Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 January	26 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 delete. Looks like this one fails a wide variety of things - RS, N, FICTION, etc. If there is something in the article that someone wants to merge, ping me and I'll copy it over to your userspace. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrolisk[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. There is no particular reason to retain such a minor fictional element. TTN (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The D&D version of Cockatrices was already deleted at AFD. This even less prominent variant, which has no coverage in reliable, secondary sources, should be deleted as well. Rorshacma (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and primary-sourced fancruft that is not worthy of WP:PRESERVE. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to insufficient WP:RS to establish WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:36, 30 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 but discuss a move. On the one hand, the WP:GNG-based keep claims are well taken and most people don't appear to be convinced that WP:NOTMEMORIAL would justify deletion here (I am also a little unsure what "there's already a perfectly good WP:NOT which applies here" refers to). And as pointed out the "one event" policies and guidelines allow for a repurposing of a noncompliant article in lieu of deletion. On the other hand, the WP:BLP1E (i.e the individual is not notable) arguments are also well taken and a number of people have suggested that a move would be appropriate although I note there is no unanimity on the issue. There was also some discussion of a merge and of a second AFD if no WP:LASTING coverage emerged; these didn't get much discussion but can perhaps be considered outside/after this AFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Berman (transgender activist)[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E of a person whose only stated or sourced indication of notability is a two-day blip of media coverage upon her death. As always, people are not automatically notable just because their death made it into the news -- if that were how it worked, we would have to keep an article about every single person who ever died in a car accident or a house fire or a workplace safety incident. But there's no other discernible claim of preexisting notability in life here: she's stated as an "activist", but the only evidence of activism being presented is that she volunteered for the local community centre, which is not "inherently" notable work in and of itself. And I checked both Google and ProQuest to find older coverage that might bolster her notability, but was completely unable to find a single piece of reliable source coverage about her, in any context whatsoever, prior to the death blip. Wikipedia is not a free platform for memorializing everybody who ever died, but there's just not enough substance, or enough sourcing for anything apart from her death itself, to deem her notable enough for permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia — the notability test for activists is not automatically passed just because the article and/or its sources use the word "activist", but requires properly sourceable evidence of significant and noteworthy and externally-reported-upon accomplishments as an activist. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and potentially rename to "Murder of Julie Berman" per WP:BLP1E and User:Clovermoss below; Comment - I haven't formed an opinion yet, but I object to the premise that someone must have demonstrated notability prior to their death for the facts of their death to be valid or relevant. This isn't someone who died randomly in a car accident or house fire; this is someone who was murdered, and for whom there is widespread (even international) concern that her murder is related to her prior advocacy work. Said advocacy may only have gotten news coverage because she died, but it seems clear why the Toronto LGBT+ community (and the LGBT+ community writ large) is treating her death as notable; here's some specific information about her:
From Globalnews.ca (also picked up in From CBC.ca):
She had helped out with various events at The 519, an LGBTQ charity in Toronto, over the last 30 years, they said. "Berman worked on the charity’s Trans Access project, an education program that focused on needs in the trans community.
“Julie has suffered violence in the past and it’s important that we remember her advocacy in openly willing to talk about what happens inside the trans community, and her ability to advocate for rights of all members, that made the community better,” said Olivia Nuamah, the executive director of Pride Toronto."
From CNN:
Two years ago, Berman served on the center's organizing committee for the Transgender Day of Remembrance, an international event that memorializes transgender people killed in transphobic attacks over the past year.
At the 2017 vigil, Berman spoke out on anti-transgender violence, and mourned people she knew who had been killed, according to Susan Gapka, an organizer and educator with The 519.
I agree she's not notable for advocacy alone--sadly 30 years of noble and needed volunteer work, including Transgender Day of Remembrance organizing, does not make one notable--I believe it's important to focus on the actual reason she may or may not ultimately be notable, which is that she was an outspoken transgender rights advocate who was murdered, with much preliminary public discussion already over how much the two things are related. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated above with !vote. I wouldn't be opposed to a 2nd AfD in a year or two if there's no WP:LASTING impact, but it's too early to make that call, and her death has gotten the sort of outsized international attention that (IMO) supports notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shelbystripes. If she is not notable, her death is. Since WP:BLP1E states that "the general rule is to cover the event, not the person", I would support the article title being changed to "Murder of Julie Berman" with the current title becoming a redirect. That said, I'm willing to change my !vote if someone can demonstrate her activism as notable in itself. Also, while there was increased coverage during those two days, more recent coverage exists. Some examples include: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Clovermoss (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately, I have to agree with Bearcat's one event argument, and also bring up WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which as a part of WP:NOT trumps WP:GNG. I cannot find any coverage of her that isn't about her incredibly tragic murder, and even though there's more recent coverage it's all a part of the same event. I do have two hopes: 1) someone will find sources that shows she was notable before her death and we can keep this; 2) if not, that we can add her to a list, or somewhere else in the encyclopaedia, but unfortunately this should not be a standalone article at this time. But unfortunately the WP:NOT is spot on, and I agree with that. SportingFlyer T·C 00:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, I don't think WP:NOTMEMORIAL is relevant here. No one commenting (that I'm aware of) knew the victim personally or is making arguments based on personal connections or feelings; the discussion is whether a victim of an internationally publicized murder is notable as such. There's no requirement that people achieve notability before their death, and there are many examples of an otherwise non-notable person's death making them notable enough for inclusion (Matthew Shepard, Trayvon Martin, Death of Brian Wells, Emmett Till, Murder of James Craig Anderson, Jaime Zapata, etc.). I'm not saying Julie Berman is definitely notable like those, but I am saying that's the discussion, notability resulting from her death. WP:NOTMEMORIAL only requires the article subject must meet notability requirements. It doesn't say they had to be notable while they were alive. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, discussing WP:NOTMEMORIAL's a bit of a red herring as there's already a perfectly good WP:NOT which applies here, but this is close to an obituary as written. I did a news search and all of the coverage is from around the time she passed :( but the event doesn't seem to have any lasting significance yet. All of the blue links you posted received by far and away significant coverage that I just don't see here yet. SportingFlyer T·C 11:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. A move would be at the discretion of the closing sysop. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but moving page to event is a good compromise - international coverage in UK [5] indicates notability. If deleted, content should move to List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people (Lajmmoore (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I'd support a merge to that page, considering all of the news articles on her were from late December. The fact it went international doesn't mean the event suddenly passes WP:NOTNEWS. I'm still hopeful we can find more information on her. SportingFlyer T·C 11:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the event, less notable as just a bio of the person. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Notable for her work and her murder. We can begin a move discussion on the talk page. Wm335td (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Google searches are not reliable sources. Reliable sources are reliable sources. Sandstein 10:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khelo India Youth Games 2020[edit]

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

We don't have articles for the first two seasons of Khelo India Youth Games. This us about the third edition and it may not be necassary to keep a national junior level competition in the encyclopedia. It clearly fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:56, 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) 13:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many India media is covering it including Newspaper, Online, TV News etc it is youth games but have generated more coverage than National Games. The article should remain in wikipedia. (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just do a Google News search and you'll find plenty of coverage about this specific 2020 event to build out an article and pass GNG. Missvain (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. The nominator's argument is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and is quite weak IMO. Bharatiya29 14:48, 30 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. Clearly not notable on the basis of GNG. There is some discussion about whether WP:ARTIST-based notability exists, but there isn't a consensus on this and most people did not address it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auksė Miliukaitė[edit]

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

Can a qualified user continue this process for me? I've looked at the sources cited in the article, and searched Google books and generally online, and there just doesn't seem to be anything justifying this individual as the subject of an article. The fact that the lead specifies her to be "emerging" is borne out by the fact that she doesn't seem to have done anything that would make her really "notable" per the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. The only real achievements presented are that she had an exhibition at the Rooster Gallery, Vilnius, which is specifically for young Lithuanian artists that aren't established, and won a minor prize (unnamed) in 2007, since when it doesn't seem she's increased in notability at all. The other sites cited seem to be all based on the "young artists that may be big in the future" (collectgoodstuff.com claims to be "an inspiring platform and marketplace with a curated selection of emerging artists, new talents and unique art-related products. Our mission is to discover promising talents, work with outstanding artists on new collaborations and provide collectors with compelling artistic contents", i.e. promotion of works for their art sales site; art-bites.com gives a very similar spiel); since she hasn't yet reached that stage, nor is there any particular reason to assume that she definitely will, it seems to be putting the cart considerably before the horse to give her an article, certainly at this point. Thank you. 78.144.65.128 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP user. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 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) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is largely sourced by gallery and event entries. A search found a private collection, some promotional sites and an interview. While there might be more in Lithuanian, the sources I have seen in English do not establish even weak notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when someone is called "emerging" that generally means they are not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources establish notability; the fact that most are online galleries that sell work by the artist is suspect. Perhaps worth noting: this is one of several articles on "emerging" Lithuanian artists created by User:Gaidziukas in 2017 which have flown under the radar, all of which share the same low-quality sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gaidziukas RBWhitney12 (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While her works in the MO Museum, I can't find any records of her having works in other major collections and I only found one piece of press coverage ("Trips to a secret painting island: a conversation with painter Auksė Miliukaitė" from the Lithuania Tribune). Appears it is WP:TOOSOON for artist. I wonder why an IP nominated this - sort of strange. Missvain (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a WP:BEFORE and couldn't find enough to establish that Miliukaitė passes WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough to establish notability. I thought the ArtNews-Italy might be interesting, but it turns out to be a press release not SIGCOV. Netherzone (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think her inclusion in both the MO Museum [6] (above) and in the Lewben Art Foundation [7] is enough for WP:ARTIST 4(d). We don't actually have an article on the Lewben Art Foundation but nevertheless they appear to be notable, which is what 4(d) requires. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein:, I was ready to be swayed so I checked the Lewben Foundation out. Its information is hosted on the Lewben group site, a company "an integrated business services group whose companies provide their clients with asset and wealth management services". It seems to be a private collection housed in a company, which is not the exactly the same as a notable museum or gallery mentioned in WP:ARTIST 4 d). In face, it was only in 2015 that they decided to "present to the public for the first time part of (their) collection of contemporary international artists", at an art fair in Vilnius. I do see some other shows they have lent art to. In the end though it is a private collection; these have variable standards, based on how well they are staffed. Not sure about that one. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete art-bites.com is a website whose "primary concerns are to nurture and push our artists into new opportunities". It is owned and operated by The Rooster Gallery.
galerija101.lt, I think, is the same as https://www.vdu.lt/en/about-vmu/cultural-activities/vmu-art-spaces-and-museums/gallery-101/ a university gallery. Since it's an interview and published by the gallery where she exhibited, it is not an independent source.
7md.lt is an interview about a group of three painters that include Miliukaitė, but besides a number of images of her work, doesn't discuss her. The introduction mentions that the three are "still unknown".
roostergallery.eu, per its own website: "represents the youngest generation."
artnews.lt appears to be a press release for an exhibition at the Vytautas Magnus University Art Gallery 101 mentioned above, in 2013, when Miliukaitė was still in school.
In summary, I see no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and and artist who is still very much at the beginning of her career. It's too soon for an article. Vexations (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON - this is admittedly an "emerging" young artist. No independent coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 30 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) 09:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abington House[edit]

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

This is a non-notable residential building in New York City. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. All references provided merely mention building announcing construction or as it relates to the new neighborhood- it's a random apartment building. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the Curbed piece already in the article that goes beyond just an "announcement" but also goes into editorial commentary, the New York Times goes in-depth about the building in two articles too.[8][9] It was also designed by Jonathan Adler.[10] Even the nom admits there's coverage of how it relates to the neighborhood which is further example of in-depth coverage. Oakshade (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Thanks Oakshade for presenting a good case. Missvain (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 33 story building that got SIGCOV in NYC. That makes in notable. passes WP:GEOFEAT Wm335td (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Udeoji Chukwuma Godfrey[edit]

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

Article about a self-published singer, quite possibly autobiographical. No indication subject passes WP:MUSICBIO. Draftspace version was rejected at WP:AfC. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self promotion. Mattg82 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly a biographical article about a non notable subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is a non-notable singer who has not been discussed in reliable sources. A Google search doesn't show him being discussed whatsoever. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see five pages in Google results. They show that the subject exists and is a musician, but nothing helps the subject meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant autobiography, badly written by an SPA (his nickname and year of birth are in his user name). In 2020, we can't assume good faith; everybody knows that Wikipedia is a charity and we are not a free web-host. There is no evidence this is anything other than a run of the mill DJ, for which we have almost always deleted. At 29, he's a little old to be up and coming. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everyone above. If you are vain enough to write an autobiography on Wikipedia at least have the decency not to use a selfie uploaded from your phone. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:04, 30 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Jaissle[edit]

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

I gave his name a search and it seems like he has made several mildly notable Z-films, but he does not appear to be notable himself. ★Trekker (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I was the one who added this article originally. I do agree that he is not, at this time, notable enough to maintain on WP. I vote in favor of deletion. Cyberherbalist (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I was unable to find any coverage to help the subject pass WP:GNG. I also PROD'd his film, Anti-hero. Missvain (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any reliable sources at all. Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another "producer" and "talent" who is trying to use a charity for hosting his resume. We almost always delete articles about producers. Content is possibly a copyright violation of IMdB. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 30 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. kingboyk (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf-Dieter Storl[edit]

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

Unsourced and flagged since 2010. He's written some books but I'm not seeing significant third-party coverage. There's an Imbd listing of talkshow appearances, but again, that's the same problem as here - not RS and likely created as self-promotion. As no one has seen fit to improve it after ten years... - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I gave his name a search on Google News and there was some coverage, but since it's all in German I have no ability to judge what quality it is of.★Trekker (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A cursory glace at the articles on Google news (Clicking through the pages I see a couple quality newspaper articles) and the German version of the bio suggests notability. However I'm not against WP:TNT since the bio is rather empty. Mattg82 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the German version, the largest sections of content are either unsourced, or only sourced to his own writings. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed after another look, it is not as good at it first appeared. I think there is some German sources but Delete or Draftify as it stands. Mattg82 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify unless someone improves it soon, the German wikipedia article has far more references that indicate he may well be notable but as its a BLP it shouldn't stay in mainspace in this condition, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP with no third-party sources, looks promotional. Needs deletion, not draftification. Sandstein 10:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Souper[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTY. Yet to appear in a fully professional league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both NFOOTY and GNG, as the Chilean Second Division is not a fully professional league. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 27 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Rawlins[edit]

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

BLP without decent references. Tells us how successful he is. Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability and not worth a redirect. Giant Snowman 13:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm abstaining, as this is out of my jurisdiction of subject matter expert-ness, but, I did find two sources that might help y'all out:

"Our City: So Long and Thank You Phil Rawlins" from SBNation
"New book chronicles Phil Rawlins' unlikely journey to MLS ownership" from MLS

Missvain (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 30 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. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) CatcherStorm ^talk 05:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Gilbert[edit]

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

There are zero references and only two external links for this article, one of them being the professor's personal page at the FSU website. The other link makes no mention of the subject at all. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:PROF the subject of the article may be notable since the article claims he has won awards, but the external link to the professor's page may not be acceptable under WP:RS since the professor himself may have contributed to the page. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Passes WP:PROF for holding a named chair and having been elected an AAAS Fellow (easily verified with the AAAS website, and now properly sourced in the article). Cleanup is required, but that's not what AfD is for. Links to professors' departmental or faculty webpages are commonplace on academic biographies. They are primary sources, but acceptable (generally, sources affiliated with an academic, like the university where they are employed, are suitable for uncontroversial claims, like the title they hold or the year they were hired). XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited publications on Google Scholar), #C3 (multiple society fellowships), and #C5 (named professorship). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think only one of the society memberships is what we'd consider a Fellowship that qualifies for #C3, but one (AAAS) is enough. And #C1 and #C5 are definitely met. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 25 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. And salt, given the history of Meade Skelton. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meade Skelton (singer)[edit]

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

An article about the same person, without the (unnecessary) disambiguator, was deleted following an AfD all the way back in 2005, but, as far as I can tell, was recreated several times over the following years before finally being protected... but that didn't stop this article from being recreated again under this name in 2017. Even without such a history, I don't feel the subject is notable at all, as Google failed to bring up any reliable non-primary sources other than the six already cited in the article, plus it seems the subject is only known for narcissistic behaviour in Internet forums back in the 2000s. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 16:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 16:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 16:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 16:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Nothing more than WP:PROMO. Can't access the Richmond newspaper source but get the feeling it is nothing more than a page filler. Mattg82 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Ughhhhhh the sources were painful to read. Vanity to the max. Regardless, please make it stop and salt it. I'll help if you wish. Missvain (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly an attempted promotion and his notability is not any higher now than it was in 2005. He actually has several albums but they are probably self-released and were roundly ignored by the media and public. Of the sources currently in the article, some are dead, some are very brief media introductions, and the rest are basic listings of his existence, and that is not nearly enough for a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - possibly written by a fan, there are some sources, but this artist has no evidence of performing outside Virginia. Please ping if you can find anything that would make him pass WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a singer who has garnered some coverage in the local / regional press. IceFishing (talk) 10:59, 31 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of GameHouse Original Stories[edit]

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

A long list of non-notable video games, none with its own article. Sourced primarily by its publisher and digital distribution channels. WP:NOTCATALOG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, also serves as a list of links for downloading or purchasing. Ajf773 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary list. Orientls (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a list of non-notable games -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:29, 31 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. It's up to editors whether to create a redirect, opinion is divided about this. But consensus is clearly not to keep this. I'm ignoring BOZ's pure vote as usual. Sandstein 10:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seawolf (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Very minor, non-notable fictional creature. There are only a handful of primary sources being used. Searching for sources brings up plenty of results on the many other topics with the same name. However, the D&D version has nothing in reliable, secondary sources, meaning its a clear failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE - Wikipedia is not a game guide and this has no notability outside of the game. Fails WP:GNG. I don't think WP:PRESERVE nor WP:ATD apply as this cannot be improved. It already faithfully describes much of what the game guides tell us, but the problem is that this is not notable beyond that. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters.★Trekker (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, which is what is becoming fairly standard for these DnD noms. I don't think many of these need to actually make it to AfD, making a WP:CHEAP redirect is usually enough. Only a few of the DnD monsters (the ones that have entered popular imagination) are notable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The issue is that there is a pattern where D&D articles that are simply redirected/merged, even if that was the result of consensus at a previous discussion, are restored by anonymous IPs later, forcing us to go through the whole procedure again. Deleting the article first, even if a Redirect is then created after, prevents this from occurring. Rorshacma (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we just ask for the pages to be protected to prevent that?★Trekker (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Deleting and then redirecting would be best. This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters Chetsford (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor monstercruft. Does not appear notable enough even to merit any sort of redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:25, 31 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shmee[edit]

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

One misspelt star wars charater and one other; does not seem necessary to me. TheLongTone (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: valid dab page unless someone is going to argue that the blogger or the teddybear is the primary topic. PamD 10:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD: there's actually nothing wrong with it, and I've cleaned it up. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a huge fan of dabs containing content that has a different spelling, but that's just my opinion. However this seems like a very valid disambiguation page. Canterbury Tail talk 23:22, 29 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) hueman1 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Yours (Tribute)[edit]

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

The page was moved to draftspace. hueman1 (talk) 15:56, 25 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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand (film)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, have been unable to find significant coverage outside the smh review included in the article (it is included in IMDB here), for example, a search under various permutations at the NFSA site (such as "Romilly Cavan") and the ABC (like this) brings up nothing, would suggest that a mention at the writer's wikiarticle is probably enough but unfortunately Romilly Cavan does not have a lesson (although she may be notable?). Also, there is no mention at Ken Hannam, the director's article. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still thinking about this one and still looking. I did find this which gives some reasonable content: "TELEVISION AND RADIO TODAY". The Canberra Times. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 27 May 1964. p. 33. Retrieved 10 January 2020 – via Trove.. Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is too heavily based on IMDb to show notability. GNG requires multiple reliable sources which we clearly do not have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually do better than this. There is one good source in the article, but making a film notable just because it exists requires more than just one source — and as I don't have any viable access to databases of Australian media coverage from the 1960s, I cannot speak to whether any other coverage exists to salvage it with. But we don't keep inadequately sourced articles about films that haven't been properly shown to clear WP:NFILM just because we assume that better notability-building sources might exist — we keep such articles only if better notability-building sources are shown to exist. So if somebody with better access than I've got to Australian newspaper archives can find sufficient sourcing, that would change things — but until that happens, one source isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the one I found above. But that would make only two reasonable references. So, I still think not quite enough yet. (Re Aussie newspapers. You should be able to access TROVE - which for Aussie content should be a critical part of BEFORE). Aoziwe (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Aoziwe: May I ask why you think it's still not enough, given that that's exactly what WP:GNG requires? Modernponderer (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just conservative I suppose. While I do like to keep articles, or at least content, if at all possible, I just like to feel comfortable that they will not come back again and again, which some seem to. (Sorry was working on the post below before I saw your post here.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS Sorry, it is getting late here so I might have missed it, but where exactly does it say "two"? Aoziwe (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Aoziwe: The GNG requires "multiple" sources, i.e. at least two. More is better, of course. Modernponderer (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But I like to hang on by more than my finger nails. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two independent reliable sources with significant coverage is the WP:GNG standard, and with the new citation posted above it is now met. Modernponderer (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep Now that we have two relatively solid independent sources, and they are on-line, for something that pre-dates the WWW by decades is an indicator of sufficient notability to my mind. I would be much happier if we could find a third one. Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A third reference just added to the article. Boneymau (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Boneymau: Did you mean to add a different reference? Because the one you added is the second one that was already posted here... Modernponderer (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that they were the same until you pointed it out. Apologies, only two references at this point. Boneymau (talk) 21:33, 25 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) 14:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bosco English Medium CBSE School, Shirva, Karnataka[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for what is a blatant marketing handout Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utterly unusable, no evidence of notability online in a search for English sources. JamieWhat (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 and G12 (http://donboscoschoolshirva.com/about/history/). This was speedied per G11 two days ago. The author has added this advert copy for at least the third time. There is no clean revision of the article worth saving. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just cleaned up the page as much as I could. Despite having provisional board of secondary education affiliation, this is a K–8 primary school, for which any assertions of notability cannot be attributed to independent reliable sources. Since the creator is persistently trying to use the page as an advertising vehicle, delete and do not redirect to locality. • Gene93k (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the school fails notability criteria for organisations, and general notability criteria as well; as there is no coverage of the school in reliable sources at all. But let the AfD run its course for posterity, in case the articl is created again. Looks like there are high chances. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All aspiration. By claiming to be a English medium school there is no need to Google for vernacular sources. Gene93k has put in effort to help, and I support his decision. ClemRutter (talk) 18:37, 31 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 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulnar Virk Krishna[edit]

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

Not notable, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. In search results, her name appears in the context of "wife-of" or "bride-of" her notable husband. Of the four sources cited, the first is a self-placed advertisement, two say virtually nothing about her, and one speaks of her involvement in one event. Largoplazo (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the more notable Aadarsh Balakrishna. I did clean up the spam, but the claim for notability is extremely slim. More sourcing than one might expect, so I will do a check on sources, and may (unlikely) come back with a keep vote. JamieWhat (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, still agree with merging over the personal life info. Looks like they have a kid now. JamieWhat (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with moving the detailed information about her to his article, giving undue weight to information that isn't about him, WP:COATRACK. That would amount to a subterfuge to get around WP:N by embedding an article about her into an article about him. Largoplazo (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete without merge/redirect: subject doesnt have significant coverage. She fails WP:BASIC, as well as general notability criteria. Even though redirects are cheap, we should not be awarding them because someone tried to create an article of a subject who has passing mentions. Especially to the entities trying to promote themselves, like the subject here seems to be doing. Futher reading: WP:TROPHY, and WP:ANOT#ENTITLEMENT. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

? Neither of those links has anything to do with the discussion about hand. Largoplazo (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

directly? No. But the essence is the same. We should not be giving out (awarding) redirects because someone tried to promote themselves, or just because the subject achieved to get (verifiably) connected with something else notable. Like non notable CEO of notable company, or in some cases subject acheiving to get married to someone notable. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails general notability guidelines. I was unable to find any sources to establish that she's eligible for inclusion at this time. Missvain (talk) 22:28, 27 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) 14:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planetouched[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. The previous AfD seems to have been an "it's important" argument rather than anything to do with passing WP:N. TTN (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's obviously not an article of interest to everybody (including me), but it's well sourced, and it's expanded significantly since the last time somebody wanted to delete it. XeroxKleenex (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XeroxKleenex, or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is not well sourced, as every source being used are primary sources and/or game books, neither of which do anything to indicate notability. That appears to be the only sources available for this non-notable fictional topic, so it fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article cites only primary sources. It would need non-primary sources to pass WP:GNG. Not a very active user (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient RS to establish how it passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails GNG, contains not a single source that contributes towards it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:36, 30 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 Cicero#Notable fictional portrayals. Being bold and closing this one early. SNOW for redirect. Missvain (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Tullius Cicero (Rome character)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cicero#Notable_fictional_portrayals, where this version is already mentioned. This particular fictional depiction of him is not independently notable for an article, but a valid redirect target exists. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cicero#Notable_fictional_portrayals. The article is entirely unsourced and mostly OR, and I see no reason why we need a whole page for the character. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cicero#Notable_fictional_portrayals per above. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cicero#Notable_fictional_portrayals. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cicero#Notable_fictional_portrayals per above. Pretty obvious redirect target, but there is no sourced content to merge. Reyk _YO! 01:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. — Hunter Kahn 11:51, 27 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swadeshi Jagaran Manch[edit]

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

All sources are routine coverages. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comprehensively passes both the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The article in its current state is a respectable stub with sufficient sources and if needed can be expanded with countless sources which exist in multiple languages and multiple form of written media. 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6. Razer(talk) 17:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Razer, See below.

1 and 2 are same source repeated twice. Please remove one. It is a book about Hindutva, so it is expected that it will cover all affiliates of RSS, including this one. And even then SJM does not get a chapter and the source only covers the subject in a few lines.

3 only mentions the subject in passing.

4 National Herald is not a reliable source.

5 is a passing mention of the subject.

6. is an interview of the office bearer of the subject. That is not independent coverage and cannot be used for WP:ORGCRIT

Based on this I dont think a separate article is merited. It is an outfit of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and should be covered at RSS' article. DBig Xrayᗙ 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, I can list countless more sources. It is a major organisation and although affiliated to RSS has sufficient coverage to warrant its own article. 1 , 2 , 3, 4, 5 RSS is a umbrella organisation and has countless organisation working under it. Even the current ruling party of India , BJP started as a RSS affiliate. Being a affiliate to RSS in no way affects the notability of Swadeshi Jagaran Manch. Razer(talk) 17:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these, with the exception of Quint, are again WP:NOTNEWS type coverages. BJP not just started as, but still is an affiliate of RSS, although BJP is a notable affiliate, but not all affiliates are notable to have their own article. Affiliation to RSS, is the reason why SJM is getting these WP:NOTNEWS type of passing mentions, or else it would not have received even those. The link 1 in your first comment mentions that "RSS directs its affiliates" and "RSS derives its significance from its affiliates". Due to these reasons, I believe it would be better to discuss the subject in a para at Sangh_Parivar#Economics. DBig Xrayᗙ 18:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, Instead of throwing wiki policies around, you should attempt to at-least read some of them. The primary criteria of WP:ORGCRITE is

significant coverage in-

multiple
independent,
reliable
secondary sources.

Which Swadeshi Jagaran Manch seems to pass easily. Razer(talk) 18:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Swadeshi Jagaran Manch , the more specific criteria is WP:NONPROFIT. Which lists

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. - Yes
The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. - Yes

Frankly , This is such clear case that I am tempted to mention WP:BEFORE here. Razer(talk) 18:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These links are being mentioned as you seem to be ignoring/oblivious of them. I have read it and since you feel that I have not, leads me to think that you skipped the most relevant line of ORGCRIT, let me point it for you.

Note that an individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards notability. I.e. each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Then, there must be multiple of such qualifying sources. If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and to exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability.

Under ORGCRIT the more specific criteria for it will be WP:BRANCH as it is a sub organisation of RSS (and not NONPROFIT).DBig Xrayᗙ 18:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, SJM is at best an affiliate to RSS and certainly not a branch. Heck it even opposes RSS on certain issues and has its own independent hierarchy of management. You are clutching on straws here. Razer(talk) 12:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Razer2115, The quint link you gave above, says in the opening line "SJM is the economic arm of RSS". So it is obvious that WP:BRANCH is applicable. Rest of your comment, is off topic. DBig Xrayᗙ 13:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:ORGCRIT. If anything, a comprehensive article can be written using various in-depth sources including, but not limited to, [11] [12] [13]. Dee 03 19:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough to pass WP:ORGCRIT and our WP:GNG. Not worthy AfD. Requires non-admin closure.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 09:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has significant coverage from secondary sources. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:04, 26 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BJYM Mumbai[edit]

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

All sources are routine coverages. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. During an election the party and its wings may get minor passing names as WP:NOTNEWS type coverage but those don't help notability. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not have significant coverage, passing mentions in sources. Looks promotional. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same as for BJVM Karnataka, should just be merged with Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, wings of political wings of political parties are not notable. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:20, 26 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BJYM Karnataka[edit]

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

All sources are routine coverages. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and lacks non promo content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. During an election the party and its wings may get minor passing mentions as WP:NOTNEWS type coverage but those don't help with the notability. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted an edit of yours at the article, an edit that deleted coverage by the Indian Express, one of the more established, and presumably reliable, Indian news sources. You might legitimately complain that this subject lacks notability but please don't remove such indications of notability at the same time, unless you give a more complete explanation for that removal. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Annexation of Hyderabad" is notable and the topic of that coverage, the proposed memorial was never built. Removed per WP:CRYSTAL.--DBig Xrayᗙ 09:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: you remved the content again. I have reinstated it. It is not at all what WP:CRYSTAL is about. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly Merge with BJP. Passing mention in sources, and usually in something done by BJP workers so fails WP:GNG. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should just be merged with Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, wings of political wings of political parties are not notable. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tayi Arajakate, Thanks for the review and the comment. Just wanted to note that I had already explored the possibility of a merge but the content is WP:NOTNEWS and unfit for any merge with BJP, IMHO. The BJYM is also a non notable run of the WP:MILL wing. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources cited don't add up to notability. Seems like political promotion more than anything else. Glendoremus (talk) 03:41, 28 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuva Sena[edit]

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

A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article in its present forms serves to promote the subject, yes there's a whole bunch of passing mention but nothing indepth on the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV Lapablo (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We almost always delete specialty wings of political parties, whether for women, youth, class, etc. I do not oppose a redirect pert WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a promo piece. Shiv sena has many other branches for eg. महाराष्ट्र शिव वाहतूक सेना Maharashtra Shiv Transport sena we can't have wiki article on every other sub domain a political party comes with. Notabililty not established. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:02, 31 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BJP OBC Morcha[edit]

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

A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 26 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) 09:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BJP Kisan Morcha[edit]

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

A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:56, 26 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. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Circulon[edit]

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

No sign of notability and promotional Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Crimson Comedian Talk 15:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an advertisement. Single source cited doesn't add up to notability and I don't see any other significant sources on the web. Glendoremus (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Meyer Corporation: The topic of this particular product line is covered in a wider context on the page about the company, and I am not seeing enough specific sources to justify a specific topic article by WP:NPRODUCT. (In passing I'll mention I bake bread every other day using a Circulon loaf tin, and very good it is too.) AllyD (talk) 11:40, 31 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) 09:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Barresi[edit]

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

Taking to AfD rather than prod in case I'm missing something. Could possibly redirect to Kitelife, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent, reliable Sources found on the web of the subject but merely, interviews, blogs which are not independent. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I didn't even know that there was a professional sport for kite flying. Missvain (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Subject clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Angus1986 (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 15:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mappillai (1952 film)[edit]

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

Since this article was created by me during my days when I wasn't so good at avoiding copyvios, I feel it is better to delete it so I can recreate it afresh, a.k.a. the phoenix being reborn. The old copyvio revisions (basically, all older revisions) will anyway be deleted, so it's best to let the whole article be deleted; I have saved my revamp elsewhere and can recreate the article using it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you’re going to recreate the article you can draft a new version in your sandbox and when you’re ready, blank the current article and replace it with your new text. You don’t need an AfD to do that. Mccapra (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, I've already revamped the article, but okay how about this? I withdraw the AfD and instead put {{revdel}}? Because every revision has copyvio content (don't define me by my past), I believe they have to be deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is for articles that allegedly don't belong on Wikipedia. Withdraw the nom, fix the article, and move on. XeroxKleenex (talk) 15:10, 25 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of City of Heroes characters[edit]

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

This article has been tagged since 2008 for in-universe style, reliance on primary refs and lack of notability. Most of it isn’t sourced at all. Some sections may be merged to City of Heroes but for the most part it does not meet our notability requirements. Mccapra (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't agree more with nomination, complete WP:GAMECRUFT. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gamecruft, and FANDOM level material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:29, 31 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 21:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EV Interactive[edit]

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

Article topic does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG. This search of the WP:VG/SE pulls up nothing of interest or significance. Izno (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:COMPANY, WP:GNG and WP:N.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 25 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 remember trying to upsell this when I worked at EB Games, just to get it off the shelf...no dice. Kind of amusing to see it here, once more failing to thrive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawnmower Racing Mania 2007[edit]

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

Article topic does not appear to be notable based on this search on the WP:VG/SE. Metacritic similarly lists no professional reviews from print sources. Izno (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I was able to find was Igromania coverage at [14]. A shovelware release that didn't rise to notability, fails WP:GNG for the lack of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:41, 25 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Natachi Okeke[edit]

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

Subject is a fitness trainer and blogger. Sources provided on the page are not reliable as they are mainly blog or style magazines. Sources found on line are interviews (not independent), social media sites or blog. Subject fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence does not scale general notability guidelines.Celestina007 (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG. A Google search of her doesn't show independent coverage. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails GNG. Everything I could find is non-mainstream and/or blogs. Missvain (talk) 23:02, 27 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. The delete camp does go into more detail about why the sources are inadequate to establish inclusion against WP:NOTNEWS Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Lilbourn, Missouri Earthquake[edit]

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

The article was originally proposed for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS, but the article creator objected. The reason for the original proposal still stands. A minor earthquake with no damage or casualties is not even remotely a notable WP:EVENT. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Easy delete here. Very minor earthquake, no fatalities, no injuries, no serious damage, I can't find any sources referencing this beyond the date that it happened. It's just a very minor earthquake, and those don't deserve articles. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMeets WP:GNG. A topic may be presumed notable (i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice) if it is noticed in one or more independent, reliable, and verifiable sources.Watchbotx (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - A sure Delete for me. It is estimated that around 500,000 earthquakes occur each year, detectable with current instrumentation. About 100,000 of these can be felt. Magnitude of less than 4 is minor and minor earthquakes occur nearly constantly around the world. Also no fatalities or impacts. TJ aka 08:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC) (talk)
Keep There's no question it has enough sources to meet WP:GNG]. If 500k other earthquakes get news coverage, they can have articles too. Wikipedia isn't out of disk space. XeroxKleenex (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:XeroxKleenex - There is a myth that Wikipedia deletes articles to conserve disk space. Deleting articles does not conserve disk space anyway, because deleted articles are available for undeletion by administrators, and can be viewed by administrators. So notability rather than disk space is the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for an earthquake is not just "has sources", because every earthquake always has sources: if it's felt by the general public at all, then one or more local news stories will always exist about that, and even if it isn't felt by the general public, the National Earthquake Center's database (which records every earthquake that happens at all) will always still have an entry. But our role here is not to simply replicate the federal earthquake database by indiscriminately maintaining an article about every single earthquake that occurs — our role is to maintain articles about earthquakes that can show a genuine, ten-year test passing claim of significance (major damage, significant loss of human life, an unusual new type of earthquake activity that generates special study by seismologists, etc.), not just every earthquake that has ever happened at all.
GNG is not just "count up the sources and keep anything that hits or exceeds two": it also takes into account factors like the depth of the coverage, the geographic range of the coverage, and the context of what the topic is getting covered for, and some types of coverage simply don't count for as much as some other types. It's the same as the reasons why unelected political candidates are not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because a handful of local campaign coverage exists; bands are not exempted from having to pass NMUSIC just because they have a couple of hits in their local hometown media about them accomplishing things of purely local interest; high school athletes are not exempted from having to pass our notability standards for sportspeople just because they had a couple of pieces of human interest coverage in their local media about their recovery from an injury; and on and so forth: GNG evaluates a lot more than just the raw number of footnotes that happen to be present. An article can have 30 footnotes and still fail GNG if those 30 footnotes all fail one or more of the depth, range and context tests. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The single Earthquake might not be enough for an article, but as it was the strongest earthquake in an 18 earthquake series, the name/page should be changed to that series. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. A small swarm of earthquakes barely strong enough to be felt still isn't notable. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it received attention in multiple sources, it fails WP:SUSTAINED, which is also a requirement to meet WP:N. See also WP:NOTNEWS, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." (emphasis mine). Fram (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relatively minor earthquake. This is an example of why events have to have lasting coverage, as most events like this will garner local attention at the time of the event. Not mention at New Madrid Seismic Zone, and a merge to there would provide undue coverage of the event, so delete. Hog Farm (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The statement from Hog Farm is incorrect. Earlier (January 24th) I did connect New Madrid Seismic Zone To this article. So a merge should still be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Elijahandskip: This earthquake is only mentioned in the "See also" section of links; we would need a mention in the article text itself. A redirect to a simple article link in the "See also" would do nothing to help our readers, and since all of the individual earthquakes and series of earthquakes mentioned at the NMSZ page seem to be rated 5.0 and above, it would seem WP:UNDUE to merge to there. Too many earthquakes happen at that fault line to list them all on the main article. Hog Farm (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As others have said, pretty much every earthquake that gets felt, end even those that aren't, will be recorded by the USGS and will likely make it into local news stories. This sort of event is pretty WP:ROUTINE. For the same reason we don't create an article for every EF0 tornado that knocks down a few trees or every car accident that causes a traffic jam. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lilbourn, Missouri as tehre is not enough notability for a standalone article, but it was important for Lilbourn, Missouri. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it doesn't look to have been important for Lilbourn either. The only news report about it is one line here, and Lilbourn is the scene of similar quakes very frequently, none of which get an article or a section in the main article, or even much attention[15]. This is a purely routine occurrence, not something exceptional (not as an earthquake, and not as part of the history of Lilbourn). Merging it to Lilbourn would be a case of WP:UNDUE. Fram (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No damage or lasting effects. A lot of Lilbourn residents probably won't even remember it in a few years. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA. This minor earthquake appears to have only attracted routine coverage in local media – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lupine Record label[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: I declined WP:PROD per the guidelines because the article has been PRODed (and deleted) once before. The nominator User:Chubbles' rationale was:

Gerard Starkie is the only possibly-notable signee to this label; the others mentioned were only on a limited-edition vinyl release. The label seems only to have put out a couple of Starkie's albums and the compilation. Not "one of the more important indie labels" per WP:MUSIC

- kingboyk (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There seems to have been a LuPine records from the 1960s which may be notable, but I can't find any independent, reliable source from which to create an encyclopedic article on this given entity that meets WP:V. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have an article for that label, at Lu Pine Records. Chubbles (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eep! The sourcing on that one doesn't exceed the sourcing on this deletion-worthy article. I'll add it to my rescue list. Thanks for the heads up! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:11, 29 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. with the sources now provided, article now fulfils WP:GEOLAND. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melmonavoor[edit]

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

It isn't content that should be on an encyclopedia. It only cites one source, isn't really full sentences, and isn't notable. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete Leaving aside the reasons given, I do not find this name in this list of town pachayats in the region. At best it is a neighborhood in a larger area. Mangoe (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A legally recognised populated place per WP:GEOLAND. I added sources.----Pontificalibus 09:40, 25 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. This discussion is not a vote, but a method of establishing consensus by making convincing arguments in the light of Wikipedia's established policies and practices. It contains many "keep" opinions, but all of them must be disregarded because they do not address the reason for which deletion is requested. That reason is alleged lack of notability (WP:N) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. In response to such a nomination, "keep" opinions must identify such coverage in order to be taken into account. But none do, as SportingFlyer points out. Instead we read things like "he's big on Youtube", "he's well known", "there are too many AfDs" and some personal attacks. The complaints about the previous AfDs, in particular, are not convincing because they all resulted in no consensus. None of these assertions address the nominator's contention that there are not enough reliable sources about this person for us to write an article about him. As such, I must treat this contention as unrebutted and therefore determinative for the outcome of this discussion. Sandstein 20:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Kulinski[edit]

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

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

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

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

There is no substantial RS coverage of this person, making it near-impossible to write a Wikipedia article on him. There are only four RS (per the RSP list[16]) that mention Kulinski: two that list him as one of multiple founders of the Justice Democrats, and two Fox News pieces that note that he shared clips on Twitter defending Cenk Uygur. While the Justice Democrats are notable (as substantiated by RS coverage) and Cenk Uygur are notable (as substantiated by RS coverage), Kulinski is not (as shown by the dearth of RS coverage). A previous AfD discussion ended in "no consensus" because the subject of the article directed supporters to the AfD, creating absolute chaos in the AfD discussion. The first and second AfD discussions (which took place in 2017) were poorly attended and ended in "no consensus". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Snooganssnoogans' above comment and my previous vote KidAd (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he's the co-founder of the Justice Democrats & has appeared regularly on The Young Turks. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see my previous comments at one of the other three AfDs. One just ended Dec 19. WP:DELAFD It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome. Lightburst (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closer of the 3rd nomination suggested that a fourth AfD might be wise (for what it's worth, before the canvassing, the AfD vote was overwhelmingly heading towards Delete). I also brought this up on the Admin noticeboard. Nobody expressed opposition to re-doing the AfD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He failed WP:GNG at the last deletion discussion and unfortunately nothing has changed. Nothing I can find that's both substantial and independent. SportingFlyer T·C 12:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Justice Democrats (seeing no need to delete the history and a redirect is inevitable since it's a notable organization he co-founded). A search for sources found a few mentions, a few quotes, and lots of primary sources, but not enough in-depth coverage about this person to satisfy WP:GNG (for the small amount of coverage there is, WP:NOPAGE applies given the very logical alternative page). Any keep argument at this point really needs to surface some additional sources. [copied/adapted from what I said last time] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with a redirect. I just can't see this being kept in good faith with the sources available. SportingFlyer T·C 06:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I gave his name a search on Google News and Google Books, he seems to have coverage which passes GNG, but it's bordeline. If it's decided to that he does not pass GNG then I would side with Rhododendrites and say he should be redirected to Justice Democrats.★Trekker (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the overwhelming reasons cited in the 3rd nomination, which was headed to a keep. Nothing has changed. Serial nominations are b.s. Wastes lots of valuable editor time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before the subject of the article and his Reddit fan-clubs directed people to the AfD, the tally was 6 delete votes and 1 keep vote. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You like to truncate the count, close the ballot box, toss the votes and choose the votes that suit your desired result. Your privilege I guess. But it is both wrong and unprincipled. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original sin is the serial nomination for delete by his hate club. Those WP:ACTIVISTs who are trashing consensus and attempting to impose their will to remove the article have not provided anything other than repetition and attrition. --Loginnigol (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most notable YouTubers. Unreal7 (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the catual reliable sources do not mention Kulinski enough to establish notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-notable people do not inspire a firestorm of controversy on AfD pages. If anything, the multiple rounds of AfD indicate a large interest in the subject. -Jordgette [talk] 20:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to successfully send your followers to disrupt an AfD is not an indicator of notability to me (if it were, it would set a bad precedent and encourage more of the same). There was no controversy on the 1st and 2nd AfD – they were just poorly attended and ended in 'no consensus'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've made that opinion known several times. Others disagree with your assessment. What exactly is the upside of deleting an article that gets at minimum hundreds, at times many thousands, of visits per day? -Jordgette [talk] 22:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep On principle alone, closers should never listen to JPL above. He is a constant, serial Delete vote on virtually every article. Its a thought-less reflex. I'd rather not go into further ad hominem, but its there. I'm well into my second decade of protecting content on wikipedia. There aren't enough of us doing this vs the hordes of automatons, JPL being the worst example. I got dragged into this years ago and have watched a lot of this activity. The NOM of this article seems to be a leader of a movement trying to dismiss anything associated with the Justice Democrats, including its co-founder Kulinski. A lot of (possibly paid) political operatives are pounding on any associate of another co-founder Cenk Uygur, now a congressional candidate and his extremely popular YouTube oriented network The Young Turks. Kulinski's primary show is distributed on the network. A lot of the sources reporting on Kulinski are part of the wave of "new media" outlets rather than old school sources, a concept which wikipedia needs to adapt to. Instead, this group of editors, snoogans the most active this election cycle, have been using WP:WIKILAWYERING techniques to dismiss the significance of any sources associated with this "new media." [17] [18] [19] They will respond as wikilawyers here. They blatantly remove content and sources, then report anything remaining as unsourced or poorly sourced. Gee, now this article looks disreputable, better delete it. And now after being rebuffed a third time, they didn't like mom's answer, so lets try again with dad. WP:NPOV, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Same editors, same techniques. They just don't like the political content Mr. Kulinski, The Young Turks and the "Bernie Would Have Won" oriented progressive movement are presenting. They are particularly aggressive now that Sanders is in the lead in 2020, slicing and dicing to remove as much of that content as possible across a variety of articles. We can't let undecided voters see this. Effectively, I believe you would call that censorship to fulfill an WP:AGENDA. Trackinfo (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that an editor should be ignored, is thoughtless, has a political agenda, advocates for censorship, and might be engaging in UPE, certainly constitutes a personal attack. You should delete this comment.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this: In the time it took me to write above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (3rd nomination) appeared, again. Same stuff, different day. And actually, because of the way that article has been perverted since its initial creation, I might just support deletion, in favor of recreating the proper version of that content. Trackinfo (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's remarkable that in lieu of any substance/sourcing, most of the keep !votes thus far are based entirely on ad hominem/wikilawyering, whether that those who don't think he should have a stand-alone article are part of some secret conspiracy, or pushing an agenda, or that it shouldn't have been renominated (despite the closing statement of the previous nom), or that someone's opinion should be discounted because they only !vote one way (which is technically true, but just an ad hominem, and ironically raised by someone who only !votes one way and misses the mark about three times as often). Still waiting for actual evidence of in depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject that justify a stand-alone article rather than inheriting notability from the org he founded... (also, btw, I had never heard of this person until coming across the AfD -- I often look through relisted/renominated XfDs) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I first heard of Kyle Kulinski just before I created the 3rd AfD nomination (I didn't nominate him the 1st and 2nd time). I wanted to learn more about him, found that his Wikipedia page was entirely barren of reliable content, and that I was incapable of finding any RS content to actually add to his page. Thus, I nominated the page for deletion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also wasn't familiar with him either until the last nomination. As someone who votes at a lot of political AfDs, he simply does not meet our requirements based on the available sourcing. If there's someone who wants to bring sources to the discussion, I'd be happy to listen. SportingFlyer T·C 00:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added more sources that these other people somehow can't seem to find. I think I've already added ten to this article. I've seen the substance behind the subject. I've also watched the unwarranted attacks on this content and above have reported on the patterns of behavior that would become obvious to any unclouded observer. I've developed quite a sarcastic attitude to the repetition. Here we go again. Trackinfo (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snoogans is so aggressive in his attempt to deplete this article of sources, that here he deleted a segment discussing the oft quoted tweets by Kulinski, including a piece by the Washington Examiner that spends several paragraphs attacking Kulinski, because the sources quote tweets. How absurd is that? Contemporary "new media' stars use tweets and other social media to expand their message. The fact that sources quote those tweets show their significance well above and beyond some bozo telling what he ate for dinner. The current president rules by tweet. He literally tells his every thought by tweet. Stephen Colbert spends more than half his monologue quoting those tweets every night. Are you going to AfD Colbert now? Trackinfo (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you added are reliable sources. They're either retweets or very brief mentions that he has a show. There's still nothing in the article that passes WP:GNG. You're also welcome to link to the sources in this AfD discussion so we can review them more easily if you find any more. SportingFlyer T·C 08:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're really bringing in another ad hominem because snoogans removed this?? To an already contentious subject you added an opinion column in the Washington Examiner in which the author says nothing at all about Kulinski apart from using his tweet to make point? Even if it were a good source, it doesn't do anything for notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Washington Examiner spend its time trashing a tweet by a non-notable bum off the street? Of course not. They raised his tweet as a (negative) example because he was a significant political commentator from the opposite persuasion. Trackinfo (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not significant coverage, which doesn't contribute to notability. SportingFlyer T·C 11:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability criterion of "has written a tweet that annoyed someone at the Washington Examiner enough to write up a little rant about it". So many of these !votes are trying to find a good indicator of notability (number of subscribers, a tweet being responded to in the Examiner, etc.) but nobody has actually found notability in the form of in-depth coverage in good sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post refers to him as a "internet idol."[20] Is that a reliable source? Trackinfo (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't count towards WP:GNG since it only name-drops him once, and we require coverage to be significant. But it is reliable, and if you can find a couple more like those which discuss him significantly, that would change the nature of the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well-known in political and media spheres, highly influential, and ever-increasing media presence. This article literally just survived another deletion nomination, and has been nominated repeatedly in the past yet remained. Use to repeat nominations to hinder productivity, and even punitively (threatening another burecratic nomination if other people edit the article in a way they don't like) is inappropriate and problematic IMHO.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request - Per WP:THREE, would an editor please list the best 3 sources which provide substantial, independent, secondary coverage of the article subject? - Ryk72 ^talk 09:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you don't like how the previous AFD ended, the same editor who nominated it shouldn't be able to do it yet again a month later. This is ridiculous! This should be closed for wasting everyone's time. Also the article says he has over 645 million YouTube views, so he easily passes the subject specific guideline for WP:ENTERTAINER. "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Dream Focus 15:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG and he is a well known political journalist who also got fame for criticising Trump's administration. Wikipedia has a list of articles about commentators and journalists who might not have even passed WP:GNG. The subject is notable enough but the article needs much improvement and work. Abishe (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've wondered why we had no article on this guy. Now I'm starting to understand a few things... I'm not knowledgeable enough to have anything new to add, but will instead refer to editor Trackinfo where I learned a lot... Like many young articles, it can use some improvement. Gandydancer (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Snooganssnoogans, Rhododendrites, SportingFlyer. Ryk72 and John Pack Lambert have made good points in their review of the reliable sources. This is not significant coverage. We don't go by total views,the total subscribers is still under 1 million which makes it a minor channel in YouTube terms. There simply isn't enough reliably sourced content yet for an encyclopedia article. Kulinski may generate enough press to meet WP:GNG in the future but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Dartslilly (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I !voted to Delete in the last AfD due to the lack of reliable significant coverage. Again, I still think this is the case in this situation as the subject as not reached significant coverage from reliable sources. However, the fact this has been nominated so soon after the last AfD in an attempt to get it deleted does not sit well with me. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned above, but the admin who closed the previous nomination was explicit about this in the closing statement: perhaps folks could also consider a new AFD discussion that is protected from the get-go. That's what this is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly doesn't meet GNG. Redirect to Justice Democrats would make sense. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim above that I always vote delete is demonstrably false. The ad hominen attacks on well reasoned votes is unjustified, and the beligerent's towards people who do not let Wikipedia be filled up with poorly sourced articles on people of non-notability is unjustified. Well, I should say who seek to change the status quo of Wikipedia being filled with poorly sourced articles on non-notable living individuals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's still not a single keep !voter here who has discussed which sources actually show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 04:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, like, all of them . . . and all of the ~~censored~~ deleted ones are well. We have a swath of sources that were removed because they quoted tweets. That is a large part of what Kulinski does to promote his show. His tweets would not be quoted by other Reliable sources unless they were relevant and he was a notable figure. Trackinfo (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's not true about the sources. There are currently five links to external pages on this page and only one of them is to a source which only mentioned him in passing. Tweets are primary and are in no way reliable, and you're even admitting they're purely promotional. Neither of those demonstrate notability. There's not much that's been changed since the last AfD, which the closer noted was much closer to delete in spite of the canvassing concerns. If you want to post sources that pass WP:GNG, I'd be happy to review them, but not a single keep !voter has done that so far. SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are reviewed and maintained by a team of volunteers. These sources don't show the kind of the significant coverage editors want for biographies about living persons. BLPs require more community resources to maintain than probably any other type of article and that this one is mostly promotional at this stage is not even being disputed. It's just TOOSOON. Dartslilly (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Marching Band Association[edit]

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

Primarily a list of winners of its awards. I am not a good judge of notability here due to my unfamiliarity with the topic, but this feels like it may not meet WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication this organization meets WP:NORG. John from Idegon (talk) 22:14, 25 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 Amateur radio operating award. Except Logbook of The World. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 20:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summits on the Air[edit]

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

Also nominating

the same arguments apply to ~~both~~ all of these articles. These are ~~both~~ all sourced from sources which are either the contest's own website, amateur radio blogs, or the websites of entities which are closely associated with the contests (i.e. ARRL, RSGB) and are thus not WP:INDEPENDENT. My own searching didn't find anything better. There's also Draft:Parks on the Air, which I'm not formally including in this AfD since it's a draft, but basically this all applies there as well.

There's a few others in Category:Amateur radio operating awards, but the ones I've noted above seem the most egregious. For example, Jamboree on the Air, has a couple of good WP:RS (Irish Times, Christian Science Monitor) and thus qualifies for WP:GNG on its own.

As an WP:ATD, it might make sense to merge these all into Amateur radio operating award, which could be expanded to include a section on each one. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: Upon further research, I've added most of Category:Amateur radio operating awards. All of these articles suffer from the same problem of nonWP:RS sourcing, and have significant overlap. They would all be better covered in a combined article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logbook of The World is not an operating award so should not be included in this list.--Harumphy (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It suffers the same poor sourcing problems as the other articles, but you are correct that it's different from the others so I've struck it from the nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amateur radio operating award: Per nom. It's better to move both contents to the main page. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Logbook of The World as it is not an award as RoySmith has correctly pointed out. Please remove the AfD from that page. Dhpage (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The eight awards in the nom should be combined as separate sections of Amateur radio operating award to retain the images and references for each. Amateur radio is a somewhat esoteric and technical hobby and will always have the sourcing problem identified in the nom. Nonetheless, several million persons are licensed amateurs globally and the hobby has resulted in STEM careers for many. Dhpage (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I think ham radio is great. I never got my license (mostly because when I was a kid, I didn't have the patience to learn morse code), but I do remember building a Heathkit receiver when I was in high school (googling around a bit now, I'm thinking HR-10B). I didn't have the theory at the time to actually understand how it worked, but I still remember the feeling of amazement when I powered it up for the first time and it worked! But, still, WP:GNG and WP:RS rule the day here. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:36, 29 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.