Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 March	9 March >

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Curtatone[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL John from Idegon (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as one would expect from a nine-term mayor of a city in a major urban area, there have been numerous independent sources which have covered the subject in detail. As such, it easily passes WP:GNG. For example, Curatone is the subject of an entire book published in 2019. Major news outlets, both in the Boston region and nationwide have covered Curtatone in detail as well. These include ABC News and the Washington Post, and Bloomberg. I hope the nominator will follow WP:BEFORE nominating next time.--TM 23:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Contrary to the nomination, Nambia's sources indicate that Curtatone is the subject of significant national coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable per links listed above. Grk1011 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - the Wapo source above satisfies WP:NPOL. The other sources do not. John from Idegon (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A long term mayor with significant coverage. Alex-h (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entro[edit]

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

NCORP fail ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, unless better sources can be found. The existing sourcing is completely inadequate for an encyclopedia article. But what we're trying to find out here is if the subject is notable, not if the article is any good. Of all the people connected to Entro, the best known is probably Stuart Ash. That article has many problems, but he is notable. We also have an article on St. Joseph Communications, the parent company of DW+Partners, who first took over Gottschalk+Ash. We don't have an article on DW+Partners, but we do have an article on Don Watt, its founder. I don't think that Kuzyk and McCutcheon are similarly notable, so creating an article about the principals doesn't look like an option. Entro has (acquired) a significant piece of graphic design history in Canada, but unless we can find independent sources about the company itself, the subject is not "notable" per Wikipedia's policy and idiosyncratic use of the term. Try to write an article that is strictly based only on what independent, reliable sources have to say about Entro; with what we have now, that is not feasible. Vexations (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree with the last delete voter about the notability issues. I couldn't have said it better myself. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an advert. Dorama285 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 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. Tone 09:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Durgin[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ATHLETE. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not performed at a notable level in national or international competition, or ranked highly at annual performance lists. SFB 22:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward P. Hardiman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Non-notable school principal. Trivial mention only in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't even come close to notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete heads of secondary educational institutions need to pass notability on sourcing, and Hardiman does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article does not show any sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - principal of an ordinary parochial high school, which is not longer a boarding school. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Junior Parkruns in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG or LISTN. Natureium (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sigcov to warrant an article, just a subset of List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom. Reywas92^Talk 03:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. Nowhere near the highest level of athletics competition. Ajf773 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be an external link on the main parkrun page, as it's not the job of WP to host this kind of thing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I entirely agree with the comments above. Also much of what is here is lacking in detail and there is no evidence of any significant coverage of any of these events. Dunarc (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hanis[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an entrepreneur, not properly referenced to any evidence whatsoever of any reliable source coverage about him. As written, in fact, this is almost entirely a gigantic linkfarm of WP:ELNO-violating offsite links to pieces of his own bylined writing — but you don't make a person notable as a journalist or writer by citing sources where he's the bylined author of content about other things, you make a person notable as a writer by citing sources where he's the subject of coverage written by other people. And then there's another directory listing of "books that profile Mark, his colleagues and their work", linking almost entirely to the books' Amazon.com profiles — but even if he is "profiled" in the books, the key to making him notable is to use the books as references for article content, not just to contextlessly rattle through a list of them in directory format. Thing is, books which profile him may help to establish his notability, but books which profile his colleagues do not help to establish his notability, so you have to use the books to support body content so that we can determine which book falls in which camp. The only reason I'm not immediately speedying this as "unambiguous advertising or promotion", in fact, is that it's somehow survived in this form for over a decade -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to be referenced much better, and written much more neutrally and objectively, than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional bio. To clarify , books that mainly cover his colelaguesbut alsocover him in a substantial way can be enough for the purpsoes of notability (in the first few years of Wikipedia there was an attempt to limit notability to works that had to be primarily about the subject; this was eventually and fortunately rejected in favor of the current gudieline that they need to be substantially about the subject. But there's no evidence that the references here are substantial with respect to him. DGG ( talk ) 11:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nselaa Ward[edit]

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

Very promotional article full of primary sources, both on the articles and on Google. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 20:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 20:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 20:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 20:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hopelessly promotional as it stands. If she's notable enough for an article, it's definitely not this one. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: @I dream of horses: @CAPTAIN RAJU: additional citations have been made. What additional information do you recommend. It is very important that we not attempt to erase black history and women's history. How can I assist in helping to preserve this.

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. No pass of WP:GNG. Too overly promotional with inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: can you be more specific about what is promotion so that adjustments can be made.

Yes. Provide reliable sources WP:RS that will establish notability. Best wishes,. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: thank you for the reccomendatioon. There are already books, news interviews, and websites. Is that not enough? I there something specific that you are looking for?

Keep, the article needs cleanup. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 21:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the case made by Xxanthippe; @AaqibAnjum: I'm afraid your case falls. Please note that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Cheers! ——SN 54129 21:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Serial Number 54129:. That is completely my view point. I shall stand with the majority. May be can improve myself to the article, if the majority goes otherwise. Cheers. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 22:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other articles written about individuals of the same notability that were apart of the same movement with this article. It is important to have a complete history. There are entire articles and pages about organizations that she created - but not a page about her specifically? That seems unreasonable. There is an article on the performance troup Slam Nuba that she was a co-founder of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slam_Nuba. There are articles on the other co- founders but not her - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_LeFebre, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzi_Q._Smith, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianca_Mikahn There is an entire page on the March for Women's Lives, which she helped to cordinate, but not about the person that helped create it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Women%27s_Lives_(2004) She is clearly notable. I am relatively new to wikipedia contributions, but it appears that based on the the deletion page it would be a keep Keep Keep: Meets WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaPerry22 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://slamnuba.com/about/ does not list Ward/The Original Woman as a founding member, but one who competed in the second year after founding. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: original woman was a founding member - there was actually a major event that clarified this in Colorado recently; however, sources like this have not updated their records. But that is not the main issue here. The main issue is notability

@Xxanthippe:, @AaqibAnjum:, @SarekOfVulcan:, @Serial Number 54129:@I dream of horses: @CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you all for your feedback. There have been a plethora of of sources added including a movie that was written about her, Several books that were written about her, CSPAN news clips on her, and a lot more. Is there anything else that is needed to close this conversation. I am new to this contributor process so any advise is appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaPerry22 (talk • contribs), 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment - @AndreaPerry22: you need to find verifiable reliable sources that are not primary sources that speak to the notability of the article subject. In other words, if there are newspaper or magazine articles that are ABOUT her (not by her); reviews of her books or creative works that are written by someone else that is published in a notable academic journal, newspaper or magazine; awards that she has received that are not from her faculty page or cv, but from an external source, etc. Do read up on WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You should not include primary sources (written by the subject themselves), or any social media or blog sources. Netherzone (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Thank you for this assistance. There are several articles that are about her and not by her that are cited, including CSPAN, principia news, now.org, world slam, slam nuba, arkansas gazette, john hopskins news and more, and some books as well that were written by independent sources. This should be considered verifiable sources. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed?— AndreaPerry22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - @AndreaPerry22: Please read WP:GNG. This guideline explains the requirements for establishing notability. The subject will need several sources that meet all of the requirements mentioned: Significant coverage, Independent of the subject and from Reliable(WP:RS) secondary sources. Unfortunately, at the moment I don’t see any of the references that meet all of these requirements. CBS527^Talk 05:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbs527: there were several indpendent sources mentioned. including CSPAN as well as several books, and academic university news papers. Is there something wrong with these sources?— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaPerry22 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment and questions: The article tells us that "She is known primarily for her international TEDx talk where she discussed leadership and diversity", a talk that "picked up attention quickly". I can imagine that this or that particular TEDx talk can pick up attention, or even that it can retain attention; but the article provides no evidence for this. Evidence is needed, because TEDx talks are very numerous, and your average TEDx talk is unremarkable. (Is there informed discussion of her talk?) Or is there a misstatement in the article? If she's known primarily for something else, what is this? -- Hoary (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is, ""Lessons of Leadership & Diversity from the Bar""., the only TED talk I could find. IMO it seems rather routine and unremarkable. I can't find any independent sources discussing this CBS527^Talk 10:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As others have said the sources in the article are inadequate to establish notability, thus failing WP:GNG. In fact quite a few of the references don’t mention the subject at all. Google searches turn up nothing helpful, mostly PR announcements, Youtube and social media. Further, there is no mention of Nselaa Ward anywhere on "NOW". site where the article states she was a “National Field Director” and, nobody with the name of “Nselaa Ward“ has ever been licensed to practice law in the United States. What I did find was an attorney named “ Nitche Selaa Ward” in Colorado, whose profile (and certain photos online) are identical to the subject.("Linkin"., "AVVO"., "Search".)There was also an article on the NOW website that mentions a Nitche Ward. Neither Nselaa Ward nor Nitche Ward have adequate sources to establish notability. Based on some Google searches, there is the possibility this article could be part of a “rebranding” campaign for the subject, IMO. CBS527^Talk 22:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbs527: There are several things that make her notable and they are all independent of each other. 1. She organized the 2004 March for Women's Lives - which was the largest women's march. This was cited in CSPAN. 2. She was on the Poetry Slam team that was the #1 Slam Team in the world (Slam Nuba). This was cited in the slamnuba website. 3. She was the first woman to win the State Arkansas Grand Slam (cited in an Arkansas newspaper) 4. She was ranked in the top 5 Women of world poetry slam champions. (cited by the women of the world poetry website) Any of these independently is enough for her to be considered notable. This is one top of all of the other items that she did. Whether she is notable is a separate discussion from what should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaPerry22 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Could the article be a hoax? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

No, I don’t believe the article is a hoax. There is more to the story that isn’t necessary to bring up in the AFD. The “search” link in my delete post above will provide more information for you to form your own opinion. Regards, CBS527^Talk 01:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being, I suppose, that there is a source there that says "Nitche S. Ward" was disbarred from practising law in 2017. If that is her it should certainly be in the BLP. A smart find. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Cbs527: NO she is a real person. It is not a hoax. I did not include information about license suspension because from what discussed at the townhall meeting - it is something that is in litigation. I did include that she compromised /risked her licences. However, I did see where wiki indicated that did not approve of debatable derogatory information in BLP, So I was careful not to include partial facts considering it is something that is still controversial and in litigation. Also, her legal name is Nselaa Ward. The other AKAs are stage names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaPerry22 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Her strongest claim to notability is to have been disbarred from practising law in the State of Colorado in 2017. This is not enough for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@AndreaPerry22 . Do you have any connection with the subject of this BLP that you created? Is there any WP:COI that you should declare? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete This is so fundamentally promotional that there is no way of cleaning it up--and there is no point in trying because there is no underlying notability . If someone really thinks there might be, the best course would be to start over from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 11:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The links that I clicked on within the references mention Nitche (S.) Ward but not Nselaa Ward. (Most of them do. There was a playlist that didn't obviously mention either, and one or two other obscurities.) The article doesn't even mention the former name. If an article is warranted, why is it titled "Nselaa Ward"? -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NUKE. This article is so promotional that I can't see how it could be fixed (and there are few things I like better than taking a chainsaw to a gert chunk o'spam). I dont't buy the claims of notability. And I think that anybody who lists that many 'occupatios' is probably rubbish at most of them.TheLongTone (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been unable to verify much of the article.-Jahaza (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CBS527....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Noticing another big claim in the article, I clicked on the reference provided, and found nothing there. Perhaps a "snow" close? -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After doing quite a bit of searching, the conclusion is that this person is not notable. Yes, there are a few mentions but nothing in depth that substantiates WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Netherzone (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AndreaPerry22 (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's some kind of CV, resume or advertisement. Its intent is to promote the person, not to summarize her life and achievements in a neutral way. We can't possibly host this.—S Marshall T/C 12:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is nothing more than a CV/Professional bio, possibly created for promotional and web-presence boosting reasons (especially if she was disbarred in 2017 and it is not included in the article). Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DB Realty[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Created by a UPE sock. KartikeyaS (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just some routine coverage that fails WP:ORGDEPTH. --MarioGom (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. The only source is from the official website. Formatting issues. No evidence presented of notable undertakings. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:35, 15 March 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. czar 19:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 in science[edit]

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

Taking this to Afd after User Talk: Bearian removed proposed deletion tag. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTALBALL. Wikipedia should not be the place to predict future events. This article should be deleted. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eclipses are going to happen, unless the universe is destroyed beforehand. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this article would break the rule WP:CRYSTALBALL. It should be deleted. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Science never sleeps. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion rationale has been advanced. WP:CRYSTALBALL allows for exactly this kind of page: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. [...] Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOReaster and ClarityFiend - articles of this type are permitted by CRYSTALBALL, there are plenty of things it could discuss that are more than just speculation. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:5P1, "Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". Eclipses are often covered in almanacs, such as here, in The Old Farmer's Almanac. Granted, this example source provides 2020 eclipse dates, but in my view, it serves Wikipedia's readers to be able to learn about those that will occur in future years. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 15 March 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. Tone 09:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Shigeoka[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable subject. None of the sources establish notability under WP:GNG. Not certain which SNG applies here, I'm guessing WP:NARTIST, and that one fails too - no evidence that any of the four points there are met. Source analysis:

The bizjournals source establishes that he is the host of "Made in America" but doesn't have significant coverage of him, it's about the series.
Variety is an interview, which isn't something that establishes notability
Grist is written by the subject
The Atlantic doesn't mention him in the accompanying text, so I'm guessing he isn't a significant subject in the video (and even if he were, the claim it's supporting suggests that it would only establish when and why he came out of the closet)

A BEFORE search did not turn up anything significant - plenty of things by him, but didn't see anything major about him. I'm also very suspicious of this being paid editing. creffett (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. I'm trying to add more Asian, black, Latinx and indigenous creative people to Wikipedia. I think this all makes sense though. I'll keep this in mind for future contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativecompilations (talk • contribs) 00:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom. Borgia Venedict (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mogok (film)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom // Timothy :: talk 23:11, 15 March 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 The Willows (group). Tone 20:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Middleton (singer)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG; possibly could be redirected. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Willows (group). Doesn't seem notable on his own. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST sources exist and AfD is not clean up. Lightburst (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely sources exist on him, Lightburst, but enough for him to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG as an individual? Not that I can see. Boleyn (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Foxnpichu.Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 15 March 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. nom withdrawn and no outstanding deletion arguments czar 19:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MAVID[edit]

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

~~I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years - hopefully it can now be resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found several references in Google Scholar. The highest citation count is 347. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by Eastmain. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per comments above. Thanks for your input, Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 15 March 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. czar 19:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marks (producer)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Last AfD only attracted one comment. Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person in the music business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only coverage is in Discogs and a primary source blog. Not notable in any way. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 15 March 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. czar 19:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Acosta[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, having not received enough significant coverage, and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he never played pro and his college career is no where near being at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any coverage, however a Div I FBS punter could have it. It's possible my search is incomplete so if someone has coverage I'll look at it. But based on my search and what's presented in the article itself the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable amateur player. Ostealthy (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally punters who don't play professionally are not notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He got some coverage in Hattiesburg (e.g., here and here) but not enough to pass WP:GNG. The subject also does not pass the standards for WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Each citation is from the 49ers website, which means that the article is primary sourced. Analog Horror, (Speak) 15:36, 15 March 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. czar 19:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Abad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Former Division II football player who has not received any significant coverage. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria for college football players. We have a low enough bar for sports figures (probably far too low) to be considered notable, there is no reason to have an article on Abad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only coverage I find are a few passing mentions in transaction records. If someone can find more, I'll happily reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable amateur player. Ostealthy (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass either WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH and while he had some coverage in Cocoa Beach (e.g. this and this), he lacks significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources at the level needed to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the type of sustained coverage for him. I could be persuaded if someone found sources from not just his hometown. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:42, 13 March 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 Adelaide#Infrastructure. Tone 20:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AdelaideFree WiFi[edit]

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

Almost every city has its own WiFi service, there is nothing to suggest that this is notable. WP:MILL Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every city has its own WiFi service - Where do you live? I want to move there. City-wide free WiFi networks are not common in Australia. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all 3 references are from a self promoting source. Teraplane (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unremarkable, non-notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 00:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Only 1 gnews hit. LibStar (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Yes definitely not notable in its own right, but it is a likely search term. It is referenceable to a small number of good quality reliable independent sources, so redirect to a new paragraph/subsection in Adelaide#Infrastructure. Aoziwe (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoziwe. King of Scorpions 19:35, 9 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS Vancouver[edit]

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

This seems like a very worthy cause but as a local charity is not demonstrating notability under Wikipedia’s policies. No secondary sources providing substantial coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was the first AIDS service organisation in Canada [1]. Someone just needs to hit the history books - it's a usually well-documented period of LGBT history for organisations like this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m really not sure that we can claim that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES for an article that has been poorly sourced for 10+ years. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a terrible argument - Wikipedia has tens if not hundreds of thousands of long-poorly-sourced articles on topics on which plenty of spurces exist (I've been making it a project to fix up hundreds of them in my areas of my interest in the last couple of years with great success.) It's not there "must be sources", it's that there "are" sources: you can't tell the history of the AIDS epidemic in Canada, or of LGBT history in Canada that covers the AIDS epidemic, without talking about AIDS Vancouver, and that story has been written. It even pops up peripherally in the mass-market American histories due to them being established so early as a community response to AIDS that it tied into the Gaëtan Dugas story, even though those books had no interest in Canada besides the Dugas connection. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Drover's Wife Any suggestions of sources I could try? I cannot find anything that would indicate notability - and ‘’WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a valid argument for AfD. I’m genuinely trying to rescue this article, if it’s possible. I’m not convinced right now. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you're "genuinely trying to rescue the article", perhaps the twelve thousand, five hundred and nineteen hits in newspapers.com , tons of which have detailed and substantive coverage of the organisation, might be useful, just for a start. And that's not even the place that I'd start because you're likely to get even better coverage than that in the history books (given my experience of researching LGBT and specifically AIDS history). To be blunt, your insistence that you "cannot find anything that would indicate notability" is starting to look like you're taking the piss. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The Drover's Wife firstly, don’t swear at me. I won’t tolerate that abuse. If you think this article is worth saving, I think it’s best if you demonstrate notability by showing your best three sources as per WP:THREE. Just saying that I should “check the history books” or counting hits is not acceptable. There are plenty of organisations in the UK that have done similar good work that are not notable enough for their own article. This isn’t personal, I’m following WPs policies. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't just give you three, I gave you literal thousands of substantive hits. The newspapers.com link above demonstrates the most extraordinarily clear pass of WP:GNG of any AfD I've seen in quite some time. I suggest you read it before you dismiss it as "counting hits". It's interesting that your insistence that you were "genuinely trying to rescue the article" was dropped the second I provided you enough detailed and quality coverage in reliable sources to bash out a WP:GA on the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The Drover's Wife come on, you’ve been here long enough to know that just saying “there are thousands of hits, it must be notable!” is not acceptable. Give me your best three and you might convince me. Google links only please I don’t have a Newspapers.com account Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not just saying that they're thousands, that link helpfully provides excerpts of the sorts of content it is, which is why if you'd read it you know there's enough material for a WP:GA there, which would be enough for a reasonable person to be "convinced". I'm just going to keep linking these thousands of articles providing good detailed coverage for the benefit of anyone who's not bent on intentionally ignoring them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I’m not ignoring them, but I don’t have a Newspapers.com account and I’m not prepared to put my card details in to set one up. I’ve always found that WP:RS tend to be found on Google News or JSTOR. Not on this occasion. I am fully prepared to spend some time rescuing this article if you could just provide any independent sources.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Newspapers.com is part of Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, and you don't even need that access to see the excerpts on the page I linked (again, if needed). Google News has never been good for historical coverage on any topic and JSTOR, while a reliable source, is not in anyone's definition a comprehensive one for coverage of more than very broad subject-matter. Deciding you specifically won't use the right databases for reliable coverage of a given subject is not actually a reflection on the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        See, I didn’t even know that Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library existed. Why didn’t a friendly editor help a relative newbie out, rather than being rude and obnoxious? This is a wonderful treasure trove that you could have politely pointed me towards rather than what you’ve just done. Never mind, eh? Assume good faith in future, I’m only here to try and improve things. WP:AGF Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        So, I take it you'll be withdrawing your nomination now that we're acknowledging that huge amount of detailed coverage exists? The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I’ll take that as an apology, I guess. You’re right, there are a lot of hits, it’ll take me a few days to go through all of these properly. I’ll get back to you. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Normally the suggestion that it might take you days to go through the volume of reliable sources might be just a touch of an indication that it passes WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pernom. Borgia Venedict (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as The Drover's Wife has made clear that there are extensive sources. @Cardiffbear88: If you are a n00b, I would suggest you lurk in these AFD discussions for a bit, and then join them, before starting to nominate articles. Keep a list, and then after watching for a bit, you will have a better sense of what should/not be deleted. And you will learn the ropes... for example you should have done a more complete search WP:BEFORE your good faith nomination. --Theredproject (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Theredproject Newspapers.com is not mentioned in WP:BEFORE - which I completed in detail before nominating. I’m not a n00b, I’m a “relative newbie” compared to The Drover's Wife, an experienced editor of many years. And this isn’t my first AfD - check out my AfD stats. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the earlier comments. Clearly passes WP:GNG. --MrClog (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not seeing any evidence that he played internationally for anyone other than a junior team, not the senior team. Fenix down (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Krõlov[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10: Is Meistriliiga players really not notable? He was even top scorer there--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they pass GNG. NFooty needs fully-proffessional league or national team caps. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Nehme1499, GiantSnowman Can I ask if you checked the other wiki's because according to the Russian one he has played 12 games for Estonia at national level. However I am not sure if that was under-21, U23 Olympics, I don't think it was for UEFA Euro 1996 qualifications period as I don't see games for that when I had a look. I do feel these delete votes are currently are saying one thing without analysing the players credentials, which kinda bugs me. Govvy (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: I had already checked him out at national-football-teams.com: he isn't there. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: It would of helped if you explained this AfD a little more, I mean, one when something looks like it's pointing to national team games, it really does help that you explain your findings as well. Govvy (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: WP:NFOOTY includes both clubs and NTs and, as I explicitly stated that he doesn't pass the guideline, it's implied that I believe that he hasn't played for a senior NT. Also, where in the article does it "look like it's pointing to national team games"? It just says that he was the Estonian league's top scorer once, followed by a bullet point of Estonian (non professional) clubs he has played in. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly said in the info box on the Russian wiki that he played for the Estonian national team for 12 games from 1994 to 95! I pointed to that earlier. Govvy (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English wiki, not the Russian one. I'm not going to investigate every single wiki the guy has. Especially since I'm not fluent in German, Russian, Estonian or Hungarian. Also, the Russian one points to him having played at YOUTH level, not senior. My statement was very clear: he doesn't pass GNG, nor NFOOTY (ergo: he hasn't played in a professional league, nor for a SENIOR national team). I don't see why you would like me to explain in detail the reasoning behind why I believe he hasn't played for a national team. If the author of the page didn't write it, then why should I write a paragraph stating: I searched on NFT.com, he isn't there. So rest assured, he HASN'T played for a senior national team. THEREFORE he doesn't pass NFOOTY. Seems a bit pedantic. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why pedantic? I wasted 30 minutes looking into that simply because you failed to write that down as part of the reason to your nomination, it's a clear oversight and unprofessional of you. Govvy (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If even after 30 minutes you didn't figure out that the Russian wiki listed him as a youth international, and not a senior... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:48, 9 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaan Tiwari[edit]

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

apparently non-notable actor, only one role in a (somewhat) notable film, though not even a major role. Can find no actual coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:28, 15 March 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 per WP:SK#1. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Inheritors (The Outer Limits)[edit]

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

~~Is this WP:NOTABLE? I couldn't establish that it was. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years, hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per List of The Outer Limits (1963 TV series) episodes. This iconic TV series broadcast 49 episodes and each episode has its own Wikipedia article. Deletion of the series' sole two-part episode would leave a void in the complete record. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. Looking at other Outer Limits episode pages, I see references to a few non-fiction analyses of the program.
- The Outer Limits: The Official Companion by David J. Schow and Jeffrey Frentzen, Ace Books (1986) — republished as The Outer Limits Companion by GNP/Crescendo (1998)
- The Outer Limits at 50 by David J. Schow, Creature Features (2014)

These are out-of-print and I can't immediately access them online, but I see on other Outer Limits articles that they have non-fiction information on each episode. I'm also seeing some coverage here:

Gender in Science Fiction Films, 1964-1979: A Critical Study by Bonnie Noonan, MacFarland & Co (2015)
The Life and Death of Rising Star Steve Inhat — Gone Too Soon by Linda Alexander, Bear Manor Media (2018)
"The Outer Limits" by David J. Schow, Twilight Zone magazine vol 4 no 6 (1985)
Cinefantastique vol 30, pg 93

As Roman Spinner said, every Outer Limits episode has its own page, and most of them are in the same state; I'm not sure why this article was nominated in particular. Is there a consensus about which television shows get episode pages for every episode and which don't? -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, with reservations. I think there is a larger issue with TV series in general, where some episodes are notable, others are not, and currently we have pages for them all. I'm the original creator of this page, and many other Outer Limits episode pages, along with another user (Motor). In over a decade, we haven't really done any work to improve the content. There appears to be only one important published source for this TV series, which has appeared in (I believe) three editions beginning in the 1980s (Schow, noted above). Right now all the episodes are in a linked series of pages and it might be a lot of work to reorganize. Certainly the series is an important one historically and artistically, and some episodes have been written about extensively (those authored by Harlan Ellison, of course, but some others too). A Blu-ray edition was released in 2019 containing new commentaries full of historical information, but these are audio, not written. It's hard to quote from those in verifiable way. The Inheritors is considered to be a "good" episode from the series, but nothing strikes as particularly notable apart from its belonging to the show. In the long run, I would prefer not to lose the data content of the pages, even for less notable episodes, because this is an anthology series; thus the information is hard to summarize concisely in a standard episode list. I think artistically significant episodes should have their own page and lesser episodes don't really need a page, but if we delete them we will lose all the back links for important actors of the day, etc. So, I'm undecided and would err on the side of keeping rather than deleting. After all, WP has lots of room. Slowmover (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per thoughtful comments above. Boleyn (talk) 20:29, 14 March 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. czar 19:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Ilic[edit]

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

Unref blp of doubtful notability. Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An article on Varta is sufficient. Caro7200 (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’ve been thinking about this one for a while. I agree the substantive parts fall under the scope of an article about the company, and most of the rest is personal trivia.Mccapra (talk) 05:19, 15 March 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 per WP:SK#1. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gallery (disco)[edit]

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

~~Possible merge/redirect (but to which of the brothers?) Doesn't appear to be WP:NOTABLE and has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. The Gallery was very important to the history of 1970s disco culture. Besides the sources already used in the article, including the first item on the list below, there's also all the rest of the items listed below.
- Beyond the Hustle: Seventies Social Dancing, Discotheque Culture and the Emergence of the Contemporary Club Dancer by Tim Lawrence, University of Illinois Press (2009)
- Love Goes to Buildings on Fire: Five Years in New York That Changed Music Forever by Will Hermes, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux (2012)
- Last Night a DJ Saved My Life: The History of the Disc Jockey by Bill Brewster and Frank Broughton, Grove Atlantic (2014)
- Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco by Peter Shapiro, Faber and Faber (2005)
- Love Saves the Day: A History of American Dance Music Culture, 1970-1979 by Tim Lawrence, Duke University Press (2004)
- Hold On to Your Dreams: Arthur Russell and the Downtown Music Scene, 1973-1992 by Tim Lawrence, Duke University Press (2009)
- The Record Players: DJ Revolutionaries by Bill Brewster and Frank Broughton, Black Cat (2010)
- Disco: The Music, The Times, The Era by Johnny Morgan, Sterling (2011)
- "'The 1970s club scene in New York was special': Nicky Siano" by Will Coldwell, The Guardian (Apr 7, 2017)
- "You Better Work!": Underground Dance Music in New York by Kai Fikentscher, Wesleyan University Press (2000)
- "Nicky Siano on disco, drugs and DJing at Studio 54", The Vinyl Factory
- "Nicky Siano on the Gallery and the Dark Days of Disco", DJHistory.com
- "Welcome to The Gallery!", Standard Hotels

I think this is enough to demonstrate notability. I'll post these sources on the article page in a Further reading section, so that people who want to improve the articles can use them. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The underground analogue to Studio 54...perhaps there wouldn't have been a Studio 54 without The Gallery. Caro7200 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination oer convincing, insightful comments above. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 9 March 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. czar 19:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AnTuTu smartphone performance ranking[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. Fails guidelines. Störm (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails LISTN. b uidhe 18:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplication of a single (commercial) website's contents, hooray. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a product review site. Ajf773 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 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. Tone 20:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loves Like a Dog[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and non notable television programme which was last aired in 2001. The article lacks reliable sources as it depends on IMDb. Abishe (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article fails WP:GNG. Interstellarity (talk) 13:56, 8 March 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. Tone 20:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Knauls[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the sources do not seem to match with the criteria of WP:RS. Abishe (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hyper local sourcing does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 8 March 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 redirect to List of years in television. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table of years in television[edit]

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

This is not an article, but a pseudo navigation template in article space with no incoming links other than those used by default in {{Year nav topic5}}. It should be noted that {{Years in television}} is the same exact thing, just used correctly and also appearing on the same exact pages. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – yeah, that should be a template, not an article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 8 March 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. Tone 20:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ferry[edit]

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

non notable person, sourced to hyper local sources, patently unreliable/fake news sources and the only actual coverage is WP:BLP1E for the billboard. Praxidicae (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are *A LOT* of sources, but I don't see that any of them constitute notability. The billboard stunt made news, but the stories were about the stunt, not him. The other details -- about his youth sports experience, Facebook posts, etc. -- all add sources, but don't appear to support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely paid-for spam given the refbombing. No comment on a repost speedy deletion. MER-C 14:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems like part of the Florida shuffle drug rehab cycle, maybe proponent/profiteer, not sure, but maybe better cast.

https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/sponsored/the-opioid-epidemic-is-ravaging-america-cementing-itself-as-one/article_c1de8f2f-e61c-5fdb-bac6-bec9e4f36505.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/christopher-ferry-boca-raton-fl/320811

https://www.thestatesman.com/inspiration-hub/meet-christopher-ferry-the-man-behind-riff-raffs-addiction-recovery-1502792193.html

https://www.ibtimes.co.in/christopher-ferry-story-former-addict-who-founded-boca-recovery-center-804126

https://www.californiaherald.com/christopher-ferry-explains-the-role-of-a-certified-interventionist-in-an-addicts-road-to-recovery/ Djflem (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is proof just "having plenty of sources" does not advance notability and that an article can be sourced, implying notability, while landing in the middle of What Wikipedia is not. If a subject is not notable then no amount of "stacked on sourcing will make it more notable". This is certainly true when source titles like "New Jersey brothers rent billboard to prank dad on birthday" are evident and certainly if many sources are promotional, giving the article a clear advertising tone. Many people world-wide would be considered "Addiction Recovery Advocate's", there are too many "Entrepreneur's" in the world, and a surplus of internet personality's (content creator) to try to make inclusion to include "the whole world". A source indicates the subject was an "insurance agent" that kicked the habit, with an in between co-founding of an insurance company and starting a rehab business, but there are many thousands of such inspiring stories which do not rise to deserving an encyclopedia article. The billboard stunt dominates sources that is a "birthday stunt", posted on facebook. The temporary "fame" of the billboard stunt coupled with employment of prdistribution.com. to facilitate a "marketing" strategy, along with clear general news reporting is good promotion but also does not translate to encyclopedia notability. Otr500 (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fee[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, and has been sat in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough 3rd party coverage of him. The award coverage is based from the award's own press release. THe one indepdent source is about a production and does not really indicate notability of him as an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. A Google search for --> "Charles Fee" director <-- turns up 13,000 hits and a news search for the same search terms turns up 305 hits. I have not analyzed them. Are any of these shows equity shows, or even professional companies? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (per Nom) and optional ATD "Merge" to (and expand) Great Lakes Theater#Artistic directors. A merge rationale is also supported by WP:BEFORE; "C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" (#4): If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. A general listing of Google search hits has been shown to not advance notability and "significant hits" directly supports merging. I am a fan of classical theater arts but when a search does not produce anything to allow for more than a two sentence pseudo biography, the questioning of notability is warranted concerning having a stand alone article. 12 years is long enough for something of substance to have emerged. The second paragraph is just a repeat of the first, to include duplicate links, but with the added years. This could be added to the first (and only) paragraph resulting in little more than a dictionary entry. Otr500 (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:CREATIVE. As an artistic director of regional theater festivals, and winner of a non-notable award, he's not automatically notable. I don't see anything more than ordinary coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 16 March 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 Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)#ep18. czar 19:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could You Recognise the Man Again?[edit]

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

There are some sources, but I'm not convinced it is WP:NOTABLE and has been tagged as such for 12 years. Hoping we can get it resolved now, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To episode list on Randall and Hopkirk article. Well it's a notable ITC series, in my opinion it's one of the finest TV series of all time. But the individual episodes admittedly lack significant coverage in reliable sources. You'd have to nominate all 26 articles for deletion. The Avengers episodes have just about enough coverage for individual articles I think but the Randall and Hopkirk episodes are more suited to a fan wiki site. I'd happily be proven wrong.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Dr. Blofeld. Mccapra (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Dr. Blofeld. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I don't think a Merge is needed, as the only useful information here (the director, air date, etc) is already included in the target article. Additionally, as none of the information here is sourced, it would be inappropriate to add unsourced information to the main article. If the consensus here results in Redirecting, then the same can probably be WP:BOLDly done for the articles on the other 25 episodes, as a quick look at some of them show largely the same issues as this article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of creating a list of episodes in a few weeks, more detail on the plot and characters etc sometime. It would be good to still have access to the content which was in the articles to help. I'll redirect the rest once the list is created.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 8 March 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. Tone 20:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A&T Bank[edit]

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

The article has had a lack of notability banner on it since 2010 that was never remedied and seems to be a permanent stub, that lacks any kind of notability. As none of the three sources in the article are reliable or in-depth, and nothing about them comes up in a Google search. Adamant1 (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ten years of very little attention for this page. Non-notable. Dorama285 (talk) 18:28, 10 March 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 Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). Clear consensus that this does not belong in mainspace, at least in its current state. Not so much agreement on exactly what to do with it. Normal editorial processes can be used to redirect to a different target and/or mine the history for material to merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Very long and extensive piece of WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. All references are PRIMARY PLOT summaries, plus a spattering of the usual "appeared in the following media". BEFORE fails to find a single source that discusses him outside a plot summary. Looking at Demon (Dungeons & Dragons) I think all of his fellow demon lords have been redirected there, so we can consider SOFTDELETE and redirect there. Since it is a very long piece article, an AfD is probably preferable to an outright redirect or PROD, so let's see if anyone can find some source to rescue this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and the article would need substantial re-writing to pass not being plot anyway. Maybe a mention of it could be in the mythological creatures article under a "use in popular culture" section or something at least. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable FANDOM-style gamecruft that fails WP:GNG. Referenced to primary sources - which does not indicate notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only non-primary source being used in the article is the "For Dummies" book, which, as a game-guide written by Wizards of the Coast employees, does not help establish notability. Searching for additional sources brings up a few scattered mentions (a handful of brief "Top Ten" style entries, announcements that he will appear in an upcoming D&D product, etc), but nothing in-depth. Adamant1 mentioned above that he could possibly be mentioned in the Orcus article, and looking there shows that this is already the case, so perhaps at most a Redirect to there can be created afterwards. Rorshacma (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded fancruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft - this is one of the few D&D subjects that really has leaked out into broader culture, even if the article poorly reflects that. The fact that a rewrite may be needed to reduce plot elements is an editing issue, not an AfD issue. BD2412 T 01:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also possibly merge to some higher-level article on D&D creatures. BD2412 T 03:54, 15 March 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 Spacecraft. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orbiter[edit]

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

This article is nothing but a WP:DICDEF. No sign of expansion. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spacecraft, where orbital vehicle already redirects and which already has most of these examples listed. Orbital spaceflight is also a possible target. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/consider disambig. Regarding redirect, a disambig may be better, given the term is also applied to space shuttle: [2], [3], [4], [5] etc. Also, there are other reliable sources that use this term, the question is is there an in-depth discussion of this concept (and do we need a disambig anyway?). Consider [6], [7], [8]. Did the nominator complete BEFORE and is certain no source discuss the concept in-depth? Google Scholar has hundreds of hits. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing what's already at Orbital Vehicle (disambiguation) and Orbiter (disambiguation), I stand by Spacecraft being the best redirect destination, which also includes the shuttle. Reywas92^Talk 06:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be renamed to List of orbiters. Note that we have already List of extraterrestrial orbiters and List of Mars orbiters. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, note that we already have Spacecraft#Planetary_probes and Spacecraft#Lunar_probes. What purpose would this serve? Why should there be another duplicate page rather than improving what's already elsewhere??? I've added navigation links to these in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this is a completely duplicate content? If so (I do not have time to check this carefully), let's just make it a redirect if no one objects. I do not object. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spacecraft as suggested by Reywas92 and My very best wishes. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:25, 17 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Network for Mathematics and Industry[edit]

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

This would appear to be a misplaced web page for the organization. DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability and the article too reads like a promotional catalog. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:25, 17 March 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. I was going to relist this, as it hasn't been yet, but (a) it's been open 13 days already, (b) it's pretty clear that there's absolutely no consensus on what to do, and (c) unlike a number of these types of discussions, reasonable points have been made on all sides. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potions in Harry Potter[edit]

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

There are many notable elements of the Harry Potter verse. But I have doubts that the list of fictional potions used in it is one of them. I don't see any evidence this topics passes NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT with elemen ts of OR. There were in the past arguments that it may past LISTN but as recent deletions of many similar lists have demonstrated, we need a discussion that goes beyond plot summaries, and so far nobody has shown anything on this topic that is not 100% a plot summary. Thoughts? A SOFTDELETE through REDIRECT to Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions might be a good compromise. PPS. Also, please consider this article has no reception, development, significance, and the sources used or cited in the past don't contain any suggestion such a section is possible. This is the very definition of non-encyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT, I am afraid. PS. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_spells_in_Harry_Potter is already gone, it's surprising the potions are holding on better than the spells... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use the disappearing potion per nom. The Tolkiencruft hunt appears to have abated. Now on to break the Pottery. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge with Magic in Harry Potter My initial thought was delete per a deletion years ago of the list of spells in Harry Potter.[[9]] I did not disagree with that deletion, so I went there to check the deletion reasons and found mention of Magic in Harry Potter as the justification for deletion (the list being a non notable plot summary fork). The magic page has a heading and paragraph on potions with a link to this page, making this a sub page of that one. So this page could be merged back into there, but the page is already large. Merge would be fine but could be done through merge process to allow editors there a chance to consider article size. So then the question is whether either of these should exist, and I notice there are sources in both articles that suggest notability, and potentially many more that can go in available with a google. Scholar and books also show up sources, and these were established in the AfD second nomination[10] which lists plenty of sources. The nom. does not attempt to discuss or refute these sources. The argument about adjusting policy on lists does not alter the fact that there are sources establishing notability. The subject is generally notable, although most sources do tend to use the cultural relevance of Harry Potter to make other wider points. Yet they do mention the potions and the magic. The subject is notable outside of the books. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nom. does not attempt to discuss or refute these sources." But I did. They are all WP:PLOT summaries. No analysis of literary significance, development, reception. The subject is very much not notable outside the books. There is next to no referenced content to merge back up anyway. It's overspilled fancruft all the way. PS. The spells would appear, logically, more 'in-universe' notable anyway, and they are already gone, thanks to User:El cid, el campeador, tnx for pointing to the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_spells_in_Harry_Potter. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I spoke imprecisely. I did not think what you said about plot summaries applied to these refs:

Harry Potter and the Classical World
The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy
Harry Potter and the Bible

My comments (with associated caveats) also applied to sources such as Dumbledore's advice to Law Deans and multiple other such articles where the cultural relevance of the Potterverse is used to make some other point. But then, what these do not do is that they do not treat the potions as a subject for a treatment on its own, although it turns out that food in HP does get such treatment![11]. I can believe there is or could be a similar treatment of potions and still think this would thus be notable based on the existing sources and the distinct possibility there are such treatments. Yet I think you have a point. This page is not that treatment. Instead what we have here is largely - no entirely - plot summary. The notable aspects of the subject are not being treated here and this page is more akin to the list of spells (deleted) than the Magic in Harry Potter (retained). As such I think a merge would be highly desirable. There is probably a notable subject here, but this page is not it. Thus I am updating my recommendation to merge. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per my !vote last time, along with PWilkinson's comments in that nom. However, the deletion of the list of spells and the recent lot of redirect noms re the Tolkien universe for things that aren't mentioned in the redirect target weaken my position somewhat. Graham87 09:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just yet another "delete anything and everything to do with fiction". And " The Tolkiencruft hunt appears to have abated. Now on to break the Pottery. " is so WP:NOTHERE it should be TBANable. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just what part of WP:NOTHERE have I violated? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Magic in Harry Potter. WP:ALLPLOT list that fails WP:LISTN, and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Nothing indicates that the potions of Harry Potter are independently notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Magic in Harry Potter. It seems to be in poor shape, but I'd imagine that topic can establish itself. This list is a bunch of trivial plot information. I'd imagine the topic of potions in general warrants a paragraph or two in the main article, but it doesn't appear there is much worth merging at this point. TTN (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are six non-fiction works of literary criticism currently cited on the page. Yes, they talk about the plot function, because it's writing about fiction, and you need to discuss the items in the context of the narrative. Also, I agree with Andy Dingley that Clarityfiend's comment about "breaking ~~all~~ the Pottery" is inappropriate. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, try to get the quote right. I said nothing about getting rid of all the Harry Potter articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the "all", still inappropriate. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It's clear he refers to deleting non-notable Harry Potter articles, in the context of an AfD, not deleting any articles related to Harry Potter. It shouldn't be inappropriate to say that fancruft that isn't, and will never be notable, should be kept._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter for being a mere plot summary. Having secondary sources that repeat facts that can be found in the plot, doesn't establish notability. However, it's possible that this is a WP:TNT case, in which case I prefer redirection over deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sigh -- per Andy Dingley, this is part of the indiscriminate nomination of fiction by Piotrus. This is a fundamental core part of the scholarship of Harry Potter -- the Poly-juice potion is a very particular part of how the characters develop, and as ToughPigs points out you already have a significant coverage in several major sources in the article already. Sadads (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter. The current article is entirely just plot summary. The sources on most of the individual examples here are also mostly plot summary. The actual information from the sources that do provide more can be easily integrated into the main article of magic in the franchise without needing to be split into a separate list of largely non-notable examples. Rorshacma (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Magic in Harry Potter, which itself needs to be cleaned up to remove egregious fancruft. The article fails WP:PLOT and WP:LISTN, as the sources here are not used to support anything besides in-universe information, and what little information they can provide would be much better suited over on the Magic page than on this collection of in-universe fancruft. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The subject passes the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Notability, which notes:
All fictional topics must meet the notability guidelines to warrant articles specifically about them. As mentioned earlier, the rule of thumb is that if the topic is sufficiently notable, secondary sources will be available and will ideally be included on article creation.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "potions in Harry Potter" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Stouffer, Tere (2007). The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter. New York: Penguin Group. pp. 150–161. ISBN 1440636613. Retrieved 2016-06-18.
  The book notes on page 150:
  Common Draughts, Potions, and Antidotes
  The final section of this chapter lists the common potions you'll find in the wizarding world, most of which clean something, cure some ailment, or cause wizards to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Each of the following sections describes the purpose of the potion, lists its ingredients (if known), and discusses any additional mythological, Biblical, or literary background.
  Here is a sample entry on page 152:
  Dr. Ubbly's Oblivious Unction
  To be "oblivious" is to be unaware, and "unction" refers to an oil or salve, usually a soothing or comforting one, used for religious or medicinal purposes. ("Unction" also refers to rubbing into or sprinkling oil onto the body; thus, Extreme Unction is the term used by the Catholic Church for the Anointing of the Sick, also called Last Rites.) Because we don't know the ingredients for this potion, nor do we know anything about Dr. Ubbly, we can only assume that it is a salve of some sort that's intended to make people oblivious to the world around them (and could, therefore, have a strong connection to—or even be the same potion as—a Confusing Concotion) or forget something uncomfortable or terrifying they've seen.
  One note, however: doctors don't exist in the wizarding world, so this potion may have originated in the Muggle world. "Healer Ubbly" would be more likely, if this were, indeed, a uniquely wizard potion. Ubbly, on the other hand, evokes a strong sense of a bubbly cauldron (ubbly-bubbly).
  Here is a second sample entry on page 152 and page 153:
  Confusing and Befuddlement Draught (also Confusing Concoction)
  A Confusing and Befuddlement Draught is meant to befuddle and, therefore, distract the user. This potion is likely used on Muggles who have seen possible wizard activities, but think of how a rather evil wizard could find it useful in other situations: pouring a smidgeon into his dad's nightcap just before he checks the clock to see how late he got home; sharing a little with a police officer as he or she is writing him a ticket or to a bank teller or store clerk who is counting out his change; slipping a little to a witness in a court case. A good wizard could easily go bad with powers such as these.
  Confusing potions aren't unique to the wizarding world. George Eliot wrote about a "confusing potion" in her 1876 novel, Daniel Deronda (her last). Long before that, Sophocles wrote that Athena tricked Ajax into confusing sheep with men—which is highly inconvenient during war-time! Key ingredients include lovage (historically used as a medicinal tea), scurvy-grass (once a treatment for scurvy or vitamin C deficiency), and sneezewort (a form of yarrow to which many people are allergic). See Chapter 10 for more on these ingredients, all of which you can grow in your backyard.
2. Boyle, Fionna (2004). A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World: Exploring the Harry Potter Universe. Toronto: ECW Press. pp. 192–195. ISBN 155022655X. Retrieved 2016-06-18.
  The book notes on pages 192–193:
  Potions
  Through a combination of theoretical and practical work, students learn about the preparation and effects of magical potions and substances. They also study poisons and antidotes, and learn about the attributes of different potion ingredients, from everday to the exotic. ...
  ...
  * Ageing Potion: Makes the drinker a little or a lot older, depending on how much is drunk.
  * Babbling Beverage: Presumably makes the drinker speak nonsense.
  * Baruffio's Brain Elixir: Presumably boosts brain power. It is sold as a black-market concentration and study aid for OWL and NEWT students.
  * bezoar (pronounced "bez-war"): Stone found in a goat's stomach that will save a person from most poisons.
  * Boil-curing potion: Contains crushed snake fangs, dried nettles, stewed horned slugs, and porcupine quills.
  * Confusing Concoction: Presumably befuddles the drinker.
  * Deflating Draught: It reduces objects that have been inflated back to their original size.
  * Draught of Living Death: Very powerful sleeping potion containing powdered root of asphodel and infusion of wormwood.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Secondary information notes: "Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work:".
This "information external to the work" requirement is clearly met by the first source, which says, "Each of the following sections describes the purpose of the potion, lists its ingredients (if known), and discusses any additional mythological, Biblical, or literary background."
Cunard (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (2nd nomination) participants: Hammersoft (talk · contribs), Graham87 (talk · contribs), PWilkinson (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), Lord Opeth (talk · contribs), Jclemens (talk · contribs), and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea to bring more people in. Pinging the mentioned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of spells in Harry Potter participants: User:El cid, el campeador, User:Artw, User:Jclemens, User:TTN, User:Reyk, User:Clarityfiend, User:Aoba47, User:Deathlibrarian and User:Carrite. (Not pinging myself :D). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this is in-depth coverage, few mentions in passing, most of it plot-related. If this is the best we have, I can only reaffirm my initial assessment. This is fancruft with not a smudge of real world notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the 2007 book The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter published by Penguin Group, potions are discussed on pages 150–161. The book notes (my bolding), "The final section of this chapter lists the common potions you'll find in the wizarding world, most of which clean something, cure some ailment, or cause wizards to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Each of the following sections describes the purpose of the potion, lists its ingredients (if known), and discusses any additional mythological, Biblical, or literary background."
    The "additional mythological, Biblical, or literary background" for each potion means this is not primarily "plot-related".
    Cunard (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment' - Cunard, I do not disagree with you (see my !vote above), but the page under discussion does have a problem that it currently only focuses on the plot elements and not the above notable aspects. Deletion is not for clean up, so I stand by my keep/merge !vote, but I would hope that the focus of this article would change in response to this AfD. If not then we will no doubt be seeing 4th nomination before too long. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do appreciate your good faithed contributions, Cunard, but if this is the best source, err. I mean, look at the examples posted. I can only assume you chose the best. "Dr. Ubbly's Oblivious Unction" has no " mythological, Biblical, or literary backgroung", it's pure plot, unless you think that the remark about the word "ubbly" being a pun on bubbly is, errr, serious analysis? For "Confusing and Befuddlement Draught (also Confusing Concoction)", the analysis is saying that JKR did not invent the concept of the "potion of confusion" and the idea is not novel. Errr. Ok. But again, this is a hard cry from any analysis. We might as well say that the ideas of magical potions is not new, JKR was obviously inspired by previous works and such, so it is notable because... what exactly? The point is, nowehere in this book do I see any non-passing analysis of the concept of potions in Potterverse. It's all plot, plus a few passing remarks that in no way, shape or form meet what I consider to be signifnicant, in-depth analysis of the topic. Nobody is saying that potions in Potterverse, or even Potion XYZ from it, is blah blah literary theory blah blah for any consequential length. Those all, from top to bottom, appear to be mentions in passing, 99% plot-based. And consider that we don't even have an article on magical potion, as far as I can tell, this literary device has not been analyzed much, through maybe as a general trope it is notable. But so far article on Potion doesn't even have an in fiction section, and all we have is this big pile of fancrut that still does not show any connection to non-plot element, and I am sorry, your sources so far do not seem to suggest such connections exist. Please, prove me wrong and cite a paragraph from any of those works that engages not primarily with plot but with some real world elements, literary theory or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here is sample analysis where the author makes a connection between Wolfsbane Potion's inventor Damocles Belby and the Damocles who was a Greek royal attendant (my bolding of the key piece of analysis):
        Wolfsbane Potion
        
        Wolfsbane Potion may be the most valuable potion available to wizards: it allows a werewolf to lead a normal life by keeping him or her from transfiguring fully into a werewolf at each full moon—the body still transforms, but the mind doesn’t. The potion’s main ingredient is aconite (also called monkshood and wolfsbane), a member of the buttercup family that has long been used in small quantities for medicinal purposes—see Chapter 10.
        Rowling reveals that this potion was invented by "Damocles Belby." (Belby is a town in East Yorkshire, England.) An earlier Damocles was a Greek royal attendant who upset the ruler at that time, Dionysius, and was repaid by having a sword suspended over his head, held there by a single hair. Thus the term "the sword of Damocles" refers to an impending tragedy, which is exactly how wizards must feel about werewolves. With just one nip, a wizard's entire life is changed: there is no cure, and even though the illness can be kept under control, wizards are so afraid of werewolves that they do everything in their power to push them out of polite society.
        Here is more analysis connecting a Harry Potter potion to a real-world product:
        Skele-Gro
        
        Skele-Gro, a potion of unknown ingredients given to wizards who need to regrow one or more bones, is an apt wordplay on a Muggle product called HairGro, which, like its wizarding counterpart, encourages a part of the human body to grow at unusual rates. HairGro has the advantage of being a topical product that is applied to the scalp; Skele-Gro is a horrible steaming potion that burns as it goes down and causes the painful regrowing of bones to commence. It is used not to make wizards taller but to regrow limbs that have been severed or otherwise cursed to no longer have working bones in them.
        Cunard (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I fail to see anything resembling an in-depth analysis that's not plot related. Saying that JKR used the word Damocles and then retelling the story of real world related legend is not analysis. Neither is a speculation about connection to HairGro. It's like trying to argue that Star Wars is notable solely because it names implies connection to real world notable concept of stars and wars. C'mon. It's clear there are just no good sources here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cunard has , as is frequently the case, has shown that this meets the technical requirements. Major plot elements in major fiction should have articles, especially when they are complex as this. The depth of the coverage of fictional elements depends upon the cultural importance of the fiction. It's true we deleted List of spells.., which is even more important, and that needs to be reconsidered . Considering the amount of effort we devote --and should devote, as one of the key functions of an encyclopedia-- to covering minor works for which relatively few people have heard but are nonetheless notable, it's peculiar that we don't give adequate coverage to the ones that actually are important. . The way it sometimes looks, we say that if something is notable by common sense, that's a reason to delete, even if it meets the WP:N. It's as if we made a agreement to have rules in order to interpret them in the stupidest way possible, just to show how clever we are at being paradoxical. (I used to try to do that a good deal, when I was 5 years old, but now we're almost 21. ) DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a GNG pass, per the excellent case laid out by Cunard. It's a pretty simple call based on that, really. Carrite (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unneeded wikia-type fan content which looks at every detail of a fictional world without analysis of its actual importance in the literature or without it. Passing GNG has never been [and will never be] the sole threshold to having a standalone article. I understand that a lot of people are passionate about Harry Potter and there is nothing wrong with that, but there are much better places to get Harry Potter information than WP. I fail to see how a list of potions is central to the literary importance of Harry Potter. There are plenty of HP pages which go into considerable depth and if a potion is important it can and probably should be noted elsewhere, but having a list which literally... lists.. every spell which is mentioned regardless of importance is just a fan activity. WP does not go into depth with tabloid-type content - even though there are always sufficient and in-depth sources. The same can be true here - coverage of something does not mean that we need an article which looks at every detail of the topic. Stats are another example - we avoid having articles which are just stats, even though there are considerable sources which discuss just stats. Instead, we discuss stats on the individual, team, or event pages. Same should be here - the spells can be mentioned but we do not need a list that is just spells. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter - Personally, I am big Potter fan, but this belongs in a specific Potterverse site, not Wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter under a "Potion brewing" section (not even merge the whole list), since Wikipedia:Notability in the outside world (deep coverage by reliable secondary sources and impact in popular culture) has not been proven. --LoЯd ۞pεth 14:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sound analysis. Most of the delete !votes are simply arguments that an encyclopedia should not be encyclopedic or unsound efforts to evade the plain terms of the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as GNG is met, and anything else involving focusing on the real-world commentary is just cleanup. As far as some of the NOTHERE arguments above, I have found that multiple fiction AfD participants (that is, those inclined to not keep such elements) are entirely unconvinced by the presence of dead-tree, written, independently published secondary sources which cover fictional elements. I logged in today to review Confessions and Lamentations in light of the current Covid-19 pandemic, and of course it's been redirected without merge. I have no less than three dead-tree books which cover that episode, but not the time to put out fires started by those with plenty of time to redirect, but never a finger lifted to improve. I sincerely regret that taking care of actual living humans as a medical provider has curtailed my Wikipedia presence and participation, but it is what it is. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter. This page seems too specific and can be easily be included in here. It also seems like specific fan-content, like something you would find on Fandom. Textbook WP:FANCRUFT dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 02:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I also think redirect to Magic in Harry Potter is a logical solution.GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's enough of them that I don't see the value of a merge - will just result in something that needs splitting. Enough have usages in the common vernacular now that I don;t see sourcing as an issue. Artw (talk) 03:13, 20 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puss in the Corner[edit]

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

Non notable card game Gameron46 (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bermicourt's additions of three references. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bermicourt's additions. Plus it's mentioned in the 1937 classic The Prisoner of Zenda (and probably the inferior 1952 remake/copy too). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in the film (by Douglas Fairbanks Jr.), not the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well known game that is recorded in several books going back to 1899. I've added 3 references but there are many more. Bermicourt (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Please go through AfC before moving to mainspace. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 10:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upanishad Ganga[edit]

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

As far as I can see "Upanishad Ganga" is not a television series within the usual meaning of that term. It is neither a "free to air" or "pay to view" TV show. Instead it would appear to be a YouTube account's videos. I can see that the article has been created and deleted a number times without a formal deletion discussion. I think the {{Find sources AFD|Upanishad Ganga}}) will demonstrate that this article fails WP:NFILM, WP:GNG, and any number of other policies and guidelines. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The argument being made about it not qualifing the Television series criteria not truly right for following reasons :- Arguement :- It is neither a "free to air" or "pay to view" TV show. Reply :- If it's on YouTube it is free to air and for the pay to view part it's also available on Amazon.in to be purchased as a physical Product in Compact Disc . Search it on Amazon's indian domain and you find it there.

Comment, it will likely meet GNG when sourced correctly. I suggest moving to Draft:Upanishad Ganga and cubmit via AFC. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to AFC per Hell in a Bucket.4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Hell in a Bucket. May meet GNG if is properly sourced, but the article needs work before it's ready for mainspace.----Pontificalibus 08:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LilDeuceDeuce[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:MUSIC. Only one or two poor sources such as this one, which merely claim he has 5 million views on YouTube. PK650 (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get an automatic free pass over WP:GNG, as a bypass of actually having to pass the defined notability standards for their field of endeavour, just because they can show two pieces of human interest coverage in their local hometown media. GNG is not just "count the media hits and keep anything that meets or exceeds two", but also takes into account factors like the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from and the context of what the person is getting covered for. To get into Wikipedia on just two pieces of purely local coverage, one or both of those sources would have to be verifying that he had accomplished something "inherently" notable, like winning a Juno Award or getting himself elected to the provincial legislature — if you're aiming for "notable just because media coverage exists", instead of "notable because he's accomplished something that passes Wikipedia's inclusion standards", then he has to show a lot more and/or wider coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Analog Horror, (Speak) 18:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Park, Indiana[edit]

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

Not an unincorporated community, part of incorporated Taylorsville, Indiana. Does not appear on topo map (though quite a few other nn neighborhoods do). Cannot find a single source for apparent subdivision/housing development/neighborhood to pass WP:GEOLAND#2. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GEOLAND#2 with any additional coverage for fails of SNG. Lightburst (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does show up on older topos but it was plainly built as a subdivision on the west side of Taylorsville and didn't originate as a separate place. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 9 March 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. Tone 09:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Meadows, Indiana[edit]

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

A subdivision/housing development/neighborhood that's not actually an unincorporated community but part of incorporated Zionsville, Indiana. Lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GEOLAND#2. Reywas92^Talk 04:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass our SNG WP:GEOLAND or GNG. Neighborhoods must pass GNG and this one does not. Lightburst (talk) 04:11, 8 March 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. Tone 09:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA Camp Warren[edit]

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

Entirely WP:OR with links only to the official website. Lack of significant coverage to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 03:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is only on my watchlist due to vandalism. I was going to wait until any people with more familiarity with the topic had given there opinions, but there are no !votes even now, so ... here I am. Graham87 06:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Përballja (radio show)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article with no evidence of notability per WP:NMEDIA/GNG. Prod was contexted with a merge rationale but there is no referenced content to merge, article may contain OR and errors. I cannot find any in-depth coverage, through maybe something exists in in WP:NOENG? I considered redirect but I am not convinced this is a valid move if there is nothing to merge, and no reference to proof this (amateur?) radio show (podcast?) is indeed primarily related to that movement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vetëvendosje. Merge-proposal was done before the nominator placed the WP:POINTy AfD. The Banner talk 23:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no referenced content to merge. As has been explained to you numerous time, WP:V and WP:CITE require that content is referenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I barely found anything about the show. It didn't indicate the station the show was aired on. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find much about the show either, I would go with a delete option.GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:10, 15 March 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 already speedily deleted by User:Fastily. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland City Junction, Indiana[edit]

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

As found on the topo map, yes it exists! No, it's not a community, much less a notable one! It was the railroad junction nearby Oakland City, Indiana, as described here. Reywas92^Talk 03:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike other articles I've created, this is simply a railroad junction and I regret creating this article. Evking22 (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:G7 The article starter acknowledges the article should be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus not to delete, discussion about what to do with the article is taking place on the talkpage. Default keep then. Tone 09:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin names of rivers[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic content, this is mostly just a translation listing. While some of the included rivers were known in Latin times, some of them were not, and others would probably have been known by Greek names. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of lakes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of islands for similar discussions. The transwiki tag has been on the article for almost two months with no apparent action, and the user who placed the tag is currently indefinitely blocked. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that Category:Copy to Wiktionary is neglected and articles are not actually transwikied anymore since the bot that did it automatically retired. It has eight exonym articles that MiraclePine tagged then. I'm not at wiktionary enough to say if these should really be transwikied there, but agree with deletion and the prior discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If someone wants to know the Latin name for a river, we have interlanguage links and the Latin Wikipedia for that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If finding one river name is the problem, then, assuming there is an article about the river on Vicipaedia, this indeed would be the best way, much better than a list here or a list on Vicipaedia -- because these lists are largely unsourced, whereas a river article on Vicipaedia will normally have been checked against sources and will have sources cited. Andrew Dalby 16:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the kind of list that's particularly useful when studying Greek and Roman topics, because it gathers all of the related names in one place. In fact, I'm quite certain that I've looked for lists like this in the past, although I don't recall ever running across this page—presumably I was looking in the wrong place, or before this article was created. Searching for individual names in another language's Wiki—or hoping that an article exists for each modern name in another language—is about the most cumbersome way I can imagine to do this, and is almost certain to prevent users from finding the information they're looking for. As an aside, skimming the list I don't see anything that wouldn't have been known in Greek or Roman times, as the nominator suggests; pretty much all the rivers of western Europe barring those in Scandinavia and Ireland would have been known, as well as all rivers flowing into the Mediterranean or Black Seas, and most of those flowing into the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. But my main point is, it would be an extreme disservice to users to make it harder to find this information. P Aculeius (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOT and LISTN. Consider copying to Wiktionary. Anyone who wants to see this content can find it at la:Index fluminum. b uidhe 18:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN has no applicability here; geographical features such as rivers are notable by definition. The existence of an equivalent article at Latin Wikipedia is also irrelevant, since 1) if it shouldn't exist on English Wikipedia, it shouldn't exist on Latin Wikipedia either; 2) English-speaking users aren't going to find an article on Latin Wikipedia if we don't have one; 3) to the extent that the article has text in English other than the list itself—such as notes explaining which rivers are included and which aren't, or which are Latinized versions of Greek names, etc., sending readers to read the article in Latin is the opposite of helpful—they need to know what it means in English. This isn't just a list of translations, because all of these names appear in English-language sources about Greek and Roman history and geography—and articles about individual rivers aren't always going to give the Greek or Roman name. This list has value because it gathers together all of these different rivers in one place—and the purpose of Wikipedia is to make useful and reliable information available and easy to find. Deleting it, or relying on it being available in another language—although the same arguments for deletion could be made there—makes useful information potentially much harder to find, and perhaps not findable at all to English speakers. Why would we do that? P Aculeius (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argument (1) isn't exactly true: the cases are different. A list of rivers may be encyclopedic content on Vicipaedia, and, if so, naturally it will be in Latin. A list of river names in some specified non-English language may not be encyclopaedic content in en:wiki. Still, there's a lot in what you say: the existence of the list on Vicipaedia doesn't help readers unfamiliar with Latin, who will not easily be able to find it or relate it to their own languages. Andrew Dalby 16:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that people need to remember is that much writing, particularly academic writing, in Europe was in Latin for many centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, so whether a river was known by the Romans in ancient times is irrelevant to the issue of whether it has a Latin name. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of European rivers with alternative names. Rename to Rivers of Classical Antiquity. The list gathers a lot of useful information, but there is already a list with Latin names of rivers: List of European rivers with alternative names. I support moving the names that are not already in this second list and then making a redirect to it. Following P_Aculeius suggestion, I think renaming the article to Rivers of Classical Antiquity is the best solution. T8612 (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but what about the non-European rivers in this list, such as Nahr Ibrahim / Abraham in Lebanon (Adonis in Latin)? This list doesn't but should include coordinates for each river, so one could figure out its scope and look up any river whose location one knows. --Doncram (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. Note "Merge" is the more accurate term for a decision to "moving the names" to the List of European rivers with alternative names. I would consider supporting a "Merge" decision, but the Latin-named rivers are not just in Europe. Also the supposed reader who wants to know just the English and Latin names of rivers in any area of Europe would then have more work to look up just what they want. At that list-article's Talk page, I suggest renaming it to "European rivers' alternative names", which I think is better, but perhaps editors here might have an even better alternative name. Also I suggest adding coordinates of rivers (usually taking the location of the mouth of the river) to the list-article. That way a reader interested in compiling Latin names of rivers in a given country, say, can look up, with some effort, the English names by consulting the linked OpenSourceMap. --Doncram (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 23:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may have stated my opinion too fast. If the title is the real problem, we could just rename it to List of rivers of the Roman Empire, in which case the Barrington Atlas would be the reliable source of the article. There are still a few rivers listed here that would be taken out (such as Vistula and Volga), but the scope is larger than "List of European rivers with alternative names". "List of rivers of the Roman Empire" would also be more encyclopedic, since it was the nominator's principal concern. T8612 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Rivers of Classical Antiquity or something along those lines would be better, since it would include all of the names found in Greek and Latin sources—often the same name appears in both, or with only minor variations. The Roman Empire never included some of these rivers, but they were known to the Romans through travel and Greek sources—and there's no reason to delete them as long as it's possible to verify the names. P Aculeius (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Map all coordinates using Open Street Map" within the article now. The linked map now shows the Latin names for most of the biggest rivers in Europe and going across into Asia, where the Romans had names, within and without the Roman Empire at its peak. In process of adding coordinates for about 30 rivers so far, aiming for the bigger ones, I notice that the article omits Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, various other rivers definitely known to the Romans, but I am guessing these weren't given Latin names different than native names?

I am stronger now for "Keep", although amenable to a rename, because the needed, now partly developed, linked map makes the entire list-article much more useful, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These should probably be included, although the Tigris and Euphrates were presumably known by their present names in English, which are of Greek origin. Knowing that the names aren't different is still useful to readers, who might otherwise think they've been omitted by mistake. However, if memory serves, the Nile was the Nilus in Latin. The only parts of Europe where rivers are unlikely to have been known to or named by the Romans—and they may have known of some of them—are Ireland, the Scandinavian peninsula, and roughly the area of medieval Poland and beyond to the north and east. The Romans knew all the major German rivers, everything in the Balkans, and the major rivers emptying into the Black Sea. P Aculeius (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The deletion nomination asserted the article is "Not encyclopedic content, this is mostly just a translation listing," but in fact that statement is simplistic and non-encyclopedic itself. The set of rivers known and named by the Romans is more complicated, and it is not a matter of merely translating names. There is not a simple one-to-one correspondence to rivers known and named in Wikipedia's perspective about rivers of Europe. Consider:
- There are numerous cases where the Romans' perspective on which is a tributary vs. which is the main stem of a river differs, hence which should get a different name. Note the longest river in the U.S., the Mississippi-Missouri River combo, might better have been given one name, and what is now the Mississippi north of St. Louis maybe could, perhaps should, be considered a tributary to that.(Well, probably not; the naming was not just a historical accident from the fact that La Salle reached the Mississippi above St. Louis, first. I think the native americans considered the Missouri, smaller at its mouth than the Mississippi, to be the tributary. Anyhow, I did pass by some Roman/Latin differences in perspective this way.)
- Global/regional climate changes, and humankind's actions affect physical reality of what are rivers vs. streams vs. wadis/dry rivers vs. obliterated/no longer there places, and hence which get named and widely known as rivers. Note the former streams / rivers over Manhattan no longer exist. Maybe some now-dry wadis were flowing in Roman times. Even at a single moment in time, it is arbitrary to say which is which. For example, to the Romans, the Feritor was probably considered a river, while it is termed a stream (Bisagno (stream)) in Wikipedia now (though it is pretty big and river-like IMHO, based on photo in its article).
- Historical events and knowledge affect what streams/rivers are considered important. For example the Rubicon was a highly notable legal border in Roman times and crossing it in 49 B.C. was a very big deal. It is a major member of "rivers in the Roman perspective" and would be no matter how small and stream-like it might be.
- Region of rivers known and named by Romans is different than the extent of the Roman Empire (which itself varied in extent through time), and is different than "Europe" which itself is an arbitrary concept.
  - The Roman Empire included areas not showing in now-linked map, e.g. arid North Africa, where there were and/or are no rivers.
  - The Roman Empire did not include areas known to Romans, such as where Vistula and Volga run, as noted above
  - The Roman Empire included parts of Asia, wasn't there some Roman dude ruling over Palestine at some point? Oddly the list does not include the Jordan River, important in history.
  - The Roman Empire and roman knowledge didn't span Ireland, Scandinavia, as noted above.

The list-article could/should be developed to be more encyclopedic, including by directly incorporating map(s) from Roman perspective. It could/should appear a lot less like a mere one-to-one correspondence / set of words to be translated. I expect they could have better been renamed and developed, but probably the topics of List of Latin names of lakes and List of Latin names of islands should not have been deleted, either. --Doncram (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is now Bisagno (river) - that was just terrible English. And the Nile river (Nilus to the Romans) was rather important to them. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "Nilus" is not stated to be the Latin name in Nile's Wikipedia article, but I am putting it into this list, taking the word of P Aculeius and Johnbod. --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per keepers, but open to a rename. The wictionary tag by a blocked user should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary / transwiki tag removed. --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of possible renames and of possible expansion ongoing at Talk:List of Latin names of rivers. --Doncram (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per P Aculeius and Doncram. --TimK MSI (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Lake Wawasee. BD2412 T 17:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wawasee, Indiana[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this is a separate place from Wawasee Village, Indiana on Lake Wawasee. Coordinates from GNIS point to where the word "Wawasee" as part of "Wawasee Airport" (now closed) is located on the topo map, not the site of the community. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wawasee Village, since all indications point to these being the same place. Though we may want to merge Wawasee Village into this article based on the name of the closed post office. (Also, for what it's worth, AfD isn't really the proper forum for this since it's basically a merge request. I doubt there would have been objections to a BOLD merge even.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 14:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were, I was called a vandal twice for it. Actually BOTH should be merged to Syracuse, Indiana, the actual town and address of the area around the lake, with the Village being a neighborhood of the town [12] [13]. One would have to dive deeper into the history of perhaps an annexation or however the lake's community grew but places do not need their own articles unless substantive sources beyond the GNIS demonstrate they do! Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 1951 quad shows Wawasee as a cluster of buildings along the railroad tracks on the North shore (not the airport location shown on newer maps). It was definitely a a place, however it's unclear whether this was an established community or just a train station and post office serving vacation homes and resorts on the lake. I'm not going to vote "keep" based on the potential existence of sources but I bet someone could find something written about it if they had the time.

Wawasee Village is on the East side of the lake and appears to be a non-notable subdivision within the town of Syracuse. This is a different place and not suitable for merging. –dlthewave ☎ 12:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should talk about current reality rather than assume from maps alone that those labels of neighborhoods around the lake were completely independent communities that inherently need separate articles rather than residences simply being distributed along the shore. It does the reader no good to have multiple worthless stubs masquerading with the present "is" when relevant content can be consolidated and presented in context, as in History or Geography sections. People will say we're a gazetteer, but no part of that mandates every name in a database or on a map needs separate entries on our end. If Wawasee Village should be merged into this one instead or Syracuse, that works. Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Lake Wawasee. This article and History of Lake Wawasee cover the entire topic; there's no sign that "Wawasee" is a separate entity. Wawasee Village is not an appropriate redirect as it is an unrelated subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 03:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Switch, Indiana[edit]

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

An old railroad switch (topo). A few mentions in newspapers.com as what it is, nothing indicating it was ever a community or anything notable: [14] [15] [16] [17]. Another GNIS failure. Reywas92^Talk 02:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a railroad junction, not a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 22:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass GEOLAND or our GNG. Lightburst (talk) 19:28, 9 March 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) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 02:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TMS Global[edit]

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

Created by an SPA, it has zero 3rd party sources, and a quick look didn't bring up anything good. Not notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I’ve looked for other sources but not found any. Mccapra (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Striking my delete !vote in the light if sources found by others. Mccapra (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The denomination missionary society of a major denomination is certainly notable. I expect there should be no difficulty in finding sources though probably only in denominational publications. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then please provide them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensive third party coverage in reliable sources here, here, here, and denominational coverage here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the last one that really isn't a reliable 3rd party, the rest is not extensive coverage, sorry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first one has ~5 pages worth of material on the society, though it is spread out. The second one has about a half a page discussing the founding of the society. The third one has 12 sentences. The last one has 11 paragraphs. Both the last one and the third source are only about the mission society and nothing else. How can you call that not extensive coverage? That said, I agree that the fourth and last source is not third party.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tough. There are next to no sources for its modern name, but "The Mission Society" has some. Still, it's not always the right hit, for example I think [18] is not the same; we need to search for "The Mission Society for United Methodists". There is an in-depth source here: [19] but it is self-published, but if the article is kept itis probably good (if somewhat primary). There are brief mentions in [20] or [21], through I can't find any in-depth coverage. It's really borderline. Given that protestant churches are somewhat for-profit organizations IMHO I'd have expected to find more promotional materials, but I guess it was founded only in 1984. I think I will do the rare thing and abstain. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The brief mentions linked above aren't significant coverage. I found the same, just the insignificant mentions, such as the article about a man, and just mentions that is he is a part of the organization. That's why I nom'ed it. I expected to find more before I nom'ed, but didn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron, and also because of its treatment in the following: [22], [23] (Both of those from same publication), [24] [25], Bi-vocational church planting: a case study of the Mission Society for United Methodists in Karaganda, Kazakhstan A new solution to the African Christian problem, [26] and so on. They are not the most established of missionary endeavours, but they are clearly notable. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that links to a store site selling interdenominational books, as well as a dissertation, are not WP:RS sources. That is the problem here. The lack of 3rd party, independent coverage that is significant in scope. The sources quoted in this AFD demonstrate the organization exists, but do not cross the line as far as WP:GNG is concerned. This is why we require at least a couple of sources that are truly independent of the subject matter. The last source may or may not cover it significantly, but it is a pay to see and I don't see any quotes or extracts from it that would demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last source is not pay to see. I assume you mean the second to last. But being behind a paywall doesn't make it not a source.--Jahaza (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But if you aren't quoting content from it, there is nothing to judge it by. Being behind a paywall isn't a license to just assume without quotes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's significant coverage here[27]; other mentions here (Oden was a big deal in Methodism)[28]; here's significant coverage of its founding in Christianity Today [29], a flagship magazine of evangelical-leaning Christianity.--Jahaza (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in the WSJ here [30], an article about one of their missionaries with coverage of the organization here[31]--Jahaza (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- The fact that sources are behind a paywall does not prevent their being RS. In my view the main reasons for deletion should not OR and notability. The test is whether an article is verifiable, not whether it is verified. Dennis Brown is trying to be too rigorous in his approach to the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By wanting reliable sources and a demonstration a source behind a paywall actually covers the topic? That isn't being too rigorous, that is normal. If you have access to the article, then providing some kind of quote on content should be easy. If you don't, then you shouldn't be using it as a source. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having reviewed the sources presented here (because the original article is essentially unsourced), I find the "Keep" arguments unavailing. The GNG asks for significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the article subject and all the sources presented lack at least one of those qualities. Those that have significant coverage are either not reliable or not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Point, Indiana[edit]

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

Like [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle Point, Indiana], this is marked on the topo as a Point (geography), not a community much less a notable one. [32] The GNIS is not reliable enough to mass-produce stubs from alone. Reywas92^Talk 02:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass SNG or GNG. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a point of land mislabeled as a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 22:47, 8 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Point, Indiana[edit]

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

As shown on the 1994 topo map and earlier, Eagle Point is literally the point that sticks out into the lake. It's not even marked on the 2010 map and is not the name of a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 02:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG or the SNG of Geoland. Lightburst (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign that this is a distinct populated place; it is one of several named geographic features on and around the lake. –dlthewave ☎ 22:46, 8 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of transmitters of CHAN-DT[edit]

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

No other Wikipedia article on TV stations has this sort of transmitter site breakout; it appears most of the others were phased out when several large Canadian TV stations turned off many of these, which CHAN did not. The list is sorely out of date and contains many transmitters in rural areas whose status will be hard to verify. Searching all of the more than 80 records against REC's Canada database, 16 are no longer licensed. A better move would be to add any transmitters converted to digital to the CHAN-DT main article which already has a partial list of transmitters—some of which aren't even listed here. Raymie (t • c) 01:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Indeed, a lot of these are out of service and/or simply unverifiable, and the idea of spinning out "list of [station] transmitters" as a separate article topic from "[station]" was deprecated a long, long time ago. And still to this day, the only "source" being explicitly cited here is "Nelson Media", a site that I certainly remember, but which went defunct more than a decade ago and has never been revived. There's no pressing need to keep this if so much of the content is this poorly verifiable, when we have the capacity to retain the verifiable information in the station's main article. Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly keep, but the best name for the article is in discussion. This should continue at the article talk page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dura, Africa[edit]

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

Cannot find any source online. The original and only source listed is an annual directory of Popes and Holy See officials. Not sure how much the original source can determine notability (but it doesn't seem like an independent source). Parts of the article also read as WP:NONSENSE that I'm not sure how to salvage. Whisperjanes (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Rename. There's no reason that the sources need to be online, but this web site[33] is a reliable source about this kind of thing. Here's[34] a reference to the ancient see and other's should be available as well. Here's another article mentioning that a bishop has been appointed titular bishop of Dura.[35] Jahaza (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahaza: I didn't mean to make it sound like sources need to be online, per se. I just did the WP:BEFORE online and couldn't find any additional sources mentioning Dura, so I didn't see it passing WP:GNG and I didn't see enough verification for it to pass WP:GEOLAND notability either. Per geographic notability, I also am not sure if it's a verified micronation (which would need WP:GNG to pass) or a legally recognized place.

And I'm not super familiar with Christian subjects, but what makes the first source a reliable source? And do you know what the second source is mentioning? Thanks Whisperjanes (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jahaza, though renaming the article may be a good idea (Dura (titular bishopric)? Mccapra (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think we have discouraged articles on titular sees of the Catholic Church in partes infidelum. However this was apparently a real place. If kept it should be renamed to end either with Tunisia or the name of the Roman province. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The title already ends with the name of the Roman province. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name of the province is actually Byzacena per [36]. So I think it should be renamed Dura, Byzacena (which I've just created as a redirect). I think since it was a real place and not just a titular see, we probably shouldn't rename it with titular see in the title. We do need to distinguish from a number of other Duras and we'll need a disambiguation page at some point.--Jahaza (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see we already have a disambiguation page at Dura--Jahaza (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The province of Africa was split in the late 3rd century CE/AD when this became part of Byzacena. For most of antiquity this was part of Africa. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was a real city so should be retained. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question & Comment Should this be kept as the name it is right now, then? I do think now, as a titular see, it seems more notable (but I'm still unsure if titular sees are considered micronations like the Vatican or not, which would affect it passing WP:GEOLAND).

But I do see some editors above mentioning it was a real city/place (I assume referring to the ancient city) as their reason for keeping, but I haven't seen a source yet that confirms that. (Unless someone can read the Latin source provided by Jahaza above and it's considered reliable). And I definitely haven't seen a source yet that shows it was/is in Africa.

The reason I'm concerned about the current and only source on the article (The Annuario Pontificio) that is supposed to verify this information is that I can only tell that it's a yearly directory. I'm not sure if it actually has any ancient history or history of geography included, and it only is cited as a source under the "Titular see" section, not the History section. I'm also concerned because the original creator of this article is blocked now because they were found to be a sockpuppet, and had a habit of not citing sources across Wikipedia (look up the word "citations" or "reference" on their talk page or see the block). So I'm not sure if there really was a "Dura, Africa." Whisperjanes (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked the page to the Italian[37] (& German) versions of Wikipedia. The Italian version of Wikipedia includes three good sources in Latin and French.

Pius Bonifacius Gams, Series episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae, Leipzig 1931, p. 465
Stefano Antonio Morcelli, Africa christiana, Volume I, Brescia 1816, p. 153
J. Ferron, v. Durensis in Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de Géographie ecclésiastiques, vol. IX, 1937, col. 1178

--Jahaza (talk) 18:35, 11 March 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.