 newspaper in Bangladesh with 1/2 million circulation everyday, a PR stunt? ; https://www.bd-pratidin.com/saturday-morning/2020/02/08/499691

But worst of all, are you belittling the country of 1 billion people? You think a paper like the Hindu, with a circulation of 1.5 million and the Hindustan Times, with a circulation of 1 million, would publish paid articles? Did Obama get paid to recognize Soborno when he was 4? Why don’t you call President Obama and ask him what criteria he used to select Soborno. What about the president of Harvard University? People believe Harvard is a good university. You are saying the president of Harvard got paid to do that?

The President of CCNY, Lisa Coico, gave Isaac a series of math, physics, and chemistry problems for about two hours when Isaac was only 4 years old. Did she get paid? Was she also a PR stunt? Was she paid to call him “Einstein of our time”? You said you don’t find any links to Isaac’s Voice of America Interview. Is it his fault you don’t find it? Here is the link: https://www.voabangla.com/a/soborno-isaac-bari-chemistry-genius/2641165.html.

All of the newspapers I mentioned above have a greater circulation than the New York Times. Be careful when you call them PR stunts or fake. I could list hundreds of more sources, and I will if you insist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessir123981 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, the NYT has been known to publish PR also. Essentially no news source is, or ever has been, free of it. . DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yessir123981: yes. Hindustan Times, and The Hindu as well publish paid news, and while we are at it, Times of India as well. And like DGG said above, no news source has been free of PR. Like I said in my original comment, these people (head of the state, and from academics) meet other people all the time. Meeting them doesnt conform notability. I have worked indirectly with Pune university in the past. They usually invite people every now n then for lectures. Most of the sources you provided, and his lecture in the Pune university was to promote the book. Again, this too, doesnt establish/comform notability. And coverage of that event falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage. Regarding "Global Child Prodigy Awards", its a clearly promotional event, as explained in the deletion discussion. How they got involved a poor noble laureate is disheartening. The laureate must have been working in good faith, and got phished. Anyone can nominate any candidate who is under 15yo, and the awarding group hasnt specified their critria for assesing a kid as prodigy. They also havent disclosed their revenue source yet. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:54, 11 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. – sgeureka t•c 13:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional books from non-print media[edit]

List of fictional books from non-print media (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)

Sometimes The Simpsons makes a visual gag by showing Lisa or another character reading a book with a funny name. It's onscreen for about three seconds and has no bearing on the episode's plot. This show alone is 17% of this page's swath of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, non-notable, context-free, unimportant passing mentions that fails WP:SALAT. Reywas92Talk 09:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 09:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 5 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. – sgeureka t•c 13:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional musicals[edit]

List of fictional musicals (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:SALAT. No self-respecting source has ever broached such a list, as far as I can determine. Even WatchMojo hasn't touched it. See also the related Afd for List of fictional plays. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of these are utterly non-notable or WP:OR. Springtime for Hitler is the only one that strikes me as notable, and that has its own article, ergo this list is unnecessary.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A lot of unsourced trivia that fails WP:LISTN. As mentioned by ZXCVBNM, Springtime for Hitler is the only independently notable example - the other two blue linked entries started out fictional, but then became real-life musicals. And even then, a list article that only has three, at most, blue linked entries does not serve a useful purpose as a navigational tool. Rorshacma (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Borders on the indiscriminate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletw per above reasons. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- listcruft. As a rough rule, we should not have "List of fictional XYZ" if the topic "XYZ in fiction" would not be an encyclopedia article. Reyk YO! 21:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party Bangladesh[edit]

Liberal Party Bangladesh (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 party got an ignorable amount of votes in the world's 8th most populous country's general election. The party is not a registered party. The article also fails WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The party never won any seat in local or national elections. No indication why it deserves an article, fails WP:GNG--DBigXrayᗙ 18:51, 12 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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Ricci[edit]

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

This article shouldn't be on Wikipedia due to the fact that this person is not the concern of people on the internet. This is not a note worth topic and should frankly be removed. From a family member of Lawrence. Manoftheyear24 (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No WP:DELREASON is given. Appears notable as an alleged prominent member of the Genovese Crime Family based on sources in the article plus those found in my WP:BEFORE (e.g., 1 2 3 4). Cannot merge to Genovese Crime Family as that article is already too long. Appears also to be an unusual/prominent murder case as it was the last murder on the NYC waterfront and remains unsolved. I think a rename to "The murder of Lawrence Ricci" might be justified purely on WP:ONEEVENT grounds, as his murder appears to be the thing that makes him most notable. FOARP (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources in the article combined with those found by FOARP appear to indicate a GNG pass. Hog Farm (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good sourcing. Notable also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:43, 11 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. Per consensus reached and work done by SportingFlyer. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulphur Springs, Oregon[edit]

Sulphur Springs, Oregon (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)

For once the GNIS properly marks this as a locale. GMaps shows very sparse residences, not evidence of a notable community: topo maps mark a Sulphur Springs in a smaller font than the populated place of North Fork. Newspapers.com results are for one of the same name near Corvallis. Reywas92Talk 06:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 06:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 06:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At least one newspaper article verifies it: [15] Will keep looking. SportingFlyer T·C 06:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] with [22] and this showing it was populated and had a school in 1932 and had a hotel in [23] 1921 (though this and this says you could stay at a ranch). This obit says someone was born there in 1879. This says 25 new families moved into the area in 1931. I seem to have just scratched the surface on this as well. The trick will be to write a valid article out of all of these. Mentions really drop off after World War 2. SportingFlyer T·C 06:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I note that there appears to be more than one "Sulphur Springs" in Oregon (e.g.[24]), so for those of us without newspapers.com access could you perhaps clip an article(s) that verifies this settlement's existence at that location, as clips are publicly accessible?----Pontificalibus 09:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pontificalibus: There only appears to be one settlement as the other Sulphur Springs is a health spa/arboretum/natural feature near Corvallis, while these are all about the settlement on the Smith River. Never clipped before, will try to remember to do it soon, just checking in right now. Also, I have newspapers.com access thru my Wikipedia library card, so it's something you should look into for yourself. SportingFlyer T·C 09:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article definitely needs to say Mrs. Sarah Dailey visited her daughter the week of April 2, 1932. I'll be sure to filter by date in future searches. Reywas92Talk 20:08, 6 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. – sgeureka t•c 13:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional plays[edit]

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

Poorly sourced list, filled with unnotable examples. Most of the works listed on the page make only a brief appearance in the work where they appear, and have very little importance to the plot. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Largely passing mentions of names with zero individual notability and no relationship to each other. Reywas92Talk 06:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and also delete List of fictional musicals too, which I have nominated. Undecided about List of fictional books. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced cruft and total WP:OR. I'm actually curious whether there are any fictional plays that would be sufficiently notable to merit a list, but this isn't it and it shouldn't be kept in this state.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basically if a play is fully nested, you could perform it and ignore the outer parts, so if something is developed enough to be notable it does not even belong on this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 7 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.

Shadow Inc.[edit]

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 SNOW KEEP Fuzheado | Talk 13:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Shadow Inc. (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 company. They're in the news today, so a WP:RECENTISM burst led to the creation of the page. Not likely to pass the WP:10YT. PROD was declined by the article's creator. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, I started the article, and just re-added details about the company and details about the campaigns and localities it has worked with. Victor Grigas (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, this is a very notable company at the present time, due to its role in the Iowa caucus debacle and the growing level of attention it is now getting. I would recommend revisiting the subject in six to eight months, at which point we can see whether it is a flash in the pan subject or something with staying power. Capt. Milokan (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Capt. Milokan, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. It's either notable now or it isn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The listed references demonstrate that not only is this a notable company, but they're all over the news. Notability isn't temporary, but I can definitely see long-term interest in the discussion of election security. -- Tavix (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I think it would be a better fit to redirect to this section here: 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#Delay in final results.David O. Johnson (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a company that is widely seen as responsible for botching one of the most visible electoral events in USA, which in turn is part of arguably the most followed election on the planet, with major ramifications on said election going forward, and has sources all over the place. If that's not notable enough, I'm not sure what is honestly.WRain (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They played a huge role in the Iowa caucus issues which may impact the primaries as whole, so they clearly meet the guidelines for notability. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 05:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Today's debacle, apparently caused by this company, is the co-lead story. The debacle will get revisited if, when or if replaced, as this same company processes results in Nevada. Over ensuing years, the debacle will get revisited when Iowa's place as the first pseudo voting in the primary season, thus the location all candidates flock to the months before the presidential campaign, will get revisited. And the fact that the apparent winning Pete Buttigieg campaign, as seen in the late results following this debacle also purchased $43,000 in services from this same company. There's got to be a story in that. The big loser Joe Biden campaign also paid them, but only $1,225. Is $41,775 the cost of favorable election results these days? I think this company will keep rebounding into the news for the next few weeks. It has the potential to become a frequently raised subject and people will come to wikipedia to find out what it is. That's why we're here. It already is a component of a complicated election season. It shouldn't get deleted based your assumptions or prejudices. Capt. Milokan is correct to say we might revisit this later when we know if they disappear from view. Trackinfo (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while it is in the news at least. Once everything has died down, and we have the clarity of hindsight, we can always delete it later. Thue (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how it works. Should we go deleting articles about elections that happened decades ago because interest as died out? If it is worth it to stay in Wikipedia now, then it should be always. If it is to be deleted, then now is as good time as any. - Sarilho1 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sarilho1: That was not my point at all. My point was that allowing a small amount of time to pass will give us access to much more information about whether the company is notable. So since there is no negatives in allowing a potentially non-notable entry to exist for a few weeks, debating it now is 1) A waste of time 2) Might make a the wrong decision because of the limited information. Thue (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - People are going to want to know what the background of this company is due to the Iowa situation. To delete it would be a disservice to users; Much better to enhance the content. KConWiki (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, Why delete this? At least wait until we know the whole story. Other states may still use their app, or not. Until it becomes obscure deleting is way to premature. The logic to delete the article is flawed as everything is obscure before it is important.Mschaffer (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This topic appears to be fully notable, and there is no justified reason to delete it. NomadicNom (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - topic is notable. The company might be in the news cycle throughout the election year, due to their involvement with various campaigns and the DNC.Resnjari (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. WP:NOTNEWS, coverage seems trivial, in passing and WP:ONEEVENT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, with no prejudice to renomination in a six months or a year if the coverage goes away. I see the WP:NOTNEWS point, but I'd rather give this one time to see if it goes away. At worst, redirect to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#Delay in final results where it is mention, but I would prefer keep. Hog Farm (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given coverage of the recent debacle, they easily pass GNG with quality sources that are quite critical of Shadow Inc.--Eostrix (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm normally sympathetic to the NOTNEWS argument, but the botched primary and Shadow Inc.'s role in it have lasting significance and are getting a lot of coverage. Consider speedy keep because there is no consensus to delete. buidhe 16:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This company is the software developer for the 2020 Democrat Iowa Caucus app. Unfortunately, it made headlines due to its App unable to perform its software function. This article should be considered as notable.SWP13 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT the page to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#Software App or similar. Only reason the company is known is because of the events related the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses, so anyone reading this article will need the context present on said article. Politicians using one's services don't make a company relevant. If new findings, such as collusion between some candidate and the company, appear or events happens that increase the relavance of this company past what a section on the caucus is supposed to cover, then this article and historic can be easily recovered. At the moment, it has not enough relevance to exist as a stand-alone article. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Super-notable: beside the obvious perceptions of favoritism/nepotism/impropriety between Buttigieg strategist husband and Shadow wife, many important software engineering process questions wrapped up in this spectacular debacle. A proper software project would do a post-mortem to identify failures; since they're a private company, they may not share, but techies will speculate:[1][2]
    • Why all the effort and expense of apps - iOS and Android - instead of basic website?
    • Why use TestFlight/TestFairy instead of proper/official enterprise app installation?
    • App crashed on launch for Motherboard on 1 of 2 Android phones
    • Was flaky rural cellular service part of the data-transmission debacle?
    • If so, was there no Wifi VPN backup?
    • Did they do server load-testing for up to 1700 users?
    • Did they have fail-over servers/load-balancing to prevent database write locks?
    • Should they have used DHS for cybersecurty check?[3] (Unclear if this might be GOP agenda talking point.)
    • Did they do any *field* testing in Iowa?
    • Who answered the tech support phones?

Doug Grinbergs (talk)

We are not here doing investigative research or engaging in techie speculation. How exactly is any of your points an argument for keeping an encyclopedic article? We really can't put "perceptions" on the reference section, how obvious one might find them. - Sarilho1 (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't have a general notability concern. I do think WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT are reasonable questions and worth revisiting in the future, but right now I imagine this company will be relevant in the next Iowa Caucus or two, so I wouldn't be surprised if it is still quite relevant in 8-12 years. My concern is actually that this article has serious WP:ATTACK potential, given what I've been seeing at Tara McGowan over the last 24 hours, and this page will take some serious WP:NPOV work. I think that if it cannot be demonstrated soon that it can be written in a neutral way, without mentioning specific people in a disparaging manner, then it should not just be deleted but speedily deleted. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This company will forever be a significant part of the history of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, there are RECENTISM and NPOV concerns, but given the nature of the coverage of this company and how it relates to the Iowa caucuses, I think it has an excellent chance of demonstrating coverage not limited to one news cycle. If not, it can always be deleted later. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, and will be a significant historical entity.-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 04:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this is WP:RECENTISM then we cannot have a single article from a topic in which interest was generated by a current event. WP:SNOW, not a chance in hell this is getting deleted, in one day it is already approaching 5k views [[25]]- clear demand by our readership. Also, even were it not for the recent event, the app's role in the political process of the most powerful nation on the planet is itself notable.--Calthinus (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per WP:RAPID. If we never hear about this company again after this news cycle passes, then we could consider a merge with Acronym (political organization). There's content here worth saving in some form. I don't think a redirect to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses would be appropriate considering this company is also involved with other state Democratic parties and presidential campaigns. Surachit (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A keeper if I ever saw one. Have you seen the WP:RSs it includes? How anyone could argue for deletion is just beyond me. XavierItzm (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When someone is murdered and that is the only thing notable about them, we write an article about the event, not the person.This app is only notable because of the event (the delay in getting results out). If it hadn't been for the delay nobody would care who made the app. So we should redirect it to the 2020 Iowa Democratic Caucuses page. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, as a non-American, I realized that absolutely everything that has ever happened or been speculated on during Presidential elections makes its way into Wikipedia. Any other country on earth and half the stuff written would be deleted for not being notable. Like 90% of this article is speculation but because it has to do with US politics that speculation becomes noteworthy. I highly doubt anybody would ever give this much slack to the politics of Mongolia or Peru. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a very good point, and an extremely funny one. However, I don't think this is actually an argument for deleting articles like this. I think it's an argument for trying to improve coverage of Mongolian politics. My dream is that one day Wikipedia will have ample articles about obscure topics in Mongolian politics. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, please do feel free to expand our coverage of political processes in other nations; clearly, it is lacking.--Calthinus (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the relevant information in this article can be moved to the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses page, the company is otherwise entirely non-notable. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Yes, a recent event brought it into the spotlight, but it is now a small part of American electoral history. Even if it weren't, it seems nonsensical to exclude the entry of a company with the influence that it has. -- sarysa (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge+redirect In my opinion, the only convincing argument I'm seeing for removing the article is that the only notable thing about this company was the Iowa Caucus incident. In that case, move all of the content of the article into a page or subsection about the incident and leave a redirect. This isn't a reason to delete the page history, and I've got to admit that it gets frustrating seeing so many decent arguments for merging being used to advocate deletion. With all of that said, I'm not entirely convinced that the page as is fails WP:COMPANY. So long as a page about a company has "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources" it meets the notability guidelines. I think there's a very strong case to be made that notability has already been established based on the existing guidelines. If, however, notability has not been established for an article about Shadow Inc. to remain, then the content should be moved from one page to another with a redirect left behind, not deleted.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 10YT is a self-fulfilling directive; it won't pass the test if it's deleted and it will if not deleted. Additionally, this topic is important enough as stand-alone content for historical context as an example of potential corruption of integrity of process in its own right as it relates to the bigger picture of the breakdown of public trust in election integrity in general. Ekeyser (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Statt, Nick (2020-02-04). "The app that broke the Iowa Caucuses was sent out through beta testing platforms". The Verge. Retrieved 2020-02-05.
  2. ^ Maiberg, Jason Koebler,Emanuel (2020-02-04). "Here's the Shadow Inc. App That Failed in Iowa Last Night". Vice. Retrieved 2020-02-05.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ "DHS: App used in Iowa caucuses was not vetted for cybersecurity". www.msn.com. Retrieved 2020-02-05.
  • Speedy Keep It's pretty clear the consensus is to keep the article. There's zero way anything else will happen. So I suggest it be speedy kept instead of waiting pointlessly for more votes that will probably also be keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Trackinfo (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Durant (a cappella group)[edit]

Durant (a cappella group) (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)

Apparently non-notable musical group. No independent coverage besides name mentions found. I can find no mention of the "Member's Choice Acappella Awards" and the source cited says nothing about it. Skeletor3000 (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 03:06, 5 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) 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Liberman[edit]

Alon Liberman (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 does not seem notable, cannot find anything on a Google Search, and the source provided is just a mere/small mention of the subject and is not independent of the subject Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no indication of notability, Liberman does not appear to have played in any competition higher that NCAA Division III. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet the standards of WP:NTENNIS and my searches do not turn up significant coverage of the type required by WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NTENNIS Adamtt9 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:NTENNIS as concerns the NCAC competition. No credible GNG claim either. Therefore delete. PK650 (talk) 04:46, 8 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) 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sugunthan[edit]

Sugunthan (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)

Unsourced actor that fails to establish his notability. Several of his roles (such as a henchman or gang member) seem insignificant. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most items on Google Search are mere mentions... Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC),[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with the above; passing mentions are not enough to establish notability. Puddleglum 2.0 05:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very few sources are avialable and all lack information about the actor. Not following WP:ARTIST. GargAvinash (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: A weak case might be made for WP:NACTOR, but all the sources I could find are passing mentions in International Business Times of India, which is generally considered unreliable, or in Silverscreen and "IndiaBlitz", which I'm not familiar with. If anyone can find better sources or argue why the existing sources pass WP:GNG, I'll certainly consider updating my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article has no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources at best give him a mention and their reliability is questionable. Fails WP:NACTOR. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yvon Bock[edit]

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

I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to GNG––virtually everything published in a reliable source is just quoting Bock, and generally directly in the context of her company. There's a solid chance that that company, Hegen Pte Ltd, is notable, and if such an article existed I would suggest redirecting there. signed, Rosguill talk 00:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like corporate spam, doesn't it? Agree it looks like some sources might support Hegen (but not Bock) and if so could be redirected there. SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 5 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_5&oldid=940671989"