Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 January	17 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Aviation in Australia. Suggesting merge per the discussion presented by Bookscale and Bearian. Thanks for assuming good faith and for your participation! Missvain (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest air routes in Australia by passenger traffic[edit]

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

This article is a content fork. There are no other articles by country that are relating to this topic. Interstellarity (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Aviation in Australia as an alternative to deletion. The idea of the list is encyclopedic (WP:NOTPAPER) and should be kept somewhere, but the standalone list article is a mess given it's reliant on single sources. The main article on aviation in Australia only contains a history section and nothing else, and would be ideal to have some lists on domestic and international civil air routes currently. The list article can be significantly pruned there to something manageable so I'm not suggesting all of it be recreated in the Aviation in Australia article. Bookscale (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively as suggested. It's a heuristic that whenever an article is sourced by a single primary source, it is de facto original research. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 22 January 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. Closing based on Bearian's solid research. Thanks for assuming good faith and for your participation! Missvain (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponge Ezhu Manohara[edit]

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

Unsourced, unknown film. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I found nothing on Google newspapers, nor on Google scholar, nor anything relevant on Google books. This brief entry indicates that its box office was kept secret. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 22 January 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) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Busse (architect)[edit]

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

Stub with low notability, few references and limited views PenulisHantu (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; we should generally keep subjects that have their own German Wikipedia article as de.wp have more stringent notability guidelines than us. In this case however I have failed to see that our notability guidelines are met based on the online sources in that article, and I cannot find any myself. He may qualify for some subset of CREATIVE by virtue of this but I haven't seen anything that would quite satisfy all standards of GNG. de:Carl Busse (Baumeister)'s (haven't be able link interwiki links of late weirdly enough) sources no. 3 and 4 I'm going to AGF on as I think GNG would be met with those given what they are referencing and de.wp's stringent standards. The source in our article based on it being a widespreading Berlin travel book (without a preview, better than what the German-language book provides but not enough) and what it is referencing looks like it may fall just below the bar of significant coverage but I think that should be applied less stringently because of the wide scope of the book. TL;DR: I am willing to assume that two out of three sources contain enough to be construed as GNG-applicable. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 00:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not seeing any real grounds for deletion in the nomination. Stubs are valid. Limited views and few references are irrelevant. Notability may be an issue, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 20 January 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. Deleting based on the rationale presented by Ferret. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ATI video card suffixes[edit]

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

Numerous problems with this one, unreferenced since creation and therefore original research. Since AMD took over ATI some time ago this has been forgotten about and abandoned, with only minor edits in the last 10 years. I feel it no longer serves its purpose even in an historical context, individual product pages seem to do a better job at explaining differences in the product lineup. Mattg82 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mass of OR. This is essentially a list, and fails WP:LISTN. Probably can cite WP:NOTCATALOG here too. The suffixes of GPUs, whether ATI, AMD or nVidia, is rarely discussed in this manner if at all. They're inconsistently used between product generations and frequently changed. -- ferret (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not sure what the creator was even thinking. I would think a list of products would make more sense, but then WP:NOTCATALOG so it still should go. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ferret. Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:08, 21 January 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 Streetnix. Saved us some grief and redirected to Streetnix. Happy to assist with undeleting and so forth if the subject breaks out and gains notability. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Speck[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians. The only stated notability claim here is that he's been a member of two bands, but that's not an automatic notability freebie for a musician in the absence of any legitimate sourcing about him — but of the nine footnotes here, eight are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the self-published social media posts of his own friends and colleagues and his own bands' self-published websites about themselves -- and the only reference that's actually to a real newspaper is not an article about him, but a glancing namecheck of his existence in the caption to a photograph on an article that otherwise fails to mention his name at all in the body text, which means it isn't about him for the purposes of contributing any notability points. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they have to have notability claims that pass NMUSIC, supported by reliable source coverage about them in real media, but this article says absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn’t find anything the subject that was a worthy source, he is no different from the other 10 members of Streetnix. No independent news sources about the subject makes it impossible to meet notability guidelines. Jaxbrother (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely fails WP:NMUSIC on his own. If you feel it's needed, then redirect to Streetnix. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 22 January 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 Fox's Biscuits. Redirecting to Fox's Biscuits. If someone wants to merge any of the content in the nominated article, I'm happy to provide you with the text in your userspace to do so. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party ring[edit]

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

Potentially fails WP:GNG. Can't find third party sources for the candy, beyond primary sources from the manufacturer.

Nominating to the science category since the article mentions that it was the first product to use a chemical dye to get brighter colors. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your concerns, does Redirect to Fox's Biscuits sound like a good option? Foxnpichu (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Foxnpichu, that or merge. I don't mind. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Fox's Biscuits. The one source cited for this article is limited to a few sentences. Much of the article is unsourced and I could not find sources outside of primary from the manufacturer (Fox's Biscuits) as mentioned by the nominator. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:56, 21 January 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. Keeping based on the rationale presented by Bluerasberry. They are one of Wikipedia's foremost writers about public health and I concur the work presented in the article shows that this subject passes GNG and is important in its own right. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HIV/AIDS prophylaxis in British Columbia[edit]

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

Article, written at least partially like a health care policy analysis report rather than an encyclopedia article and referenced much more strongly to primary source governmental and organizational documents rather than reliable source media coverage, about a fairly WP:MILL topic. The core problem here is that you could essentially write the exact same article, differing only in the statistics and the details of who pays for the service, for every other Canadian province, every other U.S. state, and every other division of any other country where health care is managed by state or provincial governments rather than national ones -- but I'm not seeing a compelling reason why we would need dozens or hundreds of functionally identical articles about "same thing in different place". (Sample text from the article: "The steps for obtaining PrEP in BC are as follows: speaking to a physician, getting some medical tests, enrolling and being given a prescription, and refilling the prescription." But that's exactly the way all health care always works everywhere, and isn't a uniquely noteworthy aspect of this particular topic.)
And in addition to the fact that so many of the sources are from governments and ASOs rather than media outlets, many of them aren't even specifically about British Columbia -- 12 of the 35 footnotes here, a full third of the entire footnote pool, are sitting in the "Coverage in other areas of Canada" section to support what every other province or territory in Canada that isn't British Columbia does, several more are about HIV/AIDS prophylaxis in Germany or the United States without even addressing Canada at all let alone British Columbia specifically, and a lot of what's left after that is just about the general and universal concept of HIV prophylaxis rather than addressing British Columbia's program as a standalone topic. So for all of those reasons, I just don't see a convincing reason why "HIV/AIDS prophylaxis in British Columbia" would need its own standalone article as a separate topic from HIV/AIDS prophylaxis everywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HIV/AIDS in Canada. I don't think there's enough information on BC specifically to meet GNG. b uidhe 20:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to HIV/AIDS in Canada per Buidhe and nominator's rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my own essay at Wikipedia:Removal of Wikipedia articles on notable topics. The subject of this article passes WP:GNG, which is the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. If we merged this article in entirety then the next step would be deletion of 90% of this content. This content would be WP:UNDUE for HIV/AIDS in Canada and a merge is not a pathway to keeping well-cited content in this article which is specific to BC.

I agree with the nominator - "you could essentially write the exact same article... for every other Canadian province, every other U.S. state, and every other division of any other country". I am in support of purging this article about the routine information which applies everywhere, like "patients who want the drug start by talking with their doctor".

I like these articles because there is a huge amount of investment in public health research by region. Responding to HIV/AIDS in BC requires a huge amount of funding and lots of research is published on this general topic and the individual subject of prep. Medical topics draw a lot of special research publications and we have plenty of articles cited which are Vancouver BC + PreP. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. Bad article, notable topic. This program is unique and notable.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Very important also is that it is working.[7] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jack Scruby. Closing in alignment with "merge" per presentations below. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mafrica[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A fictional place, with no evidence of receiving any attention outside its niche in gaming contexts. (A PROD was removed with the edit-summary "deprod; merge and redirect to Jack Scruby", which was strange, as the editor did not, in fact, take any steps to either merge or redirect.) JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jack Scruby. Which was strange, as neither did you! I'll never understand editors who are more interested in deleting than preserving when there is a perfectly good article to merge content to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jack Scruby. This is verifiable material with a good merge target. Per our policy WP:ATD, for verifiable material, merging is preferred over deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication why this should be merged into Scuby's article (whre it's already mentioned), it would just seem like a WP:SALESGUIDE entry to me. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jack Scruby - While there is not much actual content in this article that would really need to be merged, the sources, particularly the "Atlas of Fantasy", would be useful to include on Jack Scruby's page, as the brief coverage of Mafrica there currently has no citations. Rorshacma (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. If it had WP:SIGCOV on its own, then it could be notable, such as Grand Fenwick, but it doesn't. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 22 January 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. Deleted. This type of information is available from the federal government and since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, I hope people do look elsewhere for a resource like this. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visa Bulletin Employment-based Preferences Cut-off Dates[edit]

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

While Visa Bulletin clearly meets our notability guidelines, there is nothing particularly notable about a page that basically duplicates the contents on the Visa bulletins. There are a number of SPA and SP IP accounts who keep editing this page, mostly with no citations for the changes. Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not encyclopaedic content. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good archive of information on one page. Saves the trouble of searching through multiple past issues of bulletin. Decent usage and readership. PenulisHantu (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the publication branch of the US government. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We don't need to republish and interpret government publications. Hog Farm (talk) 18:01, 17 January 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 Martin Garrix. Now it's been released a few weeks, coverage doesn't seem to have appeared. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Remixed[edit]

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

Doesn/t have sources to make it eligible for Article mainspace Shubhi89 (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the article has no sources, a quick googling turned up [8] and [9], as well as this brief note [10]. Just because an article lacks sources does not mean sources do not exist. Also, this album was released just four days ago as of this AfD opening. That could mean one of two things. Either, this is WP:TOOSOON, and should be deleted. Or...it will take a few days for it to be written about, but that enough sources will exist within a few weeks. Then there is no sense in deleting it, just to have it be recreated in a month. I think the pre-release hype speaks to the fact that further coverage is forthcoming. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support moving it to draft. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite there being some reliably sourced coverage this does not meet WP:NMUSIC/WP:GNG. Albums and EPs need to chart and have sufficient coverage beyond their existence and track listing. This doesn't and its unlikely that it would get further coverage now it has been out a few weeks. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - (Talk) - 13:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus that this topic satisifies NGEO and thus has the presumption of notability owing to non-english language sources. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazhimbram[edit]

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

Appears to fail the notability guideline for places; I cannot find a single reliable source meaningfully discussing it. Previously proposed for deletion, but that was contested via redirecting, only for the article to be restored. Glades12 (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I can't find anything to verify that this is a (census recognised) village. There appears to be a locality with this name somewhere in/around Thissur (judging from Google Maps ), but if that's it then it's almost certainly not a notable one. I originally proposed this for deletion, but there have been objections (or hints of objections) from Arms & Hearts and Sam-2727. And adding the off-topic observation that the article itself has never been more than seven words long but by this stage several hundred words by at least four editors have been spent debating it. How many wikipedians does it take to change a light bulb? – Uanfala (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was originally going to oppose this, but this wiki page [11] suggests that maybe Kazhimbram is just a town (perhaps more like a neighborhood in the United States) located within Thrissur. Thus maybe Kazhimbram should be redirected to Thrisur? Or is that sentence on that wiki page suggesting that this is a town in the district of Thrissur, and that link is simply a bad link that should actually go to Thrissur district? Sam-2727 (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. This is not strictly a village but the coastal segment (see here) attached to the village of Edamuttam (you can see here how Google has the polygon data for the village and adjacent ones but not the coastal areas attached to them - however Kazhimbram Post Office is visible between Edamuttam and the sea). Although not a "village" originally Kazhimbram is a populated place and regarded as a village in some ways. It is a distinct electoral district with its own representative on Valapad Panchayat (source). There is plenty to say about the place, for example this source notes that it suffered from severe coastal erosion which was considered a serious problem to due it being densely populated. It is the site of one of Kerala's official Fish Landing Centres, and contains the beach of the same name where people collect endangered turtle eggs. Did anyone search Malayalam sources yet? ----Pontificalibus 16:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Great finds! If this is a village ward (as the electoral source indicates) and a coastal segment (as shown by the others), then I think it's existence is certainly verified, but I still don't see the standalone notability per GEOLAND. Redirecting to the the next higher-level unit sounds like the best thing to do. – Uanfala (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Being presumed to be notable does not necessarily mean actually being it. None of the sources you gave here (there may be more, obviously) cover the place in much detail; the Journal of the Institution of Engineers only names it briefly as one affected village, and the one about the beach doesn't even seem to mention Kazhimbram. I am intrigued by this being an electoral district though. Glades12 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I agree that there aren't enough notable sources here. I guess it is a legally recognized voting district (contrary to what I thought originally), but it still doesn't meet general notability guidelines. I agree that a redirect would do good here. However, I am still hesitant in my vote of delete until sources in different languages have been searched for. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect targets If this is to be a redirect, what would the target be? As I said in my original delete vote, perhaps a redirect to Thrissur district would be appropriate. However, I am not familiar with organization of government in India. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's convention that verified settlements are kept, this topic doesn't need to meet WP:GNG. A redirect is not appropriate because there are numerous possible targets none of which are satisfactory. For example in the 2015 election it was in Valapad Grama Panchayat but also Thalikulam Block Panchayat. The closest city is Thrissur but it would ridiculous for that article to contain information on all the surrounding villages, likewise with the Thrissur district article, it can't accommodate information on all the individual settlements. Far better to retain a separate article which can be expanded as and when further sources are found.----Pontificalibus 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's convention to keep legally recognized villages/towns as articles, but from what you wrote, I got the impression that this wasn't an officially recognized town but rather an electoral district. Since this isn't a legally recognized village, notability standards should be applied to it, as the article is about the village, not the electoral district. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOLAND is pretty clear on this. The town has been subject to censuses of India and thus warrants a standalone article. --RaviC (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As discussed above, the place appears to be below the level of the smallest entities enumerated in the census. For example, it seems to be absent from the 2011 district handbook for Thrissur. – Uanfala (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're just repeating Pontificalibus' argument, which has been refuted. Glades12 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 22:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ perhaps to Thrissur district or Valapad. Geoland does not mandate that any place with a name must have an article. Being a ward in a village council suggests it may be a neighborhood or sub-village, but not a "legally recognized" village (as one enumerated in a census may be) per geoland. Other wards are "VALAPAD HIGHSCHOOL" and "PANCHAYATH OFFICE" so I do not take being a minor local electoral boundary as evidence of notability. Being the name of a beach that has been eroded is irrelevant. Reywas92^Talk 04:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Government sources all state that VPM SNDP Higher Secondary School is in Kazhimbram as a top order settlement. Redirecting to Thrissur district would be as absurd as redirecting Airmont, New York to New York (state). Redirecting to any other village or panchayat article is problematic for the reasons I set out above: Kazhimbram has been and is in a variety of administrative areas for different purposes.----Pontificalibus 15:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well more like to Rockland County, New York but no that would not be the best target. Perhaps to Valapad is more like to Ramapo, New York as a village within a town but obviously it's not the same system. This source and the census is more compelling than the others though so I change my vote to keep. Reywas92^Talk 05:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mentioned in the 1981 Indian census. Passes WP:GEOLAND, which typically exempts articles from WP:GNG because of the presumption they've been covered somewhere. In this case there appear to be at least a few other English-language sources available, and no local language search appears to have been performed. [12] and [13] SportingFlyer T·C 14:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a source for the Indian census reference? As mentioned before, it's probably not a legally recognized village. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already provided two above, and added it into the article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, per SportingFlyer. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 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. Deleting per WP:GNG guidelines. Good efforts on all parts. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

977 Music[edit]

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

Article about an internet streaming audio provider, not properly referenced as the subject of any significant reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, every company is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- it has to be the subject of non-trivial coverage in media to support an article with. But there are just three footnotes here, of which one is the site's Alexa profile (which is a directory entry) and one is its own self-published press release about itself on a press release platform (which is not independent of the subject) -- which means two of the three sources here are not support for notability at all. And while the one remaining source is media, it's a limited-circulation trade magazine, which means it isn't enough media coverage to get this over GNG all by itself if it's the only real media source in play. Even just a basic GNG pass requires quite a bit more than just one reliable source. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this company from having to have much more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low notability. More like a promotional page with few references and independent information. PenulisHantu (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, it has low notability. Back when I wrote it, I thought it was borderline notable, but time has shown that I was mistaken. → Call me Razr Nation 01:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if the subject hits the big time. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Wren[edit]

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO. Google news search not showing any required coverage and no claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ifnord (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There appears to be some minor local coverage, but WP:MUSICBIO does not appeared to be satisfied, and there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources on which to base an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:35, 17 January 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. Deleting based on the many subject matter experts thoughts below. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serpent Lord[edit]

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

This title is a name from a video game taken to refer to the leader of Harad in the Tolkien universe. There's no real coverage of this figure in reliable sources. The article consists of some direct quotes referring to the unnamed figure in LOTR, then a reference to the video game, with some possible OR sprinkled in (unsourced statements about how some fans don't consider something to be "canonical" is usually OR). I see no pass of GNG here, and I think a redirect would be detrimental because "Serpent Lord" could refer to several things. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "Serpent Lord" is a non-notable character who was not even named in the original work. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an "important" character. Tolkien tells us so little of him, an unnamed chieftain, that we have no idea how much of Haradim he really controlled. I also have to point out that the plot summary is written in the wrong tense. Plot summaries should be written in present not past tense. I would fix this one, but with so much original research and use of priary sources this article is doomed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of Arda. Convinced to close merge. Please consider moving content from the article in question and redirecting. I'm happy to assist with redirecting if needed. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth calendar[edit]

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

More Tolkiencruft unnoticed by any but the most Faithful, so no WP:GNG. And where did somebody dig up the fact(?) that the Shire year is exactly 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this subject. Also, I suspect that this article is full of original research and fanon. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources, seems to be original research.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Material is better suited for a fan Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not elaborated on in the actual text of the books. I really do not think it needs to be mentioned anywhere. It adds lots more complexity, and the fact that Tolkien did not elaborate on it in his books shows he figures it is not central to understanding his stories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect The level of detail given in the article body owes more to fandom than Fingolfin. However, there is a reliable source available, as Drout gives a chapter (5 articles and an introduction) to the subject of Tolkien's Calendars. Smith, Arden R. (2013) [2007]. "Calendars". In Drout, Michael D. C. (ed.). J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment. Routledge. pp. 82–83. ISBN 0-415-96942-5. We also have a redirect target, History of Arda, though that may become Arda (Tolkien)#History. I think this sufficient to propose that we redirect there; the summary in the article's lead is actually also quite suitable for a merge, given the Drout source, and we can dump the article body where it belongs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per Chiswick Chap, keeping the content forming the lead of this article. On the Drout encyclopedia, while I don't always agree with the way Piotrus has characterised some of the encyclopedia entries in other AfD discussions, but you can't really call the entries in the Drout encyclopedia a 'chapter'. It is actually 2 pages, which some people may be able to preview here on Google Books. That covers the 'Four Ages', 'The Elvish Calendar', 'Calendars of the Dunedain', 'Shire Reckoning' and 'Durin's Day'. That should be the limit of our coverage too. The material on the 'Four Ages' we seem to have at History of Arda. one of the problems with the coverage in secondary literature of such topics is that it can be rather sporadic and not really unified as a whole (though increasingly thematic surveys are emerging, see e.g. for the topic of music Music in Tolkien's Work and Beyond and Music in Middle-earth). It is well worth perusing the list of publications from Walking Tree Publishers to see if a topic is covered there, as that is a good starting point for more in-depth analysis than would be found in Drout's encyclopedia. Carcharoth (talk) 11:54, 22 January 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 also did my due diligence and I was unable to find any coverage to establish inclusion. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatsa Vii[edit]

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

Spammy autobio/vanity spam with fabricated claims of notability and no actual coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is more like a promotional blurb than anything, and sourcing to establish claim of notability is wafer thin.TH1980 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 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. Sandstein 12:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austrian inventions and discoveries[edit]

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

WP:LISTN is definitely not satisfied ("Austrianess" [sic] as defined by "invented or discovered partially or entirely by a person born in Austria"??). Way too WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is a test case. There are plenty more nationalities where this slunk from. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am apathetic right now. I will circle back after a few others give opinions. Wm335td (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathically weak keep Whilst I normally would suggest an even remotely WP:INDISCRIMINATE list should get in the bin, I think this risks having some encyclopaedic merit. I think I'd be veering keep if the list criteria were "inventions or discoveries that are notably Austrian", versus just "this has a vague wiff of the Alps about it". I don't know what criteria should be used to define a notably Austrian invention - something that includes Kaiserschmarrn, but excludes Psychoanalysis would fit the bill. I see this article has A sister, too. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 22:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Seems to have some educational merit in research for Austria. Dellwood546 (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dellwood546, can you clarify? Austria is not Australia. Perhaps a typo? IceFishing (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Dellwood546, replying that "Australian" for "Austrian" was a typo, as you did here, was a good idea. Removing your reply and silently correcting the typo, as you did a minute later, was not so good. Please don't alter your comments after they have been replied to, because it wrongfoots the other person. See how strange IceFishing's question looks now? Bishonen | talk 17:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IceFishing Oh sorry, I was unaware of what to do, thanks for the heads up on what to do. Dellwood546 (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries : includes lots of List of Japanese inventions and discoveries, List of Korean inventions and discoveries, even a List of Byzantine inventions. In case anyone else is wondering about this as a type.IceFishing (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem with hosting lists of inventions made in specific countries. IceFishing (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about the fact that there don't appear to be lists by country "in the wild"? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely certain that I understand your question, are you requesting article like "So, what have the Scots ever done for us? Just 101 of the innovations Caledonia gave the world" [14] The Independent? IceFishing (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is merely a list, which is harmless. It is tagged for a lack of references, but I regard that as misplaced criticism: what would need references is the articles linked to. Such lists are rather like categories, which cannot have references. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply here. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entish[edit]

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

Entish is a non-notable fictional language. Furthermore, this article treats the language's fictional history as if it was real. I think it is time to dispose of this piece of rubbish. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Ent. Completely unsourced, completely in-universe plot information. Searching for sources turns up nothing of substance about the fictional language that requires a WP:SPLIT from the main article on the fictional species. Most sources, in fact, are referring to a programming language that, while possibly named for the fictional language, does not actually confer any notability to it. Rorshacma (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ent. The entire "New Entish" section reeks of possible OR, and there's not much of anything related to this language. Tolkien fleshed out a lot of his fictional languages, but this one never got much detail. Hog Farm (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not redirect. The langauge is not elaborated on in reliable sources. It is not a needful search term, and having it as a redirect will just encourage more cluttering of articles with unneeded links.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. This is Tolkien, his works have spawned a corpus of commentaries and analyses that's several orders of magnitude bigger than the sum total of everything he wrote. So even if there are only scrattered mentions of the language in Tolkien's own works, there's enough in the secondary literature for an encyclopedia entry. For example, there's a page about it in Jim Allan's 1978 An Introduction to Elvish (pp. 176–177), scattered paragraphs here and there (these are the first two that came up on google books: [15], [16]). Given the unusual nature of the language – it has no nouns to speak of, with each "name" used telling the whole story of the thing it refers to – it's not surprising that it will have inspired a programming language, and so in the literature on that there are occasional paragraphs (like here) about the original Entish. Whether there's enough coverage for a standalone article, I wouldn't care to decide, but a section in Ent will not be out of place. If the article is kept, then it goes without saying it will need to be seriously trimmed down. – Uanfala (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ent. I would hesitate to call it a "language constructed by Tolkien" because I know of no evidence that he constructed more than a couple of phrases ad hoc. For the languages that seriously interested him, he wrote grammars. —Tamfang (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Is there some kind of anti-Tolkien campaign happening? This is the second such article I've encountered recently. Clearly there is quality content here that shouldn't be deleted haphazardly. Perhaps a merge to Ent would be adequate as suggested above. As for keeping the article itself, I generally agree with Uanfala above, albeit adding that perhaps there isn't enough independent content to support a stand-alone article. The machine is taking over, sadly. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer the question in your first sentence, I've seen a large number of PRODs and RfDs to do with Tolkien the last month or so. – Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you will, it is more like an anti-fiction campaign that covers more than just Tolkien. Some editors seem to agree that "Wikipedia has an amazingly out of control coverage of fictional places, people and events." [17] De728631 (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article on Barahir had had 0 sources, and yet had existed 16 years. Many other articles have been tagged for violation of policy for 8 years or more. It is high time this randon Tolkiencruft was brought under control. We created notability guidelines in 2006, but Tolkien articles have not yet been brought under them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ent. This isn't much of language as compared to Tolkien's Elvish, so a standalone article is not merited. De728631 (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Haze[edit]

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

Sources are not good enough to meet the gng and porn awards no longer provide notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the deprecated WP:PORNBIO guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Congratulations for nominating a GA-class article for deletion.[18] Is this a first? Haze passes WP:ENTERTAINER given that CNBC wrote that she was "arguably the most popular performer in the porn" in 2011[19] and was also rated as one of the 12 most popular porn actress in 2012[20]. She has the following coverage passing the GNG.[21][22][23][24][25][26] Her scenes have been the subject of academic criticism.[27][28][29] Oh, she has also won the usual multiple awards and hall of fame status that triggered the nomination, evidence toward WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you serious considering this article for deletion? The subject person's really relevant for the twentieth century culture.u v u l u m (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: She has had minor non-porn roles and her success in porn and notability is quite routine and unencyclopedic.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

User blocked for sockpuppetry. ミラ P 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, with almost all sources being porn mags. Inclusion in a list alongside many others and a single sentence does not qualify as a "significant cult following". The sources provided above are not reliable, with the exception of one, which is not enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. An editor claimed Haze is "really relevant for the twentieth century culture." Since this is indeed, if true, a most significant attribute, our fellow editor is invited to help the AfD process by providing sources supporting the veracity of their claim. For my part, I could not unearth anything in the Britannica, any Art in America back issues lying around, or the Philosophy Today archives. -The Gnome (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As none of those publications are known for any coverage of porn-related topics at even the broadest cultural level (e.g. more than acknowledging it exists), that's hardly relevant. This argument is like claiming a a basketball player is non-notable because no specialist soccer, hockey or American football publications have covered him in depth. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A claim was made, The Drover's Wife, that our subject is "really relevant for the twentieth century culture." To establish this, a Wikipedia editor's unsupported claim is, of course, not enough (not acceptable, actually). We need sources. There have been persons from all walks of life that have been assessed by Wikipedia-acceptable sources (not necessarily the ones I proffered, in way of example) as, indeedd, "culturally relevant," be they sculptors, painters, writers, actors, athletes, etc. Among porn performers, at least one porn film, the one starring Linda Lovelace (another often cited cultural icon), has been assessed as having wide cultural significance and we have major media sources as well as books and academic papers establishing this. If we cannot find many other persons or works related to the porn industry as having "cultural relevance" that is not some evidence of "anti-porn bias", but simply what sources contain.

In sum, we have no sources whatsoever supporting the claim made about the cultural significance of this AfD's subject. -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't have to be considered "really relevant to the twentieth century culture" to have a Wikipedia article. She has to pass WP:GNG. These attempts to set up bars that have no basis in any Wikipedia notability guideline or policy whatsoever for the sake of finding something you can declare she doesn't pass are unique, to say the last. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to comment in haste, The Drover's Wife. I'd suggest you slow down a bit and view things from a distance to gain some perspective. I did not claim that our subject person must be relevant to the culture of the 20th century or of any other century in order to have a Wikipedia article. What happened is that a claim was made by fellow editor Uvulum to that effect. (Uvulum wrote: "The subject person is really relevant for the twentieth century culture".) That has been the sole reasoning Uvulum gave for their Keep suggestion and I merely asked wherther we could have sources supporting that quite significant claim. Is it clear now?

This is a rather legthy AfD and people can be excused if they do not read through the whole thing. But they should do so if they intend to comment in it. Saves time. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made an absurd argument suggesting that the lack of mention in Encyclopedia Britannica, an art publication (!) or Philosophy Today had any bearing whatsoever on assessing her cultural significance. I pointed out the fallaciousness of that reasoning. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave examples of publications (and there are myriads of them) that we can use to show a person has "cultural significance". Jenna Haze does not have any such significance whatsoever. Uvulum claimed she has, but the claim is without any substance. And what you're doing here now is totally wrong! Admit that you grossly misunderstood the situation, and let it go. It's truly high time. -The Gnome (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misunderstand anything: you, in your own words, right there, suggested that an absence of material in those sources was in any way relevant to a consideration of the cultural significance of the subject, knowing full well that neither of them deal with more than perhaps the broad existence of her line of work. People can always disagree about sourcing, but these ridiculous attempts to avoid having to have that discussion by trying to establish impossible bars or make up imaginary guidelines in the hope no one notices are going to get a predictably derisory response. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is listed as a good article. I believe the best procedure would be first discuss your good article condition and then a AfD. For respect to the process of defining good articles.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. An article appearing on Wikipedia has to verifiably meet certain criteria of notability. And after it appears, the article may rise to become a great one, as far as presentation, sourcing, photos, language, etc, are concerned. But when the criteria for inclusion change, then we do not assess inclusion by "how well the article is written" but by whether or not its subject meeets the new criteria. WP:PORNBIO is out, folks! Articles, from stubs to GAs, that only meet WP:PORNBIO (a dead & buried criterion) are to be defenestratated. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts. Lots of references on this article. No, porn actors don't end up in Philosophy Today, but pornography is an interesting subject, and I think you should judge the notability on equivalent people. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography is no longer a subject assessed by the criteria you personally set with your comments, . A porn related subject may well be notable in daily/everyday life but Wikinotabiolity is something different. Does our subject meet WP:NACTOR? This is a question we would not, of course, ask in real lie, but we do ask it here. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't refer to WP:PORNBIO, which was the only thing that was abolished; he argued that it met normal notability criteria, as he's perfectly entitled to do (and which it does). She's not an actor, so WP:NACTOR doesn't provide us helpful guidance here; rather, like for millions of other articles with no subject-specific criteria, we assess notability through the sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have to show that our subject person meets the notability criteria of any other person. If to show that we only use porn-related sources, all wed be doing is establishing that the person exists and is related to porn; yet, there is no inherent notability in that! Invoking only or mainly porn-related sources, porn awards, multiple appearances on porn movies, and so on, in order to crash through WP:GNG is essentially proceeding as if WP:PORNBIO is still with us. And I'm saying, let it rest in peace. -The Gnome (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, if we only use porn-related sources for someone who is primarily notable for being involved in porn, we'd be doing what happens in every other area, specific criteria or not, and using the most obviously relevant sources for the subject. Any article on any subject that doesn't have a subject-specific guideline and has to be assessed via WP:GNG is probably going to heavily feature sources generally focused on that subject. Porn is not different because you'd like it to be. As Wikipedia:Notability says, "Subject-specific notability guidelines... may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas": if you deprecate the subject-specific information on how to make those decisions, it just means that one goes back to general guidelines. What you clearly want is a guideline that specifically excludes consideration of the factors that used to constitute WP:PORNBIO in making decisions about notability, but that's not in any sense what that RfC asked, was argued, or was closed as. If you want that, then I'm afraid you'd better get writing and get a new RfC underway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may carry on in your mistaken understandiing that porn-related persons possess inherent notability by being, for example, prominent porn actors. And that using porn-related sources is all it takes to keep them up. That is your prerogative. What you cannot do is make personal judgements about your fellow editors, as you have done throughout the discussion (e.g. "porn is not different because you'd like it to be"). You are kindly requested to adhere to WP:AGF. Mistakes are free and all-you-can-eat; boorishness is a no no. -The Gnome (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to be confused about the difference between inherent notability and notability: she can't be inherently notable as there's now no subject-specific guideline, but her prominence certainly is a factor in considering general notability, as it is for anyone else. (The reason many of these AfDs are succeeding with minimal if any opposition is because WP:PORNBIO led to a ton of articles on people who just weren't prominent enough to pass WP:GNG.) But let's take a step back: please point me to the specific wording in an existent Wikipedia guideline that supports the interpretation that porn-related sources or claims to notability are irrelevant for consideration under the WP:GNG. You can't do that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Notability has already been established by the GA process. Morbidthoughts has proved that claims that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR are unfounded. Another vexatious AfD from the anti-porn brigade. --John B123 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming ulterior motives behind the AfD process amounts to a serious violation of our obligation to assume good faith and a personal attack. Let's focus on the discussion and leave home the unnecessary roughness. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I have violated guidelines take to to the appropriate Administrators Noticeboard, if not don't throw mud to try and discredit opposition to the nomination. --John B123 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, John B123, I do think you are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines by throwing around accusations of conspiracy but I won't bother with ANI. If you think your behavior is good in this exchange, carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me reveal this: When the criteria change things get changed! If tomorrow, for example, the consenus is that hockey players are not notable as such and they have to satisfy some other, general criteria, we would see a tsunami hiting the articles of hockey players. It's important to underatand this!

And that would happen NOT because some editors have an "anti-hockey" agenda or whatever, but because when the criteria change, Wikipedia changes! The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO denies porn related subjects the Wikinotability it previously afforded them. It is normal (nay, it is to be expected) that porn related articles will start getting deleted. So, please, let's all try to get along, without any aggravation. AfDs are enough work as it is. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting, but the simple fact is that the anti-porn brigade started to AfD these article before WP:PORNBIO was depreciated, and in fact the same editors were the front runners in PORNBIO being depreciated. --John B123 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia notability policy re: subject-specific guidelines" The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO does not "[deny] porn-rleated subjects the Wikinotability it previously afforded them" in any sense whatsoever. It denies them the inherent notability it previously afforded them, which is a completely different thing. Since nobody arguing to keep the article is relying on the deprecated inherent notability arguments bu, we need sources;t rather going back to general notability guidelines, The Gnome's comment isn't relevant to this AfD at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually misunderstand precisely nothing, The Drover's Wife, since what you're saying is what I just said. The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO indeed dEnies porn-related persons the inherent notabilty it previously afforded them, as you put it - or the (inherent) Wikinotablity it previously afforded them. And, I extend the rationalization, therefore, we have to assess those persons' notability by other, specific criteria, i.e. WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, and do on. (What has changed via the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO abt sources & awards I explain further below, in response to another remark you made.) -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE aren't relevant to porn performers, so, as with many areas, we've got to rely on the WP:GNG. The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO said absolutely nothing about sources: any question of sources wasn't put in the RfC, wasn't discussed in any significance during the RfC, and there was no mention of it in the closer's remarks about the RfC. The attempt to stretch the very clear and unarguable outcome of that RfC to that desired outcome is trying to take two and two and argue that you've got twenty-seven. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you do not understand the consequences of having WP:PORNBIO deprecated and particulary the relevance of what it contained that has now been stricken off. Continue to believe that we can treat porn-related subjects as if WP:PORNBIO is still with us. There has never been an argument from my part as to WP:GNG, since this is the set of criteria to which the notability claim of porn related persons has gravitated. You may .continue to use porn-related sources, porn awards, and the like, to establish WP:GNG notability. Do so and see how far this gets you. -The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clearer way to say this: deprecating a subject-specific guideline does not mean that anything that was previously referred to in that guideline is explicitly excluded from any consideration regarding notability. You need to actually amend the guidelines to say that, and that requires an RfC of itself. It doesn't happen because you wish really hard. You could actually propose this, or you could repeat the extent to which you've misunderstood how subject-specific guidelines work on failed AfD after failed AfD when notable people get nominated and your entire argument is based on imaginary guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about this alleged anti-porn conspiracy in Wikipedia (and, frankly, this sounds a bit ludicrous). What is certain is that even is such an "anti-porn" crusade was underway before the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO, each case would have been assessed, as I'm sure it was, through taking WP:PORNBIO into account. Now, not any more. Quite simple, really. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome: It is true that the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO means that some porn related articles will get deleted. However, that does not mean that every porn related article nominated for deletion will get deleted. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, in the last month there were about 30 articles about people involved in porn that were deleted, with 7 Keeps. There are currently 9 active deletion debates about people involved in porn, and this is the only one that's facing significant opposition, probably because of the Good Article status. I agree that getting along without aggravation is a worthwhile goal; the easiest way to achieve that might be to let this particular article stand, and be content with the 30-40 articles that are or will soon be deleted. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Toughpigs. The AfD process is not an invitation for trade. If one article must go, it must go. If one hundred articlesmust go, they must go. There is no room for error here, i.e. no room for "pet projects", "sentimental attachments", or simple personal preferences. If the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO means that one thousand articles must go, because they nolonger meet the current, post-deprecation criteria, then they must go. It's truly very simple, as simple as it can get. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, whether one, a hundred or a thousand articles "must go" is not up to one person to decide; it's decided case by case in these discussions. I think your passion for a clean sweep in this subject area is weakening your case for this individual discussion. If it truly is "very simple", then why do you have to work this hard to accomplish your goal? -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about one person deciding the fate of articles? Who said anything about actually deleting hundreds of articles? Who said anything about "sweeps", clean or not so clean? Certainly not me. AfDs are decided by editors' consensus. The possibility of many ("hundreds") of articles getgting deleted arises every time such a drastic change in criteria happens, but possibility does not mean certainty. Each AfD should be examined on its own merits.

All I'm doing, Toughpigs, is elaborating on the new status of criteria for porn-related subjects (persons, in particular). The change itself is very simple. The resistance to the change is not, which is understandable since there has obviously been a lot of work in creating and maintaining many of the affected articles. At the end of the day, all that I'm "passionate" about is having the extant criteria applied. Which, again, is as simple as it gets. Mistaking this for some kind of "anti-porn" agenda is a serious error, though it is your privilege. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The fact that the article is GA is not material to notability. In any case, the article was promoted in 2008 when the standards were much more lax. For example, most citatitions are from promotional industry publications (WP:SPIP), non RS web sites, IMDB, and so on. Arguments such as WP:INTERESTING are not helpful in deletion discussions. The annual listicles from a CNBC journalist (?) do not provide significant coverage for the subject: [[30]]. I'm not seeing notability here under WP:BIO / WP:ENT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets GNG as demostrated above. This is getting ridiculous. I cannot believe this was even considered. It is impossible to fully tell the history of the porn in internet age without giving significant attention to Haze. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Coffeeandcrumbs. Could you please provide verifiable evidence that our subject is so important that she meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? As always, I'm willing to change my mind when the facts change!

-The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the best source I can find is a tabloid journalism piece explaining her association with Tiffany Trump, then that's just not good enough - WP:BLPSOURCES takes priority. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than enough here to pass GNG. A couple of editors seem to be taking a position of "excluding sources discussing what she's notable for, she doesn't pass WP:GNG" which is not how that works. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, The Drover's Wife. Please note that sources demonstrating notability in the porn business no longer qualify as supportive of notability, not after WP:PORNBIO has been conclusively deprecated. This is why all the (numerous) sources showing that our subject is a well known member of the porn industry are excluded from the evidence; not for any other reason. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a mischaracterization. The only thing that deprecation of PORNBIO indicates is that the awards do not count for notability. If you want to deprecate the AVN as an unreliable source for porn subjects, that consensus needs to be established at WP:RSN. As of now AVN as a source counts toward GNG. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Coffeeandcrumbs says, that's completely untrue. Deprecating a subject-specific notability guideline means that there is no longer a pathway to automatic, inherent notability for articles within that subject and articles within it then are assessed according to WP:GNG; it does not mean that articles within that subject are assumed to be non-notable unless they also have notability in another subject. There is no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline or even reasoned WP:IAR argument about that one, just a couple of people with very strong opinions getting overly hopeful. As I said originally, that's just not how this works. It's also a position that's going to harm your case sooner or later: I'm someone who thinks we had way too many articles on people in porn for many reasons and would have supported the deprecation of PORNBIO if I'd seen it, but if the same couple of people keep going after actually-notable people on this obviously-incorrect misconception of the deletion process it's likely going to inspire a move to replace it with something instead of just using GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll state again that a person in the porn industry needs to meet the criteria to which WP:PORNBIO redirects us - nothing more and nothing less. A person who has worked exclusively within the porn industry need not possess Wikinotability elsewhere to have an article about that subject merit an inclusion. That's as clear as it can get! We should be having very easy discussions about the porn-related subjects put through the AfD process but insread we get arguments about this or that porn award. Well, when a criterion is stricken off, The Drover's Wife, the text that we deprecate is significant in helping us understand what precisely has changhed. Here's the relevant text of WP:PORNBIO, as it once stood: [The subject must have:] won a well-known award such as an AVN Award; received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or been a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN, the XRCO or equivalent. All that is now gone. -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC that deprecated WP:PORNBIO said nothing about any claim that those it applied to would instead have to meet WP:NACTOR: the vast majority of people arguing for its deprecation didn't make that argument, accordingly, the closer said nothing whatsoever that would support that claim. The redirect was made as later as a WP:BOLD move by some random user after a brief discussion had resolved to do something else entirely with the redirect and has no basis in policy, guideline or even any past discussion whatsoever, so no, these articles do not need to meet the criteria to which WP:PORNBIO redirects.

Again, WP:PORNBIO deprecated the notion that the criteria you listed were grounds for inherent notability - that is, grounds for an automatic keep regardless of sourcing. It did not, in any sense, mean that they are irrelevant to notability - it just means that they need to be considered on the same basis as every other claim to notability that isn't specifically prescribed (either as inherently notable or as definitively not relevant to notability) under a subject-specific guideline (which includes a huge proportion of Wikipedia biographies). Again, on both counts this demonstrates some fundamental misunderstandings about how Wikipedia notability guidelines work: people might well disagree on sources, but your arguments here are based on a belief that is objectively wrong. In short, what you're advocating would require a completely different and likely much more contentious RfC to actually change guidelines to incorporate that belief; there's no basis whatsoever for it in current guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, porn-award-rendered notability has been defenestrated. With WP:PORNBIO in place, porn awards were assigning to a person notability; after its demise, they do not. As to the deprecation RfC saying nothing about persons now having to meet WP:NACTOR, etc, hitting the link to WP:PORNBIO now, see where it takes you.

But do carry on arguing that only the automatic keep of porn-related persons has ben lost and that AVN (for example) render notability. The whole thing is getting absurd. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the specific wording in a Wikipedia guideline that supports the interpretation that porn-related sources or claims to notability are irrelevant for consideration under the WP:GNG. You can't, because it wasn't the subject of the RfC, few if any people argued it and the closer's comments didn't refer to it whatsoever. WP:PORNBIO now takes you to the page the discussion at the time actually agreed on, which was simply a page explaining that it had been deprecated and pointing people to the discussion. As for needing to meet WP:NACTOR: you cannot simply make up stuff because you think it's convenient when both the RfC discussion and the closer's remarks are clearly available to anyone wants to read them. Again, few people raised the issue, the unambiguous close notes accordingly provide absolutely no basis for that interpretation, and the only discussion that's ever been had about the shortcut did not support even the technical matter of redirecting it there let alone making any conclusions about requiring meeting WP:NACTOR. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

look at the project porn list of deletion discussions towards t he top of this discuss ion and look the discussions relati ng to the red links and you will cle arly see your argument has absolutely no.basis in what we actually do. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting or even who you're responding to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Changed my mind after seeing the evidence presented. Looks like I'll have another project! Great work. Missvain (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I couldn't find any really good, solid material about her that would make me convinced she's notable, outside of making a video for a rock band and staring in pornographic films" You are making a WP:VALINFO or WP:NOTVALUABLE argument. You and I may not think what the sources are covering is important,[31] but the point is they do. There are three academic journal articles that provide criticism of her scenes. They could have chosen any scene, but they chose hers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, cool! If that is significant coverage (I could not access the journals) then right on. Trust me, I'm the *last* person who wants to see women who should have Wikipedia articles deleted. I also edited my comment, I do not want to be ever belittle sex work, to reflect that she has been in many pornographic films, but perhaps many have not been significantly covered in reliable secondary sources. I'd be delighted to see the article kept, I just struggled to find anything I considered significant. Thanks for your contributions! Missvain (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing, but re: [32] - per WP:REDACT better the strike rather than replace if anyone has responded/time has gone by (keeping context for other people's comments). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~On the fence~~see below - It's a difficult one. I started with a typical search, then looked into the academic sources linked above. I can only access two of the three, but neither of them are significant coverage of Haze. They talk about particular films she's in and mention her only insofar as to refer to what her character does without saying anything of substance about Haze herself. That contributes to the notability of those films, but doesn't do much for Haze herself. The other part of the equation here is more interesting, and that's what to do with someone who has received a lot of coverage/recognition within an industry, but largely limited to that industry. We have mainstream sources making claims about her being particularly popular/successful, but they take the form of listicles and go into very little detail about why she's popular/successful beyond listing industry awards. We need significant coverage in reliable sources. That it's a GA doesn't matter. The GA review is 12 years old, when many of our policies and guidelines were interpreted differently, especially notability. It's not a free pass to further scrutiny. I'm probably coming down on weak delete, but will sit on the fence to see if anyone can dig up significant coverage from a reliable source (not an item in a listicle, not claims about numbers of videos/awards -- in depth coverage in a good source). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Updating per the sources Aircorn dug up. They're not all great, but there's enough across all these sources to meet GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note to closer. Notability is not a requirement of a Good Article. Have no opinion on the merits of keeping or delisting. AIRcorn (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree there, from Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles .... Notability is one of the "policies regarding content". --John B123 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to do with Featured content so won't speak for them. I am however very involved in the GA process (that's how I saw this AFD) and we do not assess notability when reviewing. A non-notable subject is unlikely to meet the broad requirement, but it does happen. Being a good article does not prevent it from being merged, deleted, redirected or undergoing other major changes anymore than any other article here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did some more...ahem research... and there is enough references out there. [33][34][35][36][37][38][39] AIRcorn (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG based on sources found by others in this discussion. TJMSmith (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Aircorn: found sources, but they need to be analyzed to prevent this WP:GA from being deleted, so a second relist is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 18:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a few editors did some work here and discovered that the person has some notability. I initially rejected the article based on Pornbio. Wm335td (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Deleting based on rationale presented by resident rocker Doomsdayer520. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Circus Dead Decadence[edit]

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

Non-notable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Japanese metal band. (Fun fact: they sing in Japanese despite their English name.) The article's notability has been questioned since April 2013. The band also does not have an article on the Japanese Wikipedia either. The sources in the article include Discogs, which is known to be an unreliable source since it can be edited by anyone, their official site, which is not independent from them, a video site, a Twitter page, and a festival site. None of these indicate any notability. I find it kinda weird that a band that was founded in 2007 does not have any reliable sources. They have two studio albums and some other releases but I just couldn't find anything about ICDD. I did a quick Google search and the things I found were: databases (the usual stuff like Metal Archives, Discogs, Spirit of Metal etc.), Facebook, Twitter and SoundCloud pages, YouTube videos, and some sites that mirror Wikipedia. Therefore, I think this band is not notable for this encyclopedia. Prove me wrong, but I did not found anything that indicates notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I always miss something! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that a search for a Japanese band should also be conducted with the Japanese versions of their name: "インペリアルサーカス・デッド・デカダンス" or "Inperiaru Saakasu Deddo Dekadansu", which leads to some results in Japanese. But with that being said, even those appear to be basic retail/streaming entries, plus some more directory entries of the type noticed by the nominator. It appears that this band has not received any reliable and significant media coverage in their language or any other. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:51, 20 January 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of discoveries by disciplines[edit]

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

I'm not necessarily advocating deletion outright, but this list is... too large in scope. I cannot fathom that someone looking for discoveries in biology would simultaneously be interested in Fugitives being found.

The organization is nearly impossible to make sense of, referencing is completely chaotic, there are considerable overlaps with Outline of biology, Outline of physics, combined with List of timelines#Biology, List of timelines#Physics, etc... and the article suffers from massive bloat for many things that made a fart in the popular press, but which are otherwise routine.

I'm not really sure what to do with this, but I'm leaning WP:TNTing, and converting this into a list of lists where each subfields have their own, more manageable list. Possibly making listing existing timelines and outlines and expanding those. Possibly having dedicated list of discoveries per each field. Possibly outright deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Overly broad and indiscriminate, we don't need to combine the "notions of contrive, conceive of, design,[2] detection,[3] develop[2] devise, discernment,[3] to find,[4] identification, invention, locating and location of,[3] origination,[3][2] pioneer,[2] realization[5] unearthing" into one article. Some should be moved to the linked main articles including those above and List of drugs by year of discovery, Timeline of scientific discoveries, Timeline of chemical element discoveries, Timeline of fundamental physics discoveries, Timeline of particle discoveries. Finding "hidden marks" in a painting is hardly a discovery. Performing an autopsy on Whitney Houston and "discovering" she used a lot of drugs is not a discovery. Capturing a fugitive is not a discovery. Finding that "f---" was used back in 1310 is not a discovery. Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irredeemably, impossibly, irresponsibly indiscriminate. There are a gazillion "discoveries" as defined by this list. (Also, "writings", "history of art", etc. are not "science".) I'm also going to nominate the various List of [nationality] inventions and discoveries for the same reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - I agree the article would contain too many entries; although I really do disagree with your harsh and unrealistic interpretation Reywas92, the list of criteria was added because of the policy guidelines on how to write an introduction for an article, and by following the guidelines only; all the words within the introduction relevant to defining entries for the subject discovery are true of discovery, by following only dictionary definitions of the word discovery, how exactly in any reality is it possible your position on the irrelevancy of things has a grounding in reality. I'm sure you are expressing your preference for inclusion, not maintaining your commitment to the principle of neutrality; these things simply are discoveries: "Finding "hidden marks" in a painting is hardly a discovery. Performing an autopsy on Whitney Houston and "discovering" she used a lot of drugs is not a discovery. Capturing a fugitive is not a discovery. Finding that "f---" was used back in 1310 is not a discovery." Like a child, or adult, who imagines the world must sensibly be a reality, and presented with a new set of informations which contradict that world view, reality, the mind of the child or adult, will not accept the contradiction, refutes the truth, the evidence which is real; given the factors to use to provide an argument, you literally attempt to give breath to a monstrous conclusion like the charges (brought against me also; like I have attempted to commit a crime with my allegiance to the development of the defined subject of the article, and so therefore my execution, as if I am some kind of authoritorian regime) of electricity used on pieces of grave robbed corpses, into a living thing. If I don't like the existing reality, similarly to your dislike, the difference between our positions on the unacceptableness of the truth presented to us both is your commitment to insanity as reality; if you find anywhere in sources, that science flinches then refuses to show findings, and hides the things found from sight, to make ignorance of intelligence for us all. If I'm wrong to think you really believe your own argument is true Reywas92, surely it is better to see hate in the advocate of the devils advocate (and this additionally: devils advocate), rather than a value for advancing an argument amongst all of us, being interested editors Diametakomisi (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC) (minor changes made after signature)[reply]
- it is not a secret, that it is not possible to make 1 from 2 (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/cretinous), in the disagreement between us both; you see you have won, but there is no 1 possible Reywas92, only us 2 Reywas92, if my mind should follow you Diametakomisi (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diametakomisi: Stick to the issues and dial the drama down by 27 notches mmkay? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Diametakomisi/sandbox#List_of_discoveries_in_archaeology is now showing a response specificaly to 17:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "..converting this into a list of lists where each subfields have their own more manageable list.."" (and does not include any drama showing) Diametakomisi (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: really I don't mean any offense at all to you, really I don't, but; I'm sure I didn't think being too voluminous with my opinion within a response amounts to shouting; I'm sure "27 notches" is infact not keeping to the issues; I think it's projection on your part headbomb that you see anything (explosively) dramatic in my response to Reywas92; it's just that I did feel somewhat terrorised by the lack of sympathy in Reywas92's reponse); https://www.strategeast.org/armenia-jumps-27-notches-up-in-the-legatum-prosperity-index-2019/, https://vovworld.vn/en-US/news/vietnam-jumps-27-notches-in-un-competitive-industrial-performance-index-795173.vov (both went up, really I hope they both go back down again, for us both, otherwise there isn't 27 notches of anything to down, at all, that I could see, that is; i.e. it is your bad not mine (no pun intended) Diametakomisi (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Divide should be divided to separate articles; List of drugs by year of discovery already covers the subject of "discoveries in medicine", returns of List of discoveries in- paleobotany includes 2017 in paleobotany, 2018 in paleobotany, 2019 in paleobotany, 2020 in paleobotany on the 1st page), paleontology (shows 18 returns with partial matches for years in the period 2014 to 2020 (with the same titles description as found @ paleobotany) Diametakomisi (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC) (1 minor correction after signature)[reply]

@Headbomb: ! (viz. Derangement, not shouting) thus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Diametakomisi i.e. see "N", mindblowingly yours, Diametakomisi (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is basically impossible to formulate anything like sensible criteria for inclusion in a list like this. The list title is almost synonymous with "list of known facts". XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I-! (i.e. I disclaim) the article, from the position of the principal contributing editor, so it's just fine for the discussion to conclude with delete Diametakomisi (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC) (minor change after signature)[reply]

Divide the list is impressive in its scope, and useful in theory, but completely overwhelming in its current incarnation. Personally- I would love to see this split up by general topic. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:05, 23 January 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. Deleting based on the rationale presented by participants. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magomed Muzayev[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made a single 90th-minute substitute's appearance in a Belarusian Premier League match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer (not the government minister with the same name) in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [40]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here. Jogurney (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one short incident of playing in a fully pro game should not make someone notable. This would be like every tenure track professor being notable (or maybe every person who is an instructor of record of a college class) or every person with a billed role in a commerical movie production. We do not accept either of those extremely low notability thresholds. The "fully pro play" threshold cutting off at one short substitution in one game is equally absird.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL for one appearance. Giant Snowman 20:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like this is one of those players who is impacted by the Russian Second Division rethink. SportingFlyer T·C 01:27, 17 January 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. Deleting per the rationale presented by the nominator and Rorschacma. I used to actually play Vampire back in the day. I loved the Dark Ages... Missvain (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire: The Dark Ages Storytellers Screen[edit]

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

So, this is a screen you could by for a game, which had no other value than hiding the "storyteller" in a slightly more decorative manner, but played no further role, made no difference, had no impact, won no awards, ... It got a "review" in an apparently extremely completist niche magazine, the kind that reviews everything in its niche, and has sunk to oblivion since. Comparable to last years Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitrays by the same editor it seems. Fram (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That single source is not nearly enough for this product to pass the WP:GNG. I'm not finding anything else of any substance regarding the product, so unless further reliable sources can be found, I can't see this being considered to be notable at all. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge the review to Vampire: The Dark Ages. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:UNDUE, this has no place in the general Vampire: The Dark Ages, as it is a piece of pure trivia. And if you, as article creator and with knowledge of the topic, don't know of further sources, then the chances that anything but the obscure would exist seems minimal. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hug^syrup 16:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a "delete" then? Since, well, no more sources have been found, so the "if" part of their keep is not fulfilled... Fram (talk) 05:33, 22 January 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. BD2412 T 05:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Eala[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Some promising results as a junior but nothing major yet to indicate any significant notability yet. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable 15-year-old tennis player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Definitely passes WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. I found some good and indepth media coverage and I've added to article as well. Lunar Clock (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Lunar Clock. Media sources which are recently added indicate that Eala has participated in several major Tennis tournaments. Article is good enough to pass WP:NATHLETE. _SUPER ^ASTIG 07:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per Lunar Clock. And age has nothing to do with notability! She's an amazing young woman! Missvain (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear delete. With sports, articles that only cover tournament results are considered WP:ROUTINE coverage and do not count towards WP:GNG. The only article that goes beyond that is by Globe Telecom, one of her sponsors and therefore not independent enough to count towards WP:GNG either. To the editors that say keep, which sources do they believe count towards WP:GNG? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hug^syrup 16:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eala is 14. Seeded 4th best of 64 players in Australian Open Juniors. When she's playing at Wimbledon next summer, you'll have to put her page back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.212.169.119 (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, I found https://www.foxsports.ph/tennis/1047277/alex-eala-the-phenom-the-prodigy/ from Fox Sports (Philippines) which is definitely significant coverage from a reliable source. Don't let the weakness of the other keep !voters fool you, there's enough coverage here to get this article over the line. Iffy★Chat -- 19:45, 23 January 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. Appears to pass inclusion guidelines per rationale presented below. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Doohan (racing driver)[edit]

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

This is not my area of expertise, but I am afraid this racing driver fails WP:NSPORTS because he has never participated in a fully professional championship. If I am wrong with my estimates what is fully professional and what is not, please let me know, I will be happy to withdraw. Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - F3 Asian, I don't know how fully professional you have to be but he already has a list of participation and with a parent of that stature how long do you think it will be before he does qualify ? Dave Rave (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whilst it is true that Doohan has not yet participated in a fully professional championship (F3 Asian has a mix of professional and amateur drivers), he will be making his debut in the 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship in March. This is a professional championship in which all other so-far-announced competitors have their own Wikipedia pages, some of which are of similar ages and have competed at a similar level of racing in the past (examples are Théo Pourchaire and Frederik Vesti). I don't believe it is worth deleting the page only to inevitably re-instate it in two months' time. Jestal50 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hug^syrup 16:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While you could argue for a case of WP:TOOSOON, the new season is only a few weeks away and will be part of an important championship which has coverage in Autosport and MotorSport Magazine amongst others. While notability is not inherited, the fact he has a well known racing father and is part of the Red Bull junior program will generate a lot of interest. As a current sportsman who races frequently and will continue to do so, I have no concerns that this WP:BLP will languish in the depths of WP and forgotten about like many others sadly. Mattg82 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mattg and Jesta150. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Mattg and Jestal50. I think this is one where, in good faith, given the potential time until Doohan meets notability criteria, the article should be kept. Bookscale (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G7. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. HP Singh[edit]

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

Founder of a currently stock listed company in India. All articles mentioned in sources are about his company, and not him. It is his company that is notable and the credit is his, but still that is kind of inheriting Notability. Daiyusha (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Satin Creditcare Network Limited the company he owns/founded. Mattg82 (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote, redirect will be deleted per below. Mattg82 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattg82: Hi. You are still in for the deletion of the article, right? —usernamekiran (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion for deletion but that is what is going to happen to it, with or with me specifically saying delete. Mattg82 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ditto. This page is more a resume/ self-promotion of founder with little information to add besides the company. PenulisHantu (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not redirect. As a redirect it would be eligible as a R3. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#R3. Implausible typos. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete withouth redirect. This is a clear cut UPE case. The page was created in userspace, then moved in mainspace as Harvinder Pal Singh, which was moved to HP Singh, and finally it was moved to Mr. HP Singh with summary this is real name... The subject clearly fails general notability criteria. And we should not encourage promoters by giving them redirects. No matter how cheap redirects are. And in any case, like CambridgeBayWeather said, the redirect will be elligible for speedy. See: MOS:HONORIFIC. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Wikipedia:G7. The author of the article blanked it. Glades12 (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect per CambridgeBayWeather. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 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 The Sandman characters. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nuala (comics)[edit]

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

No evidence this fictional character passes GNG/NFICTION. Prod removed with no rationale :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:03, 16 January 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} 16:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, delete. Anything with "Fictional character biography" as a heading, particularly where that's virtually the whole article, is virtually guaranteed to be non-notable fancruft. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable comic character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Sandman characters Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Sandman characters - fails notability guidelines, but a redirect sounds better than just deleting. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trick arrows[edit]

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

No evidence this passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. The gadget is mentioned here or there, but there is no in-depth analysis or such, a few fanpages with plot summaries (lists of gadgets, etc.). Non-notable fictional weapon concept. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:56, 16 January 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} 15:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe potential for a List of arrow types that could go alongside Category:Arrow types, but this particular article is just fancruft and should be deleted per WP:TNT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The few sources being used here are not from reliable sources, and are all just referring to the Green Arrow's arsenal. The vast majority of the information here is unsourced, and the section on "other media" is not only unsourced but largely comprised of WP:SYNTH. While the phrase "trick arrow" comes up with plenty of results, none of them are actually in-depth discussions that would allow for any sort of decent article, and certainly do not support the mountain of cruft and synth that this article is made up of. As the vast majority of the results from searches use the phrase in reference to the Green Arrow, perhaps a redirect to his article would be appropriate, but none of the information currently present is worth preserving or merging. Rorshacma (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too much detail. Any reliable stuff can be stated on the articles of notable characters, no justification for a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to arrow minus the long list of which character uses which type of trick arrows. JIP | Talk 12:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to arrow per Jip above. BOZ (talk) 13:06, 23 January 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. Fails GNG. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keith R. Kernspecht[edit]

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

Subject doesn’t meet notability guidelines and has his own website as reference. Subject has never been in any news sources nor been on a front cover of a martial arts magazine Australianblackbelt (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is the same as Salih Avci it has only the subjects own website as a source. Jaxbrother (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing significant for a person as practitioner in martial arts and no independent relaibel could be found of the subject. Fails WP:GNG CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage and no indication of meeting any notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, or WP:MANOTE. Self sourced and sourced to his organization.-- Deep fried okra 10:49, 21 January 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. Deleting based on the rationale below. Tolkien stuff is really getting a lot of attention on AfD these days... Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkorin[edit]

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

Non-notable subset of Tolkien's elves. Most of the Google scholar hits are to sources of questionable reliability like elvish.org, or barely mention the subject. We only really get substantial mentions in articles attempting to produce phonologies of Elvish, but this article is about the group of elves, not the language. Hog Farm (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elvish languages (Middle-earth)#External history I cannot find any non-linguistic discussions of this fictional group. Furthermore, I doubt that an article can be written on the Ilkorin language. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only seems to appear at all in Tolkien's back notes. Seems to totally lack any relevance to any published work. I see no justification even for a redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This plumbs the depths of obscurity. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is material better suited for a Tolkien fan Wiki than here.TH1980 (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very obscure.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:20, 18 January 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. Deleting based on rationale below. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Door of Night[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional location. Is referenced on Google scholar a few times, but most appear to be in passing in and in the context of a plot summary. Many of them quote the exact same phrase: " Éarendel sprang from the Ocean's cup. In the gloom of the mid-world's rim; From the door of night as a ..." Another article, in Tolkien Studies mentions this door in the context of speculation that it is the same thing as the "portals of the sunset." Not much in secondary RS to build an article from. Hog Farm (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AfD is not relevant to this one, it ended with a history merge of a redirect with this name so that this article could be produced in 2008. Hog Farm (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This door is a very minor part of Tolkien's legendarium. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is way beyond the scope of any of Tolkien's works. It is never even hinted at in either LotR or the Hobbit. I do not think it is even mentioned in the Silmarillion, but if it is not in a major way. We should not be creating articles on everything mentioned in a writers marginal notes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Passing mentions in Tolkien's writings don't warrant an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very obscure.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:21, 18 January 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. Fails guidelines regarding politicians. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toshio Yamanaka[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia certainly keeps articles about diplomats who can be shown to clear WP:GNG on the sources — but we do not extend all diplomats an automatic "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt them from having to clear GNG on the sources. But of the three footnotes here, all three are primary sources that are not support for notability, and there's no evidence of notability-supporting media coverage about him being shown at all, so he doesn't clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. While consensus can change, the strong trend for the past seven years has been to delete such articles, unless there is strong evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. By all accounts, this appears to be an ordinary diplomat, albeit one who served several posts. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 22 January 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. Closing - I reviewed the contested deletion comments and one is for a fan of the brand and another provides sources that are all primary and affiliated with the subject in discussion. If the subject eventually passes GNG, I'm happy to undelete or provide support. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onix Audio[edit]

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

Does not seem to satisfy WP:GNG, nor WP:NCORP

Note: References 2 and 3 are impossible for me to verify, but they do not appear to be notability-establishing sources. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That article in a trade magazine site is credible but does not establish notability. If it were mentioned in a national news source it would. Australianblackbelt (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources to establish notability just aren't there. Note that shortly before this AFD started, I cut a fair amount of unsourced material from this article. Here's a link to a pre-cut revision. There are a few other reviews linked in that version, but they are reviews of individual products and not in particularly reliable sources, so I don't believe these would help the case for notability. - MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note two contested deletion comments on Talk:Onix Audio. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:48, 21 January 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. Keeping. The subject passes our actor inclusion guidelines. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuen Shun-yi[edit]

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

Subject doesn’t meet notability guidelines and has only 1 non reliable source Australianblackbelt (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he appeared in many films and was nominated four times for the Hong Kong Film Award for Best Action Choreography, including a win at the 11th Hong Kong Film Awards. I've added a source for his award. -Zanhe (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no news sources just the mention of an award with two other people this is not enough to write a whole article. Simple sharing an award with others is not enough we need sources to back up the article and it doesn’t automatically make them notable. Australianblackbelt (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I mention he was also nominated ~~three~~ six other times? He was also nominated at the 55th Golden Horse Awards, and appeared in 100+ films as an actor. The article was complete garbage. I've now rewritten the whole thing with sources. -Zanhe (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - prolific actor and action director, who has been nominated for notable awards on multiple occasions. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely passes WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:23, 22 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Hyndman[edit]

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

We lack multiple indepdent, reliable sources to show notability. One source in a local newspaper in a small island polity is not enough to show notability. This whole issue was extensively discussed back in about 2016, about 4 years after the last nomination, and arguments for default notable lists of beauty pageant winners were rejected. This means beauty pageant winners have to pass the GNG, which she does not. There was also some view that if all the links were connected to a beauty pagent win that might be one event, but that was never fully decided. However Hyndman is clearly non-notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wasn't that difficult to find some NBC News and El Mundo coverage. JamieWhat (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Representing your country in the Miss Universe pageant is different from being a random "beauty pageant winner." Per WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." There is a difference between winning a "notable" award (such as Miss British Virgin Islands) and winning a non-notable award like Miss Wonder Bread. Looking at our article Miss Universe 2012, virtually all contestants have articles. Hard to see why this one should be an exception. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news source is credible and it is a notable award, by the way any pageant contestant can be notable if she gets national news coverage or anyone else for that matter. Jaxbrother (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, nom as usual did no WP:BEFORE. Completely absud nomination. Smartyllama (talk) 20:02, 21 January 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) 14:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salih Avci[edit]

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

Subject has only one non credible reference and does not meet notability guidelines Australianblackbelt (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The only source on this article is the subjects own website. Jaxbrother (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails WP:GNG for no independent reliable could be found. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and no indication of any accomplishments that meet WP:MANOTE. Another example of a martial artist creating his own organization and that doesn't show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Out-of-process disruptive nomination. See WP:ANI#User:Scope_creep_Revenge_and_disruptive_editing (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S&T Motiv[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. No coverage whatsoever. References are press releases and profile page on Janes trade book. scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep primary small arms supplier to the South Korean military all well referenced. A clear case of WP:REVENGE by nominator User:scope_creep as signposted here: User talk:Mztourist#Articles to Afd. Mztourist (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no coverage whatsoever. You have used blog references and press releases to support the inclusion of the article. You audited the articles I wrote, I'm doing the same your articles. It is only fair. scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anything from the publisher of Jane's Fighting Ships is a reliable source. Small Arms Defence Journal also appears to be a reliable source. While the SADJ article gives a 404 error, it appears to have been a staff-written report about the firm in the context of a significant trade show. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Also, see this search for the company's Korean name. In general, a company traded on a stock exchange is likely to be the subject of coverage in reliable sources, but some of the coverage of any South Korean company will be in Korean. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Out-of-process disruptive nomination. See WP:ANI#User:Scope_creep_Revenge_and_disruptive_editing (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Bo Woods[edit]

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

Non-notable geographic location by convention. References are passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 12:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major VC/PAVN base area during the Vietnam War and scene of numerous engagements, all well referenced. A clear case of WP:REVENGE by nominator User:scope_creep as signposted here: User talk:Mztourist#Articles to Afd. Mztourist (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the most part, the Google Book references on it, mention it as a location only. scope_creep^Talk 13:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Out-of-process disruptive nomination. See WP:ANI#User:Scope_creep_Revenge_and_disruptive_editing (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michelin Rubber Plantation[edit]

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

Non-notable plantation. References are passing mentions or WP:PRIMARY documentation. scope_creep^Talk 12:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major VC/PAVN base area during the Vietnam War and scene of numerous engagements, all well referenced. A clear case of WP:REVENGE by nominator User:scope_creep as signposted here: User talk:Mztourist#Articles to Afd. Mztourist (talk) 12:52, 16 January 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 Chuck characters. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volkoff Industries[edit]

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

Fictional organization without notability in the real world (it's not even mentioned in Chuck (TV series)), article fails WP:NOTPLOT. Its in-universe relevance (main antagonist for one season) and significant associated characters are already covered sufficiently at List of Chuck characters#Volkoff Industries. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Chuck characters where the topic is already covered. There does not appear to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to support an independent article, but a redirect could be helpful for readers interested in this subject. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 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 Balto II: Wolf Quest. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aniu[edit]

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

Nonnotable fictional supporting character in a film and its straight-to-video sequel. Prodded in Nov 2007 because "Article is completely unsourced, notability of this supporting fictional character in a modestly successful movie has not been shown", but the prod was contested without comment by a now blocked editor . – sgeureka ^t•c 12:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - Very minor fictional character with nothing in reliable, secondary sources that would allow this to pass the WP:GNG. I was initially going to suggest a Redirect to Balto (film), but it turns out the character was not even named in that film and thus is not mentioned in the article. So, perhaps a redirect to Balto II: Wolf Quest could work, as redirects are cheap. Rorshacma (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to IBM Research. Suggesting merge into IBM Research. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Research – Brazil[edit]

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

I prodded it with "No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Could redirect to IBM research, through it's dubious this sub-lab is a likely searchable term." Prod was declined, an anon redirected it later, that was reverted. Time for an AfD discussion. What makes this research institute separately notable from its parent company (IBM Research)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on here, User:Piotrus? You nominated this article for deletion like a week ago, I responded. No "prod was declined". Where did that page go? Please resurrect it so that others know that all that legitimately happened.

Now you are nominating it over all again like it is your first time and I never did. This isn't right. I am going to leave this same message at the other two pages where you are doing the identical thing. Yours, 11:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I checked that page, then the auto-generated notice that was left on my Talk page on December 30, 2019, which indicated an objection could be left in the form of an Edit Summary, which I did: "There is just a date and location for this lab at the IBM Research page. There is relevant cited content here. The page is not simply "clutter" to be deleted." Without consensus you then merged the article into IBM Research, which was reverted by another editor, not at all an anonymous user, it was, User:Dicklyon, who has been with the encyclopedia since 2006 and has over 100,000 edits. My original comment stands on its merits. Don't pretend none of this is happening. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little independent coverage, could just be included on parent company's page. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - (Talk) - 12:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Or whatever the proper terminology is. There is valid content at the page. Editor time can be better spent cleaning up gop at "In popular culture" sections or other valuable tasks here than this. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. But we need to see a serious merge proposal and discussion first. The previous so-called merge that I reverted was just a delete, with the merge target article getting smaller when 6 other articles were deleted. This was just wrong. If we don't have a sensible merge plan for the more minor sites, keep them. For the major sites like Almaden and Zurich, just keep. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, 2nd choice, Merge per Dicklyon above. Doug Mehus T·C 03:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge t0 IBM Research as a sub-heading PenulisHantu (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While a good faith effort was made to create this article and demonstrate its notability, there is a consensus that it is not notable at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On This Date In Hip-Hop[edit]

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

I can't find much (if any) coverage of this website. Sources given in the article are all unreliable, self-published, or don't mention this site at all (like the Billboard one). Nothing on Google News, nothing among the 31 Google results[41] or the 91 for the abbreviation[42]. Fram (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new in my page creation, I may have rushed through this process but here are more articles that are not self published. Do I add them here or to the actual page?

Comment: Add them on the actual page. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i've added links. I have more iheart media links but i'm tired. I will add them in the AM

I've also removed some categorizations at the footer. Please advise on what else I can do to improve the page

Comment: I added a tag describing what the nominator means by the sourcing problems. Also please sign your name to your posts on this page with four tildes:~~~~ TomCat4680 (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok thatnks for your help. I will check out your describing tag QTeeLatinaGurl (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok as i understand you tag,I need to add sources that speak on/about the website. There are a couple interviews and an L.A. weekly article published that I will post shortly. I just need to locate them QTeeLatinaGurl (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That sounds good. Also maybe cut back on the Twitter and Instagram sources, that's what the nominator means by self-published. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I will pick the important ones. Thank you QTeeLatinaGurl (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Once the issues mentioned are fixed. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I took some time to remove instagram and twitter sources. I have a question, if i am detailing following, is it necessary to have cite to back that up? if not then i have more instagram and twitter links to delete. I have also swapped out some for actual news articles. I am awaiting interview links, I should have by Monday. thank you for your time and tips QTeeLatinaGurl (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes secondary and tertiary sources are always better than primary ones. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No independent, secondary and in-depth industry news are available to verify it is notable. Not a sausage. The first 10 references don't mention any significant details about the company as a product, nor a notable website. They are name drops, who is doing what where, some biography details about 2-pac. The second 10 references are much the same. As a corporation it probably falls WP:NCORP or at the least WP:ORG, which fails both is major way. Where are the independent, secondary and in-depth industry source that tell me it is notable. 12 of the refs are instagram or youtube and are non-rs. If I reviewed this on NPP it would post it as G11 as an advertisement. If I had to copyedit I would remove large chunks of it for fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. scope_creep^Talk 13:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being used as a source or breaking news doesn't make it notable unless it is reported on by a secondary source. scope_creep^Talk 13:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried searching for references but didn't get anything which can be added. Ghits are mostly social media links. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 21:06, 23 January 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) 14:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sebamala[edit]

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

Resumé looking article for a non notable politician, businessman & engineer falling short of WP:NPOL & WP:BASIC and also does not seem to have any in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence does not scale WP:GNG either. Celestina007 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete political candidate, fails WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 12:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in future elections they have not yet won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no claim that he has preexisting notability for any reason that would have gotten him into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy, and cites not even remotely close to enough campaign coverage to make his candidacy more nationally special than everybody else's candidacies. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins the seat, but nothing here is a reason why he would already qualify to have a Wikipedia article today. Once again, with feeling: Wikipedia is not a free public relations database for aspiring politicians to advertise or promote their campaigns. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very clear failure of standard on candidate notability.IceFishing (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject appears to be a well-established businessman but the sources do not rise to the level of notability for a Wikipedia article and therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also, as a political candidate, this does not meet WP:NPOL. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is more like a promotional biographical write-up than an encyclopedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable candidate. People don't get articles for only being candidates, they have to have done something more significant. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 11:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty clear WP:NPOL fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill business person and candidate for next year. This is an SPA's first article in main-space, and appears to be a newbie error. We almost always delete articles about candidates, and that consensus is not likely to change by 2021. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 22 January 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) 14:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhat Maurya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRIC, only played U-19b level Gbawden (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not even meet our insanely low threshold for cricket notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- even if the atrociously lax WP:NCRIC were binding, this wouldn't meet it. Reyk _YO! 15:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign that they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCRIC. Spike 'em (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NCRIC and I have no idea where the 1970 DOB comes from. StickyWicket (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #2 - disruptive nomination per this ANI thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mac-Talla (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Promotional as last ref is a shop. Refs are mix of blogs. scope_creep^Talk 10:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly redirect to Christine Primrose if more sources don't turn up. Existing sources are not blogs but newsletters of minor but established organizations, which may not contribute much to notability but are reliable for what they're being cited for. The last ref is only being cited for Primrose being a member which hardly seems promotional. b uidhe 11:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a link to the shop selling the CD of the band, which is promotional.scope_creep^Talk 11:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it isn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:MUSICBIO, point 6 of which is "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO Lirazelf (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mabbett's reasoning, both Christine Primrose and Arthur Cormack are unquestionably notable so it wouldn't make sense to merge to both of them (as well as Alison Kinnaird). Also the article has been considerably improved since nomination. b uidhe 14:53, 16 January 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) 14:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Min Bahadur Shrestha[edit]

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

Has 6 sources, only one of which is reliable. There are two sections - one promoting the subject's major publications, the other promoting media interviews. Page creator has obvious COI. Sources do not show that the article meets GNG. CatcherStorm ^talk 12:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why this article is in the process of deletion. Every information in this article is valid.I have reviewed my article and I didnot find any problem and have done any intentional mistake. Shresthasubarna2050 (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Thank youShresthasubarna2050 (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no actual deminstration of meeting a notability requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG and clearly a promotional article created by a COI editor. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swasti Mehul[edit]

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

Non-notable person failing WP:GNG with no multiple in-depth reliable independent sources. All sources in the article are not significant coverage, but short mentions and their topics in question are not the person, but mostly the album/song they had vocals in.

The article was created in mainspace as copy-paste from the draft. Although not AfD criteria, the article is written poorly and reads like a puffery piece that would not have passed AfC. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No in-depth coverage, some mentions in passing. Not seeing how she passes WP:NMUSIC, ping me if you want to argue she does. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Set notation[edit]

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

A content fork of set (mathematics) that contains almost nothing but trivialities and WP:OR D.Lazard (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, speedy close this nomination: instead of deleting this article, it is better to make it a redirect to Set builder notation. D.Lazard (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Cold War Medal[edit]

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

I cannot find any secondary coverage on this minor award. Fails GNG. Also, it is against Wikipedia policy to base articles entirely on primary sources as per WP:PRIMARY. b uidhe 09:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 09:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 09:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Secondary coverage in RS for this proposed minor award does exist. See [43][44] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator's interpretation of WP:PRIMARY is entirely incorrect; it states no such thing, and in fact many articles are sourced from primary sources (as they should be if their subject is a consequence of legislation). What PRIMARY in so many words simply states is that if you are providing analysis, that's when primary sources cannot be used. Also, notability is not dependent on the sources being primary, but rather on whether sources do in fact exist that prove the subject is notable. After consultation with WikiProject Military History (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Awards) this award was deemed non-notable under that Project's criteria. Furthermore, there is no secondary coverage at all that I could find. What's been quoted above are in fact two very local sources discussing cold war medals in general, and not the Texas one specifically. This all points to a very flimsy notability claim directly hanging on the very same legislation that creates them. And given they don't seem to have had any societal impact, etc, that argument is a very weak one. I therefore support the article's deletion. PK650 (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with PK650 remarks above that this is non-notable, and there’s little evidence of notability easily found anywhere. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it exists but is ordinary. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Border Security and Support Service Ribbon[edit]

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

I cannot find any secondary coverage for this proposed minor award. Fails GNG and may be a case of TOOSOON. b uidhe 09:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 09:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 09:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Cold War Medal. This award is in an even more precarious position given it is the "tenth highest" award in Texas, and it's "proposed for issue". No independent sources could be found to support its inclusion per the GNG. Therefore I support its deletion. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator and PK650 comments above. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:55, 17 January 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) 08:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veena Nandakumar[edit]

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

Subject of article falls short of NACTOR & does not have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of GNG also. Celestina007 (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, fails NACTOR by miles or so. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete subject doesnt have significant coverage thus fails general notability guidelines. The subject fails notability guidelines for actors as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails pass notability. --SalmanZ (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The actress may become more notable in the future, but I think it's WP:TOOSOON for an article just yet. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Dietrich Sander[edit]

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

In 2017, the subject of the article died while his WP:PRODBLP was in the period it could be contested. (Has this ever happened before?) So, the {{prod}} was removed on procedural grounds. Three years later, he's no more notable than before, (and probably less,) but another PROD cannot be opened, so here we are. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a lot of sources on his dewiki article. Is that a case of primary sources or refbombing? b uidhe 09:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. I'm not fluent in German, so I'm not in a position to evaluate the German article for either the strength of his notability claim or the quality of its sources — but that's also true of the vast majority of users on the English Wikipedia, which means this article, in this form, is not telling anybody anything useful or informative about him. It really isn't helpful to just write a one-line sentence stating that an article topic existed, and then direct readers to another language Wikipedia in lieu of actually expanding the English article to longer than one sentence, because most readers of this article can't read the other one. If you want an article to exist about him in English, you need to put at least some semblance of actual effort into it — there's obviously no requirement that an English article would actually have to be a full literal word-for-word translation of the German one, but there is a requirement that an English article actually contain a notability claim in the first place, which this doesn't. If somebody with German skills can do better than this, then bring it on. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 16 January 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) 08:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Magic[edit]

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

A single review of a book about Magic the Gathering, published in a magazine from the company producing Magic the Gathering, so not an independent source. I couldn't find any other source beyond commercial listings, fan fora, or passing mentions, in the 81 Google hits, so this seems to lack notability. I couldn't find any reference to this book outside books by the same author or publisher either. Fram (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any reasonable sources that could justify this as an encyclopedia topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dragon magazine no. 227 was published by TSR, Inc. in 1996. At that time, TSR was not affiliated (yet) with Wizards of the Coast, the producer of Magic the Gathering. So the article in that magazine should count as an independent source. Daranios (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of the fact that Dragon was not yet associated in any way with Magic: The Gathering, it is still just a single source. With virtually no other information from reliable, secondary sources, it is a failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find any coverage that would substantiate inclusion per GNG or NBOOK. PK650 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 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) 08:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Tracks[edit]

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

A single review in a niche publication is not sufficient to meet our notability guideline. Looking for further sources only produced some fora (and many unrelated travel pages) among the 73 Ghgits[45], and one book which mentions it in the bibliography[46] Fram (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A nice book, but falls well short of the modest requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (books) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried looking looking for sources for the book, as well as for its publisher, and came up with nothing in reliable sources regarding either of them. The single review in Dragon is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Adel Jassim Mohammad Alshereda[edit]

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

All sources provided in the article do not appear reliable (news sources in the article are on blog portions or community contributed portions of their sites), and a check for news sources only revealed the blog type sources provided in the article. As such, I do not think this person meets our notability criteria. (The article also appears to have COI/paid editing issues.) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic names are searched with first and last name only: mohammad alshereda. After searching, I believe he is notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md alsh (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:MILL, and WP:PROF. Academic at the very early part of his career; we almost always delete such articles. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as G11. (non-admin closure) CptViraj (📧) 08:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack D. Simons[edit]

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

WP:AUTOBIO repeatedly recreated after warnings, full of OR, obviously self promotional. Taking to AfD due to recreations. JamesG5 (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE, I saw after I posted this that there was also a previous AfD. JamesG5 (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Female Entrepreneur Association[edit]

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

Sorry to nominate what seems to be a worthwhile organization, however, the only references I can find are in profiles of its founder in which it's mentioned in passing she founded the FEA. Wolfson5 (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 03:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Dial[edit]

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

Despite my best efforts to improve coverage about pornographic actors in the wake of the pornography biography notability guidelines being deprecated, Nikki Dial does not pass WP:GNG. I spent time working on her article and found one poor quality interview from a non-mainstream porno review website and mere mentions about her elsewhere, everything else is a primary source from companies she has worked for or won awards from. Now, perhaps folks want to see winners of AVN Best Actress be inherently notable, but, at this point, Ms. Dial does not pass our general notability guidelines. Thanks for your reviews and assuming good faith in my efforts. Missvain (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was leaning towards keep based on the article content, then found a Google search was so thin I was questioning the verifiability of the entire article, cited sources aside. This is another one of these pre-internet era ones that could conceivably have decent coverage in reliable sources if someone had access to the right sources of that era. However, given that what is online is extremely poor, we've got nothing to show that anything more does exist, and I'm less confident that it might than some of the others I've already voted to delete, it needs deleting until and unless someone can come up with something better. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. -The Gnome (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see where she has been involved in anime, either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 21 January 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 Fahad Albutairi. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Yekthar Show[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a YouTube series, not even attempting to make any claim of notability stronger than the fact that it exists. In truth, I would ordinarily have speedied this, but a prior speedy nomination by another editor has already been declined on the grounds that A7 "does not apply to videos or series of them, on or off youtube" -- which is clearly not the case, since A7 applies to web content and doesn't say that video web content is somehow excluded from that. But since a speedy was already declined, AFD it is. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After my attempt to speedy delete this article was declined and couldn't find enough to establish notability and actually this article had been previously speedy deleted before under the name La Yekthar (Also created by User:Yassofa). Despite repeated warnings about creating totally unsourced articles on subjects with dubious notability the article's creator continues to do so. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fahad Albutairi, which has more content on the same topic.Citing (talk) 20:34, 16 January 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 Belgium national cricket team#Head Coach. There's a strong consensus that this individual is not sufficiently notable, either via the specific WP:NCRICKET guideline or the general guideline's requirement for significant coverage. However, a very strong point is made that he's a plausible search term as the head coach for a national team, and he is mentioned on that page in a section that could be expanded. Given the harmless, stubby nature of the current article, it appears that redirecting with history intact satisfies both requirements. Information can be selectively merged at editors' discretion. ~ mazca ^talk 13:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done merged. Aoziwe (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Rutgers[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, either as coach or player. No SIGCOV to warrant inclusion per GNG (coverage merely constitutes mentions of "the team included" type). Therefore fails both general notability and WP:CRIN. PK650 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCRICKET. WWGB (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I could find nothing that indicated notability in the subject's own right. As the head coach for a national team, even though the team is a minnow, this is a likely search term. I suggest trim, merge, and redirect to Belgium national cricket team#Head Coach. Aoziwe (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRICKET LibStar (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - this is the best option in this case. The merge should be very selective, but information should go to both the Belgium national cricket team and possibly also to Qatar T10 League. The redirect should go to Belgium in the first instance but needs monitoring. I'm not convinced that failing NCRICKET is really a valid reason to delete in itself if there is wider notability and am more convinced by @Aoziwe:'s argument above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Belgium national cricket team#Head Coach as viable alternative to deletion. Bookscale (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

STATIS[edit]

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

Article about a musician, that does not meet any of the WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG criteria. Of the two references, one is a blog, the other might be a reliable source, but isn't the in-depth coverage in multiple sources that is required. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--

One is a blog, yes. However it is an award blog that posts reviews of of music. It's highly revered in the music industry.

Likewise, the article meets the following Musical Notability requirements:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] The artist has been published multiple times, in a non-trival manner on reliable sources.

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. The artist is placed at #2 on the Global and National charts on the dubstep charts Reverbnation charts, a leading musical platform in the USA.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. The artist has had tracks picked up by international radio station, DashRadio, which boasts over 10M monthly listeners, and the Indie Radio Top 10 by Metro Media Group, in rotation.

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. The same as above.

BossManFergie (talk)BossManFergie —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides being autobiographical self-promotion, it's all just probably just WP:TOOSOON. The referenced reviews appear to be passing fluff pieces by non-professional writers, on sites which are probably of questionable reliability. What's left online that I can see seems to be mostly social media. If you want a Wikipedia article then you should continue to do the types of things that makes people who write for a living write about the things you do. If your Wikipedia article is the most in-depth coverage of you available, then you don't qualify yet for a Wikipedia article. GMG ^talk 13:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the self promotion claim - this was a case of messed up autocorrect on a mobile device. As the photographer who took the photo, it was supposed to read: "File uploaded was taken by me, BY myself. "

As for the article references, they are by extremely professional and vetted writers in the electronic music scene, both writing for award winning sources. Easily verifiable. --BossManFergie (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)BossManFergie[reply]

This isn't even credited to an author, and is written by someone who has yet to learn spelling and grammar. This is written by a 24 year-old freelance writer whose apparent claim to fame is being an aspiring poet with a book that was never actually printed, put out by a publisher that doesn't seem to exist. This is a generic webpage that doesn't even mention the subject. The next three "sources" are just tracks with no text whatsoever, which are not usable on an article about a living person. The next two sources also contain basically no text other than a listing.

These do not constitute sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and if we removed all of the poorly sourced content from the article, we'd have nothing left but a blank page. GMG ^talk 17:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, the age of a writer does NOT denote if they are a reputable and reliable source. Many great writers are freelance in today's news market. Both EDM Sauce and A&R Factory are reliable sources as can bee seen here. As for the links, they are all direct links to tracks on the charts for arguably the biggest Electronic Music Record Label, that states, on the track itself, it's highest ranking on the chart. --BossManFergie (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)BossManFergie[reply]

Delete, per WP:NMUSIC. There's no meat to this - A pair of SEO-fodder wordpress blogs does not a notable musician make. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous arguments, which sum up the deficiencies of sources and charts pretty nicely. Incredibly, the keep vote above unwittingly cites a source (this link) that if you take time to investigate (it's a site that exists to help artists promote their music), actually makes a good argument against keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Echoes[edit]

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

May not pass wp:BAND. While this band does appear to be borderline on meeting a few of the criteria for notability, I'm not sure if this completely establishes notability. If this is notable, it will have to be completely rewritten to comply with guidelines. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but would look again if some decent sources were forthcoming. There maybe some offline sources I don't know, everything online points to concert listings, announcements and so forth. Mattg82 (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) No reason given for nomination.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Kuchibhotla[edit]

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

DragoMynaa (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can the nominator please give a reason why this should be deleted? What’s wrong with the sources provided? Mccapra (talk) 04:00, 16 January 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.