Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 September 25 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brigida (actress)[edit]

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

Page that I created that was undeleted. This person fails WP:Nactor as of now. All of the sources except source #2 talk about her inclusion in the film Master. However, as of now it is WP:Too soon as she has only played the lead in one web series and a minor role in one film. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article doesn't pass GNG, BASIC or NACTOR. I don't see anything that meets SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth. A lot of promo pieces, clickbait, but nothing that meets SIGCOV. I'm sure she is a fine actress, it might just be TOOSOON, but as of now, article doesn't meet guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  00:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:G7 because "the article creator"/"main contributor" has initiated the AfD. I think TamilMirchi missed the CSD thing and brought this unnecessarily in the AfD. And the subject fails the GNG and NACTOR criteria. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 25 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Bureau for Epilepsy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Best source I could find is https://www.ilae.org/about-ilae/history-and-archives/post-wwii which given the close relationship between ILAE and IBE isn't really independent. Daask (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 references from what look like perfectly respectable books. Rathfelder (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a respected international org, quick search found mentions at NIH [[1]], WHO [[2]]. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it difficult to understand how that is the best source the nominator could find when there were better sources already cited in the article before nomination. Loads more can be found by simply clicking on the words "books" and "scholar" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per above, simply clicking Books and Scholar, links and links and links are found. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:21, 26 September 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 Rahul Dravid#Achievements and awards. And selectively merge anything relevant. Consensus is to not keep this, with a split between delete and merge. Sandstein 19:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and achievements of Rahul Dravid[edit]

List of awards and achievements of Rahul Dravid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Statscruft overload, most of the key achievements are summarised already on his BLP article. Nomination similar to that for Ricky Ponting Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I have nothing for this list specifically, I have something against these AfDs. Before we proceed any further with this AfD, I would want to point at these below listings, and get a consensus on the same action that needs to be undertaken at all of these lists, if we are recommending a delete on one, it should permeate all of these lists. Ktin (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non exhaustive list below

Non exhaustive set of "List of awards and achievements by sportspersons / actors / entertainers" -- Lists need to be handled at aggregate not Ad-hoc
  • I think discussing each article on its individual merits is where we should be heading. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing stopping you from listing those yourself. Should be a slam-dunk delete (see what I did there...) as they are both classic examples of WP:NOTSTATS. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, I wouldn't list any of them because I believe that each and every one of them have a reason to exist within en.wiki. "List of awards and achievements of ..." is a standard structuring framework for large biographies and absolutely deserves to exist in en.wiki.
If we are deleting it for one article on the grounds that it does not belong here, the structuring framework itself has to be reconsidered, and not just the AfD. Ktin (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one as fancruft, same as the other previous AfDs mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ricky Ponting's achievements and statistics which have been deleted previously. All the ones mentioned (apart from Sachin) don't seem to be cricketers, so would be wrong to equate them to this AFD, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Joseph2302, May I ask why the distinction from all the other sportspersons? Ktin (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    because trying to bloat this AFD by talking about 100 other articles is the very definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There have been multiple cricket AFDs about this, and the cricket project has demonstrated that these cricket stats lists aren't acceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Rahul Dravid#Achievements_and_awards. While this appears fancruft, it belongs with the Rahul Dravid article. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly stats. Not what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. Main article is sufficient. Nigej (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigej, may I ask why the distinction from all the other sportspersons? Ktin (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming from WP:GOLF we have List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus and List of career achievements by Tiger Woods and that's it. 2 mega stars. List of career achievements by Russell Westbrook - who? utter nonsense. I'd vote delete for that one too. Anyway the WP:Other stuff exists argument is discouraged. Nigej (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigej, Appreciate your response. It is easy to call this WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. To be clear, I am not making an argument that other stuff exists. I am making a case that this (i.e. List of awards and achievements) is a structuring construct that is available (and encouraged) for large biographies, and we should not be AfDing individual articles but going and making a case that this structuring article needs to be removed, if thats what we are saying.
    This whole -- we need it for Michael Jordan, but do not need it for Kobe Bryant approach does not work. Ktin (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're wrong there. It's the nature of AfDs that we have to make judgements about notability, generally about the person but in this case about the need to have a second highly detailed statistical article. There has to be some line, otherwise we'd have two articles on all cricketers. Nigej (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigej, Now we are talking -- is this AFD about notability? Until now that has not been mentioned. Can you confirm that this AfD is about notability? And, pardon my saying -- until now, all the arguments have been lazy ones about 'fancruft' or 'fancraft' or WP:NOTSTATS. Ktin (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:N "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." See WP:AfD "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." I'm assuming from these quotes that all AfDs are about "notability"Nigej (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigej, I have nothing against this AfD if this AfD was structured as one that was proposed because the article was not "notable". Until you brought it up a moment ago, no one had even attempted to make a case for this AfD based on lack of notability. There are other lazy arguments being peddled like fancruft, fancraft etc.
    Now, pray, tell me why this article is not notable. Ktin (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because, in my view, it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Nigej (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigej, same as my point to the other editor below. WP:BEBOLD and cull the segments that need to be culled. An AfD is an expensive process to enforce quality improvements, and this should be done through our regular editorial feedback. Ktin (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're twisting the argument. An AfD is where we express views. I stick to my initial "Not what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. Main article is sufficient." Nigej (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigej, and we are back to square one. Anyways not a productive conversation. Not a productive AfD. Ktin (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Just challenging people's honestly-held views is not generally a productive way forward. And neither is the desire to always have the last word. Nigej (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigej, absolutely no desire to have the last word. Please take it. Notwithstanding all of this, I remain appreciative of your time, though not of this ill conceived AfD. Have a good rest of your day. Ktin (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not a single person including the nominator has been able to explain why this article needs to be deleted, other than pointing to another AfD for Ricky Ponting, which btw should be stopped as well. Using terms like 'fancruft' or 'funcruft' are not productive to the conversation. "List of awards and achievements of ..." is a standard structuring framework for large biographies here at en.wiki, and is used for sportspersons, entertainers, and multiple other categories. If a single AfD is being pursued in this ad-hoc manner, the structuring framework itself needs to be done away with, and not an ad-hoc AfD of the kind that is being seen here. Ktin (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my earlier !vote (which you seem to have overlooked) if you take the time to go through this list, it fails WP:NOTSTATS badly with endless indiscriminate, unexplained and context-free snippets of information, much of which is unsourced. Also, many of the "records" are not records at all but "one of the top x" bites of trivia. Cut all the problem content away and almost everything that is left is already included in the main article. A clear and obvious deletion candidate. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wjemather, WP:BEBOLD and cull out the trivia, if that's what you want to do. AfD is an expensive process to go down along, when article improvements can be enabled by simpler edits. Ktin (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this were a notable standalone subject (and no-one has offered and argument that it is), it's so bad that WP:TNT would be the best option. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wjemather, pardon my saying, but that seems an excuse to not be WP:BOLD. Ktin (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe time to stop WP:BLUDGEONing? wjematherplease leave a message... 18:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wjemather, makes it two of us, doesn't it?
Anyways, as I mentioned to the other editor, notwithstanding all of this, I remain appreciative of your time, though not of this ill conceived AfD. Have a good rest of your day. Ktin (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, lists such as these are almost always the result of a WP:SPLIT with notability inherited from the main subject. That would be the case here, but it doesn't appear to have been a formal split, so it's more of a WP:FORK with extra indiscriminate cruft. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragonlance artifacts[edit]

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

Unnecessary plot information that fails WP:NOTPLOT and maybe GAMEGUIDE if you stretch it a bit. None of the few non-primary sources provide significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. They are just trivial mentions of no worth to this article. Such information should be summarized in the main article per WP:WAF. There is no justification for needing so much context on in-universe items in a general encyclopedia without the backing of real world information. These belong on a fan wiki. The previous AfD does not appear to have brought forth any sources not yet included in the article either. TTN (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Entirely comprised of in-universe WP:PLOT information. The vast majority of the content here is unsourced. The few entries that are sourced are mostly sourced to primary material. The few non-primary sources being used have almost no coverage of the actual topic - they are reviews of films or games in which one of these items happened to appear, and are mentioned as part of the plot summary of those products. None of the actual individual items here have their own articles (as well they shouldn't) so this is not useful as a navigational list, and those very brief mentions of one or two of the items in the handful of secondary sources do not discuss the overall concept of the topic, so it fails WP:LISTN. I would maybe be OK if this were simply redirected to Dragonlance#World, but nothing should be merged, particularly since the eponymous Dragonlances themselves, the only one of these objects that has a smidgen of notability, are already covered there. Rorshacma (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article is OR FANCRUFT that fails LISTN. There is nothing to merge here because it is all OR based on primary.   // Timothy :: talk  00:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Dragonlance#World based on available sources per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Dragonlance#World: First, the current state of the article is not the decisive point here. Did the nominator do a search for more sources both for the group and the individual items, as should have been done before an AfD according to the relevant guidelines? Because there is no mention of no hits appearing in the respective search engines.
Second, there are already secondary sources in the article, if only a few. The deletion voters lament the absence of secondary and non-plot summary sources, but they also oppose the merge of the non-plot summary source by Wolf (only one I can see now, but there it is), even though the corresponding section in the target article is as yet missing both secondary sources any non-plot summary information. So should we preserve such content in Wikipedia or not!?
Given the found limitation of secondary sources here a merge could be reasonable. As I don't think the analysis provided would fit very well at Dragonlance#World, though, I personally would prefer to simply keep it here. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to the extent that you can for such a vague topic, but BEFORE isn't really relevant to the validity of a nomination anyway. It's just an expected courtesy. I see no particular need for the retention of that one reference because it's a rather trivial mention. It also appears Raistlin Majere handles all the necessary context of the item and already contains multiple references to that source, so it's not like there's even any loss. TTN (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That one secondary source by Wolf does not appear to actually be a reliable source. It is a grad student's thesis, that was published by "Grin", a company that allows you to "Publish for free & earn money" on student papers. Essentially, it is a self-published student paper, and thus not something we can consider a reliable, secondary source, so no, we should not preserve or merge said content. If the argument to keep or merge is being based entirely on the existence of that source, I would ask that @BOZ: and @Daranios: take another look and reconsider their stance. Rorshacma (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TTN Thanks for doing the WP:BEFORE search. A nominator does not have to do this. Just as no contributor has to adhere to WP:GNG. There are no rules on Wikipedia, only guidelines. But if one does follow the WP:AfD guideline (which is the basis of what we are doing here), then you have to, to quote "be sure to ... Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". So such a search is not "just an expected courtesy".
@Rorshacma Thanks for looking into this. I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of Wolf, but I agree that it is below the standard set by Wikipedia's guideline.
That leaves us with only a few plot-summary sources. I see no reason why we should not preserve them. So until further sources are found, I change my suggestion to merge and redirect. Daranios (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Nothing here appears to be eminently merge-able and isn't already in the Dragonlance article. The name also isn't a plausible search, so delete makes sense.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All WP:PLOT information and fails WP:LISTN / WP:GNG. This isn't the kind of thing where a redirect makes much sense. But have at it. Archrogue (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no non-plot content to merge to Dragonlance article :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rorshacma for lacking appropriate sources. All sourced to primary sources or trivial mentions. Jontesta (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and the WP:GNG for having no third-party out-of-universe coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some more bits from secondary sources have been added/sourced. While mostly (but not exclusively) plot information, that information is at least in part not present in the Dragonlance article. So why should it not be preserved in order to improve that or other related articles? Daranios (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because just like the secondary sources already in the article, the information is barely about the subject of the article. They are on the plots of particular products that happen to mention that one of these appear in them. For example, the "Dungeons and Desktops" reference you added literally has one sentence describing one of the objects entirely as a plot summary, which is "The party's quest is a desperate attempt to recover the Disks of Mishakal, upon which are inscribed the teachings of the True Gods", which you somehow managed to turn into five separate citations. The Robertson article also only speaks of a couple of the items merely when summarizing the plots of the franchise, again with only a sentence or two - the entire coverage of the Blue Crystal Staff in the paper is a single sentence, "For example, the story of Riverwind's quest to find the Blue Crystal Staff is mentioned and somewhat opaquely told in Chronicles, Volume i; told as a song in Tales, Volume i; and told in full (and in prose) in Preludes II, Volume i: Riverwind the Plainsman (1990)". Adding in more sources that are no better than any of the current sources that have already been dismissed as not appropriate for retention does not suddenly make the article now need to be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you care to take another look, I am at this point not arguing for the article to be retained. I have changed my keep vote after your argument.
The critique was that there are too few secondary sources, and that all content here based on secondary sources is present in the target article(s). This is not the case. So I still maintain that there is something to be merged.
I am still adding to this article instead of another one because I have a faint hope that enough may come up to make it worthwhile. But as already other deletion discussions are raised clamoring for attention, it seems I won't have as much time as I thought.
As for me turning one sentence into five different citations: I did not create any of that content. I only found a secondary source for it. And as too many primary and too few secondary sources was one of the starting points of the discussion, I am surprised that adding them should be a negative thing. I also did not split up the one source to make it look more important. But there is primary-based content interspersed. By giving the reference at each respective sentence, I wanted to make clear which is which. If it would be better done differently, please do. Daranios (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dragonlance, if any of the new content is worth saving, which I somewhat doubt, it can be merged from the article history. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Shawl[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Being the wife of Crazy Horse does not presume notability, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact. You may not like the facts, but they exist. A little light on the subject is warranted. This was a comment on process, not an attack on the nominators. I wish that editors who start AFDs would not start them without complying with WP:Before. The outcomes will speak for themselves. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect to Crazy Horse - all of the sources put forward so far are about Crazy Horse; they just mention Black Shawl in passing in the course of talking about Crazy Horse's life. The sources cover the wedding; that she tended to his wounds; but next to nothing about the woman herself. The reader is better off learning about her in the context of Crazy Horse's life, since that's how the sources present it. It's unfortunate because I'm sure there was much more to her life than marrying her husband and tending to his wounds... but the problem with having a stand alone page without the proper supporting sources is that we end up saying that, well, Black Shawl was Crazy Horse's wife; she married him; she tended to his wounds; she died of influenza. That really doesn't present anything even close to a comprehensive, accurate, or neutral depiction of the biography subject. It does a disservice to the subject. If all we know about Crazy Horse's second wife is that her name was Black Shawl and she died in 1927 of influenza, then we should just present that information in the article about Crazy Horse. If there is significant coverage of Black Shawl found in the future, the redirect can always be expanded into a proper biography. Lev!vich 20:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on a preponderance of sources. Toughpigs is a careful !voter and they have done some work here to show that this person meets WP:N. WP:NOTPAPER Lightburst (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the closer (and I guess to the editors too): I've requested a number of the dozens of books about Crazy Horse from my local libraries. I should have some of them by next week. I will add any relevant information about Black Shawl to the article. Considering that she lived well into the 20th century, I expect to read at least some more about her life and experiences. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfman vs. Baragon[edit]

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

Non notable, unreleased fan film. A WP:BEFORE turned up only fan sites and reddit posts. PROD removed by article creator before said editor was banned as being a SOCKPUPPET. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources in Japanese. lullabying (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks credibility, verified sources, and no value to merit its own article. Armegon (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable fan film with no reliable sources discussing it. Note that the subject of this article was already created and deleted via AFD under a slightly different name just two months ago, as seen here. Rorshacma (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per all above. I turned up one blog, and a moderate quantity of user-generated garbage sources. Non-notable by a long shot. Hog Farm Bacon 23:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I PRODed the article for lack of notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I searched up the short film in both English and Japanese. The sources that appeared weren’t very good. I’ll have to go with delete, but if anyone can bring decent references to the table, I’ll definitely change my mind. — Coastaline (talk) 02:31, 26 September 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. Izno (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Leakey[edit]

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

This person was a child who stumbled on some ancient bones because his parents were paleoanthropoloigists who brought him along to the dig. He did nothing of true not, and has not received the coverage to justify the article. As it is the article is only sourced to a website directly operated by his family John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: although an interesting narrative, it is self-referential, and half the article is about the family. Fails WP:GNG -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:49, 28 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olga, Arizona[edit]

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

A passing siding obviated by double tracking, old aerials show nothing at all here except the track and the paralleling road. More recently there is some industrial agriculture just to the south, but no buildings of any sort, nor anything marked in older topos except the name "Olga" next to the siding. Searching is understandably difficult but I get nothing that indicates anyone ever lived here. Mangoe (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mass-produced junk, not a community Reywas92Talk 00:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think article creator Onel5969 intended this to be junk. It is listed in GNIS as a populated place (yes, know there are issues with this in some instances), but there's some evidence that a section foreman resided at Olga at one time, so there are instances of people claiming to be from Olga.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of which means mass-producing iffy stubs by pulling from a questionable database is a good idea. Hog Farm Bacon 15:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the GNIS is "questionable database" you might want to look into what many people think about Wikipedia! We just work to make it better. Personally I feel enriched to have learned about Olga. I want to know who it is named after now.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GNIS is very good with stating that something with a certain name existed at a certain point. Given some of what GNIS calls "populated places", I'd say it's a terrible idea to equate "populated place" with a community, so it's more rather bad editorial decision. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headquarters, Arizona and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilday Mill, Missouri for two of the more obvious ones. Hog Farm Bacon 17:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yep, a siding. Notability is a strong no. Hog Farm Bacon 02:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Location is run of the mill.TH1980 (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be an actual stop on the Southern Pacific. [3] is a contemporary mention. This 1910 newspaper article says marble was shipped from Olga. This 1921 newspaper article does list someone as being "from" Olga, but I don't think that is enough to consider this a populated place. I would also support a redirect if there were an article with this level of detail (stations/stops) on the railroad, but there isn't. MB 05:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a rusted siding, booked out of service. Notability is a strong no, as per above. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If someone can figure out what railroad line segment this was on, we may be able to create an article on that line with a list of main stops, which is more useful for readers than geostubs anyway.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I dug around and determined this is on the Southern Pacific's line built across eastern Arizona in 1880, which reached Deming, New Mexico late in that year. In March 1881, the Santa Fe's lines from the east reached Deming, making this line the second transcontinental line across the United States. None of this makes Olga independently notable, but I suspect I can create an article suitable for this to redirect to.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of articles on rail lines giving a list of stations. Not keen on the idea of having every such station redirecting to the list. Mangoe (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. There are a lot of stations.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Olga was part of a previous blanket AfD which had a procedural keep. Having a separate AfD is fine with me. In the blanket AfD, Pontificalibus wrote "Also keep Olga as this map (key) shows there were a number of dwellings located there." In that blanket AfD, I wrote "However, it seems that Olga is not a "Populated, legally recognized place" as per WP:GEOLAND #1 - there are no citations for a Post Office or form of local government. I'm seeing [Results_of_Spirit_Leveling_in_Arizona_18 references to Olga Siding], so WP:STATION would apply. WP:GEOLAND #2: "Populated places without legal recognition" says "any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" I don't think we have found the non-trivial coverage yet for Olga. Perhaps Olga should be deleted? BTW - there is a List of places in Arizona that looks to be a dump of GNIS. The Arizona list is far too long when compared with List of places in California. And while I'm at it, most of the Arizona pages use https://arizona.hometownlocator.com as a source. It looks to me like https://arizona.hometownlocator.com is an aggregator of GNIS and other public data and is not WP:RS. Perhaps https://arizona.hometownlocator.com should be removed as a reference on these articles?" Cxbrx (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Takes a considerable stretch of the imagination to consider this notable in any fashion. Not a community and not notable under basic Wiki standard: multiple in-depth articles from reliable sources. Glendoremus (talk) 16:24, 30 September 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. Izno (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pío López Obrador[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIMINAL / WP:BLPCRIME, which states "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." All we have here are some newspaper allegations of so far minor calibre, not even a court case or a truly major scandal (the kind that gets massive street protests and the like), about a minor politician (a candidate, but not elected) who is the brother of a notable person. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator's assessment is correct as a WP:BLPCRIME/WP:POLITICIAN fail with trivial biographical depth beyond the accusations of corruption. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion The subject is a significant personality. Considering that the government's number one priority is the fight against corruption, it is important to include the article.Calmecac5 (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just being related to a famous person doesn't make people notable in their own right. A significant personality should get non-trivial reliably sourced coverage about who Pío López Obrador is as an independent subject. Creating a biography of living person solely composed of unproven allegations violates multiple Wikipedia policies, as I and the nominator have stated above. If the media aren't producing an in-depth profile of this person, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to shine a spotlight on him. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose deletion. The information possibly (this is theoretical, have not assessed) should be merged into the brother's or some other article, but I vehemently oppose deleting it because Mexicans aren't rioting in the streets. If nothing else it should be in Corruption in Mexico Elinruby (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you really linking a WP:BLP to various scandals and to drug cartels without any actual evidence (these aren't even mentioned in the newspaper articles), never mind a conviction? @Elinruby: I would urge you to remove these allegations, as this is simply not allowed on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do not understand BLP policy, AGF. [This https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-odebrecht/mexico-asks-brazils-moro-for-help-with-its-odebrecht-graft-probe-source-idUSKCN1SD2QE] makes it extremely plausible that such a claim has been made (see Dilma and Lula).
  • I am not linking anything, I am saying this is not a case for speedy deletion just because the Mexican people are not in the street.
  • The Mexican people have in fact been in the street and in the jungle for some time in Chiapas
  • I am not endorsing the truth of the reporting. If convinced it is untrue I will withdraw my objection.
  • I have not evaluated the sources. This would be a better basis for making this decision than whether there is an insurrection, imho.
  • It is also possible that these references are hit pieces, which would also be notable.
  • I say these things as someone who has spent several years with the material. It is relevant to Operation Car Wash and the Odebrecht pages. These are absolutely in line with Wikipedia policy; I was named editor of the week for some of my stuff on Operation Car Wash. There is definitely a BLP concern but at least at this point I disagree with any speedy deletion. I have categorized the article under Corruption in Mexico. It is relevant to this category whether true or not. I have also identified the Chiapas politician. I suggest vetting the sources if you want to delete it. Elinruby (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that you probably don't know that the bagman is always somebody's brother. Elinruby (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I have removed the BLP violations for you then. You are using a reuters article which doesn't mention Pio as a justification for your smears on him. It doesn't matter if they may be true or not, without reliable sources making the same accusations they shouldn't be discussed here (and without a conviction they shouldn't be in the article). IF you reinstate the allegations and implications I will bring this to some appropriate noticeboard instead. Fram (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will be reverting that. Feel free to complain. I privided a direct link between Obredecht and Obrador. You have completely missed the point. At least one of the references provided looks reliable, and even corporate and mainstream. The other seems to be some sort of blog but it looks professional and has a staff box that lists quite a few editors. I provided a gold=plated link (The Economist?) for a connection between the Obredechts and Obrador. I am in fact suggesting that he could have been set up. If you do not think the Obredechts have something to do with Brazil, please inform yourself before commenting further. I have not ruled out a BLP violation yet, but it us definitely not a speedy delete. After identifying the other politician mentioned, I checked his article and hr is not just some Chiapas politician, he is a cabinet member in the Mexican government. If he is making cash payments to the reformist president's brother, it is notable, sorry, and it doesn't matter how indignant you are. I find your defense of this fellow's honor fascinating, but it is also in the BLP for thr other politician, and apparently it's on video. That is pretty freaking reliable. Of course, this doesn't conclusively prove that is it true, but now that we know it isn't a candidate for speedy delete we can discuss whether there are BLP violations, and this depends on whether this is true, which on wikipedia is largely determined by the reliability of the sources. And these are, based onn editorial review. Elinruby (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed again and raised at the BLP noticeboard. Please dont' reintroduce the text until it is settled one way or the other there. As for your reply, your "gold-plated link" doesn't mention the subject of the article/AfD, so can not be used to introduce any links between him and other crimes or criminal organisations. I have no interest at all in whether the Mexican president or others are involved with whatever scandal, country, ...; if you want to link Pio Lopez Obrador to any of these things, then you need sources linking him directly to them, not connecting the dots on your own. Fram (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elinruby: Wikipedia does not work this way. Per WP:Verifiability, especially the WP:PROVEIT section, it is for the contributing editor to vet the sources that support the content. Sources should be reputable for checking their facts. If a source is a hit piece, Wikipedia should almost never use it, even as evidence of notability. Brazil is only relevant here in that WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME apply there too. Secondary figures don't mentions, let alone Wikipedia articles, especially when the accusations are not proven. Finally, Wikipedia is not investigative journalism. It is not Wikipedia's mission to illuminate topics that should be of general interest or to right great wrongs in general. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely copyvio: My Spanish isn't quite good enough to be sure this article lifts whole paragraphs from its references, but I think it does. If so, that is reason enough to delete it, but at least one of those sources looks pretty reputable. Would be interested to know what others think, but, I suspect there may be some truth there, but I don't know what it is. I have not followed Mexico in much detail. Obrador is supposed to be a populist reformer. Important if true. HTH. Elinruby (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC),[reply]
The English-language sources are catching up to the Spanish ones you still don't seem to have read. Meanwhile, do not delete this article. There are plentiful reliable sources (FT, Bloomberg, Reuters) that the PEMEX scandal is related to Car Wash, and the video of the brother surfaced a day or two later, which definitely does feel like retaliation but also raises some serious news coverage. I know it's complicated, but the point is this: it is no longer a speedy delete, not happening. The fact that there is a video is now verified, and my previous analysis of the provided sources is irrelevant since we are going to base it on the English-language financial press, and won't have to worry about it. By the way, one of the allegations in the PEMEX scandal is that a prior president allowed cartels to steal oil ;) so I suppose, AGF, that you are unaware of the ABCs of this kind of corruption. . I will rewrite this in my own words to fix the copyvio; and link it in to Odebrecht with lotsa sources. It perhaps would be better to merge it but I will have to look at this further. Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mentioning the incident somewhere is fine but having a standalone article on him is not, WP:CRIME. Practically all the coverage is just "AMLO's brother on tape!", occasionally some short paragraph about who the person is. Little of what's currently in the section even directly relates to him. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails Notability for Politicians and judges since he was never elected to anything and received insufficient coverage of his campaign. Also, per Invalid criteria, notability cannot be established through a relationship with someone notable. Essentially there is only coverage of this person for one event. And the event lacks notability. I notice that the article ends by saying his brother had promised to end corruption. It reads more like a hit piece on the president than a serious article. TFD (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravikanth (actor)[edit]

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

This actor has played minor roles in several films. Only one source exists:[1] TamilMirchi (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' this is a good article with refrences to imdb which is a verified source. Author Sanju (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - ImdB is not totally reliable, but you are correct in mentioning there are references, which the nominator has missed/ignored. Neutral Fan (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - please look again at the article. There is more than one full length article on the individual, as well as several other sources reflecting the notability of his films (where he also gets a mention). Neutral Fan (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMDb is not notable. Neutral Fan is the creator of the article. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete: A few minor roles, nothing significant for him. IMDb is not WP:RS. VocalIndia (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

changed my opinion to Keep passes WP:NACTOR as played major role in several Indian film. VocalIndia (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - minor roles, huh? Some key supporting roles in the 90s and notable work on large television shows, as listed per the sources, suggest otherwise. Neutral Fan (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete over concerns regarding the satisfaction of WP:NACTOR. Only seven references provided for over fifteen listed acting credits. ie: Lacks sufficient verifiability. Also, the mere presence of sources doesn't make the subject automatically notable. Basics like even character names are missing for most of the listed credits which makes one question the notability of this individual as an actor. Obvious bias from the creator of the article. Sunshine1191 (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 24 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hausen, California[edit]

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

I cannot find anything that mentions this as anything other than a post office, and following Durham's directions takes me to a large farmstead which in 1960s topos was labelled "Bare Ranch". So there's no evidence of a settlement beyond that. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions: 2020-07 Ashton, California Group nomination withdrawn.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only mention comes from Durham and he calls it a post office, not a community. Lots of fourth-class post offices were established in stores, ranches, train stations, etc. Not an indication of a community and nothing that meets basic Wiki notability. Glendoremus (talk) 03:38, 27 September 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 Battle Gear. Nothing sourced to merge. In general but especially for uncontroversial topics, please attempt to redirect/merge (or another alternative) before nominating for deletion, which is a last resort. czar 17:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Gear 3[edit]

Battle Gear 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, I do not think this is able to pass WP:GNG. Despite being a long and overly-detailed page, there isn't a single source here to be found and comes off as fancruft. The only actual review I could find is one from Famitsu, which isn't enough to make this notable. Outside of brief mentions and some announcements, I could find nothing else. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Battle Gear Like the nom said, the only sources out there are short news blurbs. Not the type of significant coverage we want. However, there are enough games in the series that a series article seems feasible. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Battle Gear: while it's possible more Japanese-language sources exist that demonstrate notability that's beyond my research ken, I don't think what I've found indicates that there's a ton that can justify a separate article (the Japanese-language version of this article disappointingly doesn't provide anything that's useful.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle Gear 4 is also an article so that likely should be redirected as well.--76.67.170.18 (talk) 03:50, 26 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Yebo Group[edit]

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

No effective referencing. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORG. Generic. scope_creepTalk 18:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 24 September 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 King 3B. Izno (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silver sonic trombone[edit]

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

Article King 3B already exists; Not really encyclopedic content as Wikipedia is not a directory. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should it not be merged to King 3B, if they're the same thing? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !votes with no rationale are not particularly helpful when it comes to establishing consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:08, 24 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hobby[edit]

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

No effective references. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No a single biographical available. No coverage. scope_creepTalk 18:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is little support for outright deletion and consensus that the content is notable. A merge (which support for is in the minority) can still be discussed. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Bull[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Being the adopted son of Crazy Horse does not presume notability, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: I looked at the source you mentioned, and only part of the book is available online. What specifically in this source supports notability? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems almost an impossible task without actually looking through a healthy percentage of the hundreds of books about Sitting Bull (not Crazy Horse) and the Lakota...every mention may only be a trivial mention..."one" and "bull" and "lakota" is almost too broad because of the "one." Caro7200 (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Assuming that information on the page is correct (apparently it is), having a separate page for this person is completely justifiable per WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- I think there is too much content for it to be appropiate to merge to Crazy Horse. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per this source, a magazine article written by David Humphreys Miller, a person who met him, he was the last hereditary chief of the Hunkpapa tribe. oncamera 05:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and request the nominator amend the nomination statement's serious error in confusing two significant Native American people. Put a strikethrough and italics or bold with the correction or something. Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are NOT the same person. Please pace your nominations so you don't get confused again. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The 1910 Reading Eagle article is quite extraordinary: a medium-sized contemporary newspaper article about the subject. It suggests that there are other reliable sources to be found. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks to me like this can be expanded. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope to be able to expand when I get my hands on this book. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. Part of attempted mass removal of articles about Native Americans without justification by User:Magnolia677. Not the article it was when first nominated for deletion. WP:HEY and WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well documented notable person, clearly meets WP:GNG. Article is well-referenced. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect to Sitting Bull - like Sitting Bull's other sons that are also at AFD, this one is just not notable in his own right. Every source put forward so far is about Sitting Bull. Consequently, nearly every sentence in our article is actually about Sitting Bull not One Bull. As with Crow Foot, the only thing we know about One Bull is that he was Sitting Bull's son, and that's all he was known for; that's not notability. The reader will be better served reading what little we know about One Bull in an article about his father. Lev!vich 20:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. This article says things about One Bull. The sources say even more. Regarding those sources, the comment about them all being about Sitting Bull is neither accurate nor relevant. Consider 1 and 2 are about One Bull, and just because a source covers Sitting Bull more than One Bull doesn't mean it won't work for the purposes of an article about the latter. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 is a local paper covering an election and says "Sitting Bull's Son a Candidate" in the subheadline. Doesn't contribute much to notability and very little to content about the subject. No. 2 is One Bull being interviewed about Sitting Bull. Neither satisfy GNG's requirement for in-depth coverage of the article subject in my view. Lev!vich 21:10, 1 October 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. Izno (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norris-Whitney Communications[edit]

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

Advertorialized article about a magazine publishing company, not making any strong or properly referenced claim to passing WP:CORP. Essentially the notability claim on offer here is that the company and its titles exist, which is not in and of itself an inclusion freebie in the absence of sufficient media coverage about it to clear WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- but the closest thing to "referencing" present here at all is a linkfarmed stack of external links to the company's own self-published websites for itself and its magazines. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username was "Norcomm" -- but as always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which companies are entitled to place advertorialized content about themselves just because their own self-created web presence technically verifies that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion based on this deprod, way back in 2007. Relisting for further input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nomination, this is advertorial. The page creator has never come back, and User:Numblenits is probably a sock, not seen since 2008. Their contributions are very similar to content in this article. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crow Foot[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic should be expanded and disambiguated as, not only was there Sitting Bull's son, but there was also a notable chief of this name. We have him at Crowfoot but some encyclopedias have him as Crow Foot too – The Encyclopedia Of Native American Biography. Such encyclopedias also cover Sitting Bull's son too and so there's no case for deletion. Applicable policies include WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There's quite a bit of information about him in Voices of Wounded Knee (2001) pp. 201-211, among other books and scholarly sources. However there might a reasonable one-event argument against keeping. pburka (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per above. Deep search turns up the photo, and variant spellings. Worth keeping and improving the article. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons cited by User:Whiteguru and user:Andrew Davidson. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above keepers. And comment: I have quite a few books on hold that should cover Crow Foot; I will improve the article when I have access to the sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect to Sitting Bull - the only thing we know about this person is that he was Sitting Bull's son who died with his father. Both sources brought forward so far are about Sitting Bull, with maybe a paragraph about Crow Foot. Being someone famous's son does not make a subject notable, and the reader will be better served reading what little we know about Crow Foot in an article about his father. BTW, Sitting Bull's son Crow Foot is not the same person as Chief Crowfoot in case there was any confusion. Lev!vich 20:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have room in the encyclopedia for this person. Sources exist in books. Lightburst (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the coverage in Voices of Wounded Knee that pburka posted above. Levivich says that the only coverage is that he's Sitting Bull's son. I can only see snippets, but from those snippets it looks like Crow Foot is discussed in some detail, not simply that he was Sitting Bull's son full stop. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Idk how anyone looks at Voices of Wounded Knee and says it has a lot of detail. He is only mentioned on three pages: 201, 202, and 211. This is what it says about Crow Foot: (1) he was a twin, (2) born 1876, (3) shot in 1890 by Lone Man (in the same altercation in which his father was killed). That's it. Sitting Bull: The Life and Times of an American Patriot has more than Voices of Wounded Knee but still very little. And what else is there to say about a 14 year old boy who is only known for having died with his father? How does this even get past WP:A7, nevermind WP:N? Lev!vich 00:17, 2 October 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 have to discount the "keep" for personal attacks, and the proposed merger makes little sense given that it proposes merging another article into this one, which leaves us with no consensus. Sandstein 19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Intellectual Disability Professional[edit]

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

WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies here. Does not meet WP:GNG.   // Timothy :: talk  00:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  00:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. What a barbaric, stupid proposal. No case is made for this term failing the GNG, and none can be made. This is a standard, well-documented term. Now while some editors may believe that an encyclopedia is not the place to provide accurate, useful information to parents and family members trying to deal with the many problems of intellectually disabled children and adults, as opposed to the core encyclopedic function of presenting semifictional promotional biographies of professional wrestlers, I do not. And I have no respect for the opinion of those who do. Merger appears appropriate, but should not be discussed in the deletion context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article does not support claim for notability and BEFORE shows none. None of the sources provide SIGCOV of the topic directly and in-depth. Further a job description will vary in different jurisdictions. The topic meets NOTEVERYTHING, it is encyclopedic.
Sources in the article are primary, others do not even mention the job title, and none meet WP:GNG guidelines to establish notability.   // Timothy :: talk  01:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmersbach Rhino Force[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Update of article previously deleted at Afd and rejected at Afc. Highly promotional. scope_creepTalk 04:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was previously deleted under the title Rhino Force; AfD here (if someone knows how to manually add the "previous AfDs" box at this point, please do). Sourcing somewhat more expansive now than last time, from what I remember, but still far from great. Seeing that Hemmersbach seems likely to survive the current AfD, I'd suggest merging there, but then the single paragraph already present in the article looks to do the job just fine. Hence, just redirect to Hemmersbach might be okay. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DRV considered the draft version of this article suitable for main space: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 7#Draft:Hemmersbach Rhino Force. I'm pretty sure this article was created in draft before Rhino Force, the article that was deleted.Thincat (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was non-consensus or rather a very rough consensus generated via absence of discussion. The references in the article are junk. They are a mix of press-releases, YouTube videos that nobody is watching, run of the mill business news, passing mentions and tangentially linked information. On top of that, it is almost a NLP article, with even section names being branded in NLP style of Hemmersbach Rhino Force. scope_creepTalk 15:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi all, I have added in more articles from respectable journalism organisation Welt, DW and Pheonix. All are large German news agencies. Pheonix is a free-to-air channel on National tv in Germany while the other two are sigificant newspapers. Please note for the one from Welt I also referenced the jouranlists post as it is in english and the Welt.de article is behind a paywall. If you want more articles I can search for more. Please let me know and i'd be happy to do so. MichaelDubley (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More Youtube videos that nobody is watching and a [4] a press-release. scope_creepTalk 08:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Scope creep:, The youtube video is a direct upload by a major German news broadcaster, Pheonix[5]. That is evidence for notability and a good reference. Does wiki not permit videos as references? The other article is a written article by DW a major German journalism organisation[6]. Why did you remove this? Finally you are right regarding the South China Morning Post. I have just read the wiki guidelines to notability and note press-releases hold no weight for notability and this discussion. However, wiki does allow press releases to be included so can we please keep it? While it seems Hemmersbach did pay for the post I am sure South China Morning Post does not allow all articles to be posted just because someone has money. I think it thus hold value to the reader. It doesn't make sense we keep deleting each others changes so I'll wait for your reply or someone else's judgment before restoring the changes you made. Many thanks! MichaelDubley (talk) 03.06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
No one is watching it. It has 500 odd views. It is non-notable and non-RS scope_creepTalk 11:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Scope creep:, I agree the video is not notable for the youtube views. But rather the live-televison views as Pheonix is part of ZDF which makes up a 15.5% of the audience share for German TV, as of 2018. I cannot find current statistics but in 2014 it had 13% audience share and was the most watched channel. I would argue that one of the top German news channels making a full-length program on a Rhino Force project is notable. Do you agree? MichaelDubley (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:06, 24 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jellyfish search optimizer[edit]

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

Brand new algorithm that was introduced a few months ago and has only been mentioned in two papers by the inventors. Secondary sources have not discussed this algorithm and the papers haven't received citations yet (as far as I can tell). WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TOOSOON not yet picked up beyond the original researchers. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TOOSOON - this is the right call; if you check article authors, you find the original researchers. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zing(Talk!) 03:36, 1 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mindspawn[edit]

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

Couldn't find independent and reliable sources to establish the artist's notability per WP:MUSICBIO. The article content appears to promotional and based on its edit history, the artist himself is involved in its creation or development. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real indication of notability Pi (Talk to me!) 16:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Search does not show any secondary sources for notability. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Article creator only created and edited this article back in 2006. Then, he disappeared into thin air. Also, the artist himself is also involved in the article which is always a bad sign as well. Did not found any reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:31, 30 September 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 — nomination withdrawn and no !votes to delete. XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Yaacov Kaufman[edit]

:Yaacov Kaufman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable designer as per WP:Notability, no awards, not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, does not have a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and not widely recognized. Sowny (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn, given the improvements in the article.An independent source is still needed for the Sandberg Prize though - the current source is the designer's website which is not sufficient. Sowny (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Umm, about "no awards", the article already lists the 1989 Sandberg Prize. Also, his profile page at the Information Center for the Israeli Art at the Israel Museum lists a bunch of other awards. I didn't try to verify them but I'm assuming they are legit. Nsk92 (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
an independent source for the award should be added to the article.Sowny (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NARTIST 4. (d): in several museum collections. I added a section for them, with sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick further search found this page at the Israel Museum with more detailed info about his 2003 his Norwegian Design Council Award for Industrial Design Excellence award for "Arketto" light. The page begins with: "Yaacov Kaufman came to Israel at the age of twelve and is one of the most important designers and educators in Israel today." One needs go no further. Clearly satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Not sure what the deal was with this nomination in the first place, but I suggest that it be withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:CREATIVE, works held in multiple collections ie. Tel Aviv Museum of Art - here, the Israel Museum - here, Design Museum Holon - here, and here. ps. apologies for being slower than editors above:), and thanks to those that have improved the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple: nice finds, I added the Tel Aviv Museum to the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks ThatMontrealIP, this has motivated me to add a further reference showing more of his works held at Holon.:) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable with plenty of solid sources. No reason for deletion.Geewhiz (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CREATIVE as explained above. Poor nomination that should be withdrawn. TJMSmith (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep won well-known and significant awards, has a significant and well-known body of work and is widely recognized as an important and influential designer. Vexations (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ARTIST 4(b) (multiple solo exhibits at notable museums) and 4(d) (permanent collection of multiple notable museums). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 27 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truitt Battin[edit]

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

Contrary to the assertion in the article, does not meet NFOOTY. Coverage of his social media does not rise up to GNG, and is mostly copies of the same PR. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't have an assertion of notability in the article. Pi (Talk to me!) 16:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly fails SNG and GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I have to say I was impressed by this piece of "journalism" from a site masquerading as the website of a London newspaper (or something). Rarely have I seen so many exclamation marks in one place :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence to suggest that he has actually played a professional football match; nothing coming up on Transfermarkt or Soccerway or any other database. Seems to be a promotional article based on someone who has quite a few followers on Instagram Spiderone 11:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence for any of the claims made, clearly promotional, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about former high school soccer player who aspired to play professionally. No evidence that he has ever played professionally (just a completely unsupported claim that he is playing in Croatia - and none of the databases that follow the Croatian pro/semi-pro leagues have any mention of him). The online coverage of his high school soccer exploits is entirely routine and hyper-local (we don't need articles about every person who played high school soccer in suburban Chicago). Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:51, 28 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean St. John[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a business executive and philanthropist, not properly sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear our inclusion standards for those occupations. Of the 13 footnotes here, just one is a genuinely acceptable piece of real media coverage about him, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself as the only reliable source in play -- everything else here is referenced to the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, blogs, dead links or sources which just briefly namecheck him as a giver of soundbite in an article about a subject other than himself, none of which are proper notability-supporting sources. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced significantly better than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The articles I found on Google news were promoting his philanthropy, passing mentions or single quotes, or not WP:RS. A search of Google scholar and books, JSTOR, Gale One Academic Drive, and NYT yielded no additional sources. This person needs more significant coverage to be considered for an article. Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will remove anything not backed up by RS and pass judgement on whatever's leftover, per WP:ATD.GDX420 (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 07:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Lukashenko[edit]

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The article is lightly sourced to very questionably WP:RS material that speculates on popular rumors. WP:OR is used to declare he has received "significant media attention" when, in fact, the sources used to support that statement say no such thing. A WP:BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com finds a single WP:RS (versus a great many non-RS sources like tabloids, blogs, and social media) about Nikolai Lukashenko (versus passing mentions in articles about his father) in The Telegraph. Chetsford (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He is more popularly referred to as Kolya Lukashenko, so a BEFORE search needs to cover that as well. Of course, the nominator rightly pointed out that being the son of the President of Belarus doesn't mean he is automatically notable. However, there are literally entire articles written about him and his involvement in politics in numerous reliable sources: BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, USA Today to name a few. Some of the sources are also present in the article's history. All in all, what we have here clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, and is way, way more than a mere claim to notability by virtue of his connection to his father. -- Dps04 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw as Nom per sources provided by Dps04. Chetsford (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I am grateful that this nomination at least spurred some improvement to the article. I really did research the name myself and found next to nothing, so thank you to the editors that did the work. (non-admin closure) JimKaatFan (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Trowell[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. No focused, lasting coverage in reliable sources. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, endowed chairs at Oxford pass NPROF easily.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per WP:AFDHOWTO, I have left a neutrally worded notification of this AfD on the creator's talk page. @JimKaatFan: It is standard practice to do this; if you use Twinkle to create your AfD it will automatically notify the article creator. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for letting me know.....(Msrasnw (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  • Snow/speedy keep. Really, a named chair at Oxford, come on. Certainly passes WP:PROF#C5. Incidentally, also passes WP:PROF#C6 as a past president of a major society. I have added a section to the article with some biographical data. Recommend that the nominator quickly withdraw this nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His career definitely meets NPROF Pi (Talk to me!) 16:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear pass of WP:NACADEMIC #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NPROF#C5 as argued by AleatoryPonderings. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 04:22, 25 September 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. Withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Development Goal 9[edit]

Sustainable Development Goal 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been redirected before, with reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainable Development Goal 3 (by User:Jake Brockman), but it has been revamped. But what applied in that AfD applies here as well: "Reads more like a report than an encyclopaedia article". This is indeed a report, lacking secondary sourcing (there was some material with secondary sourcing synthesized into the article, which I removed). The sourcing, in a nutshell, is all programmatic and relies on primary references, and never gets away from a highly detailed summary of the goals set by the UN.

I thought this was maybe part of a school project, but now I see that it's this, Wikipedia:Meetup/Online edit-a-thon SDGs September 2020--the net effect seems to be the creation of a walled garden of sub-articles pertaining to the already inflated Sustainable Development Goals. I have no objection to someone bundling the other SDG sub-articles into this. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for sure. this has already been discussed so many times, I am getting quite tired of it! There are 17 SDGs and they each deserve their own article. Some of them might not yet be perfect but we are working on that this week as part of the mentioned edit-a-thon. Rather help with improving the articles and finding more references than complaining that it's not good enough. Why is Sustainable Development Goals inflated in your view?? What is a walled garden? Do we really have to have the same discussion over and over again. See here and here. EMsmile (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EMsmile, what are you trying to point at? There is no agreement on that talk page in the one section and, at any rate, it's hardly an RfC or an AfD discussion, and the second one is just a section where Sphilbrick is explaining copyright to you. That you are tired of it is not my concern: my concern is that we write articles that are notable by our standards, and that means that they have reliable secondary sources to prove they should have an article. I cannot tell from your comments here or on that talk page that you understand how notability works here--and you are certainly not providing any evidence for notability here. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't respond to my questions: "Why is Sustainable Development Goals inflated in your view?? What is a walled garden?". From that it seems to me that you are saying the SDGs are not notable? And I think I understand quite well what makes a topic notable or not for Wikipedia. Those places that I linked to were indeed not AfDs but to me they were good enough because consensus was achieved. Some of the SDG articles have already been around for many years. E.g. do you also want to propose to delete SDG 6? You talked about "bundling other SDG sub-articles into this". Which ones? All 17? EMsmile (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I do agree that the SDG 9 article is weak. I had a quick look at the state of the other 16 after one week of online edit-a-thon and the SDG 9 one is probably the weakest. So an "improve" tag is definitely in order. But what worries me is that you seem to make a blanket statement saying that you don't like any of the other SDG articles and that you don't think improvement is possible and the only possible solution is deletion. Or did I misunderstand? Would you want to delete as well SDG 6, SDG 1, SDG 13 etc.? And what don't you like about the SDG article? You are finding it too long? That's why we need the sub-articles, otherwise it would be much longer still. If you have a problem with the SDG article, I suggest you put it on the talk page there so that we can improve it. Your statement of "already inflated" worries me. EMsmile (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EMsmile, there was no consensus for anything relevant to this discussion in the links you pointed at. The walled garden here is used to indicate that we have a large amount of articles linked to each other and edited by the same group of editors, all of which contain loads and loads of information that is, no doubt, also found on the organizational website, in addition to huge chunks of irrelevant material whose only purpose seems to be either a. an exercise in essay writing (original research) or b. fluffing up the reflist with truly secondary sources. Sadads, one wonders why the sourcing across those articles can be so bad if there are so many editors working on them; typically that's a sign of COI. How many links to sdg.tracker.org can one article have? But I see that your "strong keep" is quickly parroted, so indeed it's pretty pointless here (though you're the only one to present a valid reason) and I'll close this myself. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- these are the organizing principles for the entire UN System and International Development community -- they are also central filters by which almost all of the scholarship, evaluation and research on the impact of international development is being measured -- without any search for sources and a very basic "will they be a subject of extensive study", they are going to be notable -- not to mention that you get hundreds of results for each in sources like Google Scholar. Sadads (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The notability of SDGs is a no-brainer and there is sufficient amount of reliable sources to support it. And the objection to the article's style, albeit valid, should be a starting point for improvements rather than deletion. This discussion is essentially groundless.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The SDG's are here to stay. The SDG's are the future of our planet. As per above, The notability of SDGs is a no-brainer -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep These 17 global goals have been in place for five years. I would say we are overdue in making more information on each of them available to general readers. That it would take a while to improve the quality is normal, and having a page on Wikipedia will invite more experts to build the quality.PlanetCare (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or you could write it according to our guidelines in the first place. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 25 September 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 Eberron#World. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World of Eberron[edit]

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

This is an overly expansive deep dive into the plot of Eberron that fails WP:NOTPLOT. Eberron#World seems entirely sufficient for the context required for a general encyclopedia per WP:WAF. There do not appear to be any sources that allow the fictional setting itself to meet WP:GNG. This content is otherwise detailed like that of a fan wiki that belongs elsewhere. TTN (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Eberron#World - This article is made up completely of overly in-depth WP:PLOT information that is cited only to primary sources. The general information on the plot and world of the setting is already included on the main article, though, so leaving this as a Redirect would make sense. Redirecting would also preserve this article's history, in case there is any information that someone would want to try to integrate over, though hopefully in a much more succinct manner. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge Eberron#World - Nothing there that needs a page of it's own, maybe an editor can update Eberron#World just a little to flesh it out. And I said a little; the entire thing does not need to be merged. Timmccloud (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Eberron#World per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Eberron. The setting is definitely notable. But its individual elements mostly lack independent notability unless specifically called out. I see very few sources that make a distinction between the RPG campaign setting and the fictional planet presented as its core. Indeed, I'd say the distinction is non-existent, really. oknazevad (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what little can be, most of this is unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT, sadly. Then delete, no need for a redirect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems redundant with the Eberron article which is itself a campaign setting. There is some summary of in-universe details that could be preserved. Archrogue (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Oknazevad. There isn't a distinction between the RPG campaign setting and this article. Just summarize and combine the two articles and you have something encyclopedic. Jontesta (talk) 15:52, 28 September 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 R. C. Hazra. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studies in the Upapurāṇas[edit]

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

While this exists, can not find any in-depth coverage of it to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 14:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it being someone's doctoral thesis earns it one line in their biog. If it had any coverage to speak of them maybe more. But there is no reason for this article. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:56, 27 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The George Marshall Cup[edit]

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

An amateur competition with almost zero coverage in secondary sources. I can't even find anything in Lincolnshire Live or any local sources. Fails WP:GNG Spiderone 14:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. No evidence of significant coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete such competitions only generate routine results/reports in local press, no significant coverage. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete barely makes any local coverage, which is way short of significant national coverage which would be needed for WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Adult Contemporary top 10 singles in 1961 (U.S.)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Adult Contemporary top 10 singles in 1961 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Full list of nominated articles

I nominated this in bulk three years ago with a result of Keep, but I'm still not sure how a list of songs of any length beyond number ones from a minor secondary chart (albeit with a long history) passes WP:LISTN. I believe the type of information these types of list try to impart reached WP:IINFO, doesn't receive coverage in third-party sources, and some info like "Weeks in top ten" are not verifiable outside of looking at every chart week by week and keeping one's own tally. Since the first nomination, top-ten lists of other charts have been deleted, such as:

So there seems to be some growing precedence. There are a number of other similar lists that still exist with particularly concerted efforts by individuals to continue and expand the List of Billboard Hot 100 top-ten singles, Lists of UK top-ten singles, and Lists of UK top-ten albums, but those are for another discussion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I'm not a fan of the year-by-year articles of every minor chart, sourced only to the Billboard site, why are we going after these instead of the number one lists? E.g. List of Adult Contemporary top 10 singles in 2012 (U.S.) has a lot more info than List of Billboard Adult Contemporary number ones of 2012. If the former are largely non-notable secondary charts, aren't the latter too? Keeping one's own tally of weeks is still perfectly verifiable. Reywas92Talk 02:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a good point, and I can only say that there simply hasn't been an effort to do so. A discussion would have to take place to agree which lists of number ones are acceptable (Hot 100, UK Singles? Then there's the "if that, why not this" arguments for each country's charts or some genre chart.). That's a bit of an undertaking. I don't know how self-sourcing one's own tally can be verifiable since there is a chance for error like missing a week or miscounting. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This method of analyzing the chart (that is, by date of entry into the top 10) doesn't appear to be particularly useful to fans of the music charts. By contrast, lists of number 1 hits are easier to understand. In addition, I've only reviewed the 1961 page, but it has two major errors: (1) The dates of all the charts are wrong, as Billboard published charts on July 17, 24, 31, August 7, etc., instead of July 22, 29, August 5, 12, etc. (2) Billboard did not have an Adult Contemporary chart in 1961 -- it had an Easy Listening chart. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:43, 24 September 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 Cambuslang#Education. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St Charles' Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Sources include its own website and local newspaper but nothing which appears to confer notability. Created at AfC then moved to mainspace by original editor before any AfC input, apparently. PamD 13:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. PamD 13:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. PamD 13:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • West Coats Primary School has a page - so St Charles is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahaib3005 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cambuslang#Education where it is mentioned, lacks the significant coverage by independant reliable sources needed for notability. Current sources have minor routine coverage of school construction plans and brief mention in coverage of a possibly notable teacher. West Coats Primary School has a claim of notability due to it's B-listed building. Gab4gab (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - generally primary schools do not have the level of notability that is required for a Wikipedia article. There are some exceptions, but I do not see anything that would suggest that this is one of them. Dunarc (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. --Bduke (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The mention in Scottish Construction magazine is only in passing, doesn't constitute significant coverage. Local news coverage doesn't isn't really about anything over than the fact of the school being built. A Come Dine With Me winner doesn't constitute a notable person. And finally, WAX notwithstanding, it is only one of the other primary schools in Cambuslang that has an article. Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost all primary schools are not notable, nothing suggests this is one of the very rare exceptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw as the creating editor has now redirected this to the local area - Thank you. (Yes, perhaps I should have just redirected it myself in the first place rather than come to AfD, apologies - but at least we now have a record of consensus to delete, should it be questioned again in future). PamD 07:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't vote as it was obvious which way it would go but i think you went about it the right way, AFAIK the creator is a new editor who has shown enthusiasm and coding/sourcing skills which can take some time. It's important to know under what guidelines and pluralism your stuff might get deleted; to redirect it from the outset would have been a bit WP:BITEY IMO although I'm sure you'd have explained it fully via talk etc. Crowsus (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously not opposed to a redirect. However redirecting an article while it's being considered here at AFD looks like the creating editor wanting to own the subject rather than wait for the close of discussion. Gab4gab (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of the Punisher[edit]

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

Unnecessary plot dump article split that fails WP:NOTPLOT. The general topic does not establish notability per WP:GNG. Plot info should be summarized per WP:WAF. This really does not seem like it would be worthwhile to merge. It would be better to start anew in the main article using proper summary style. TTN (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Article is a CONTENTFORK and does not meet GNG, BEFORE showed only fancruft articles. Article is entirely OR and SYNTH, so there is nothing worth merging. If someone ever creates content at main article that is sourced properly a redirect could be created then, but as of right now, nothing is there, nothing here that is not OR or is sourced appropriate for a merge, so a redirect is meaningless.   // Timothy :: talk  13:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Punisher per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what seems due enough to Punisher, then delete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why are we wasting time with dozens of individual nominations when it seems to be the broad consensus that all these should be deleted?★Trekker (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found in the space of fiction that someone will pop out of the woodwork to revert any BOLD changes and thus force an AfD for each anyway. Certainly might not hurt to try, but I won't bother. TTN (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treker, I agree, a few of them are probably keeps, but the ones being nominated are all OR SYNTH CONTENTFORKS. But I did a group nom and it received a number of complaints.   // Timothy :: talk  19:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seems to be entirely fancruft/primary sourced, I don't see anything that necessitates a merge.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, practically everything here is sourced to primary sources, meaning that it fails both WP:LISTN and WP:PLOT, and also means there is nothing to merge, as what little in the way of secondary sources there are provide trivial information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as a non-notable content fork. Everything here is sourced to primary sources, so it fails the WP:GNG and WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:59, 1 October 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 delete only significant author supports deletion, no keep votes, WP:CSD#G7. —Kusma (t·c) 08:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Griestal-Strauße[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support delete - I've learned more on notability since this creation. - Seasider53 (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NCORP basic criteria. Before search returned negative. Northern Escapee (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:52, 24 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrsha Attaf[edit]

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

Person simply does not meet general notability requirements. Unable to find any press on her at all per WP:BEFORE that meets the sourcing outlined at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: With its current sourcing, this definitely fails notability. Perhaps a merge or redirect is possible? realsanix (Hello!) 13:13, 24 September 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. Particularly per WP:NCORP for the sources available. David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R3 (company)[edit]

R3 (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability not established for blockchain company with media coverage mostly from press releases (not satisfying WP:NCORP) but also a lot of non-independent coverage (see WP:ORGIND) Ysangkok (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions: 2017-05 Monax ✓ keep
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a number of companies who are basically just buzz-words in this sector. Unclear to me that R3 is one of them. As the comment below says, they are going to be running the whole Italian banking reconciliation system this year. (https://www.abi.it/Pagine/news/ABILABspuntaInterbancariaDLT.aspx) If we don't consider the Italian Bankers Association (ABI) as a mark of credibility, again as a G7 economy, what is? Also, on the article, the list of backers for R3 is meaningful. This isn't some crypto that no one has heard of. Most the major players from the US and EMEA are invested. User:FreddoBarChocolate 15:22, 22 September 2020 (GMT)

All references seem to meet notability guidelines, they have been consistently written about in international media such as the FT, Wall Street Journal, Reuters etc. Information on this page is sourced to independent and credible titles such as these.Travelsandwords (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a simple cleanup of some of the references that are causing issues is a more appropriate response than total deletion?45.178.73.238 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you explain how coverage can be "trivial" as per WP:CORPDEPTH given the types of publications (top tier international media like the Financial Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal etc)? Please can you provide a few examples - genuinely interested to see your thinking here...45.178.73.238 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will use the article from the Financial Times as my example. As you can see, they mention R3 only in one paragraph, and they only mention that it enabled them to "process the relevant documents in 24 hours". This sentence is completely unusable. The documents referenced are from the previous paragraph, but we know nothing about them at all, other than that they relate to foodstuffs. Also, what does it even mean to "process" documents? The article doesn't explain it. There is no useable information in that article, it is just propping up companies and products. How can you call this "in-depth coverage", which is what CORPDEPTH is about? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is helpful, thanks for providing the example. I have removed information sourced to references that cannot be classified as 'in depth coverage' from the page.Travelsandwords (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add, the banner on the newspaper does not, on its own, denote any notability on the company - the most important part of any reference is the content. There are two key considerations. 1) Does the reference provide in-depth coverage on the company (and not just mentions-in-passing or one-line descriptions etc). 2) Is there "Independent Content" (as defined in WP:ORGIND), therefore not just rehashed details from customer announcements or interviews/quotations from company officers, etc). The reason why I'm commenting is that you say that you "removed information sourced to references that cannot be classified as 'in-depth coverage' and you therefore may have misinterpreted the *differences* between sources that you may use to place detail in the article (mainly WP:RS) and the quality of sources we require to establish notability. HighKing++ 20:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of radio stations in Malta. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rave Radio (Malta)[edit]

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

Declined at AfC, then place in mainspace. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Note that there are other groups (e.g. Rave Radio but also others) called this that are not the Maltese station. Little available in terms of sourcing on the Maltese station. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only "keep" argument is "has search results", which isn't the same as actual reliable sources. Sandstein 20:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Arthur Sefton Cottom[edit]

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

No clear assertion of notability, lacks significant coverage to establish it. Reywas92Talk 18:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 18:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article asserts (without a source I can see) that he is a Fellow of the Royal College of Organists. (I had to look up what "FRCO" means, but that's what List of post-nominal letters (United Kingdom) says.) That looks like an assertion of notability to me. I'll see if I can verify it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak delete. Well, I found a bio from his publisher that asserts that he is indeed a FRCO ([7]), but that is not a very good source. He may meet WP:COMPOSER as I found a few reviews of his delightfully named Various Trouts, but they are not especially substantial reviews. If someone finds a good source for the FRCO claim, I'd say that meets WP:ANYBIO or would confer notability analogously to membership in other royal societies for WP:NPROF #3 purposes, but in the absence of a good source I end up on the "delete" side of things. Note to others: I only found search results by searching for Sefton Cottom; using his first two names in addition is not fruitful. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FRCOs are not elected as academics are to the academies, they just have to pass an exam, per [8]. This is certainly not ANYBIO (obviously not "well-known and significant"!) and not analogous to being an accomplished professor/researcher. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep using other search terms such as: "Frederick Arthur Sefton Cottom organ" yields many results, and books. The person passes. The organist meets the criteria for WP:COMPOSER. Lightburst (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that search and it's just mirrors and passing mentions. Can you please specify which of these results is significant coverage for GNG? I can't tell which of these six criteria he's supposed to meet – have his compositions won awards or been used in other places for them to be notable? Various Trouts doesn't have anything written about it in search results. Reywas92Talk 17:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I found several books under his short name. Is that good enough? Bearian (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:53, 24 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Pollo[edit]

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

non notable -- very minor political role covered by NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non notable...unless you live in Chile. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, not an everywhere except Chile one. (note to other Wikipedians: when using search engines, you should search for Super Pollo de Chile so only relevant results show) Keep.Antonio Brasi Martin (que que?) 19:30, 9 September, 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable company. All sources cited in the article are primary sources that promote the company's brands except one. A before search conducted returned negative. Northern Escapee (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can I vote again? Antonio unsure Martin (que paso? 02:28, 30 September, 2020 (UTC)
AntonioMartin, No, you are supposed to vote only once. But you can change your vote if you feel. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EUniverCities[edit]

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

litle evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 14:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the national level, there are associations of cities that regard themselves as uiversity cities. This is the case, for example, of the Association des Villes Universitaires de France (AVUF), founded by the City of Rouen in 1993. At the European level, there are at present only two well-established networks of university cities and university institutions: EUniverCities Network (Netherlands) and Unitown-University Town Network (Italy). A Third network, named UniversCities, was announced in a conference promoted by the University of Geneva (Switzerland) at the end of 2015. This initiative seems, even in its title, very similar to that proposed by Concordia University in Montreal (Canada) for 2017. Let us examine the main features of the two existing European networks which compromise both university and city insitutions, EUniverCities and Unitown.
EUniverCities is a European network launched in 2012. The network aims to exchange and spread the knowledge, expertise, and experience about city-university cooperation across Europe. It is comprised of ten medium-sized cities and universities which have agreed to work together (in tandem) in order to give university cities more visibility within Europe. It seems to be focused on innovation and technology transfers between universities and cities, but it is open to a broad range of cdomains of city-university cooperation. The network seems to prefer a decentralized working method, rather than general conferences addressed to all members.

Excerpt from Source 2:

Implicarea Universității de Vest din Timișoara în comunitate primește o recunoaștere importantă. Instituția a fost acceptată cu statut de membru observator în cadrul rețelei europene EUniverCities. La începutul lunii decembrie, la Trondheim, Norvegia, se va semna documentul prin care UVT va fi acceptată ca membru cu drepturi depline, devenind astfel prima universitate din sud-estul Europei parte a prestigioasei rețele.
EUniverCities este o rețea europeană, lansată oficial în 2012, în care orașele mijlocii și universitățile lor colaborează (în așa-numitele tandemuri) pentru a îmbunătăți cooperarea. Obiectivul rețelei este schimbul și răspândirea cunoștințelor, expertizei și experienței cu privire la cooperarea dintre oraș și universitate.

Sources 3 and 5 are indeed reliable since they are news sites from Portugal and Spain respectively. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:55, 29 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stix family[edit]

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

The family is not notable and my WP:BEFORE has not revealed sources to support the claims in the article. Additionally sources in the article are not quality sources - one is a Jewish publication and the other two are passing mentions. The article does not meet WP:N Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems no reason to disregard what the nomination describes as a "Jewish publication"—especially a long-running newspaper such as the St. Louis Jewish Light—as a lower-than-average quality source. No opinion on notability in general as yet. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings, My opinion of the publication as a news source was influenced by the very low circulation rather than the religious title of the source: In 2012, the circulation was approximately 10,000. Lightburst (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are credible claims of notability here, such as "Rice and Stix was the largest manufacturer of clothing in the United States in the 1950s", but that claim needs a reliable and verifiable source. Even with that, I'm not sure that this should be an article about the Stix Family, considering how few details there are about any of the family members. Maybe this should be repurposed as an article for Rice-Stix / Rice and Stix or turned into a biography of Ernest W. Stix, Jr. or another family member. Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete incridible claims, like being the largest manufacturer of clothing at one time in the US, need quality sourcing, which is lacking in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not per nom, which is poorly phrased at best. This is supposed to be a notable family, but Wikipedia currently has an article about only one of the family members, and it's sourced mostly to an obituary of another family member. If Rice-Stix, Inc. was really the largest clothing manufacturer in the U.S. in the 1950s, a separate article should be created about the company (assuming there are reliable sources). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:59, 24 September 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 delete. This has already been speedy deleted as ACE Money Transfer. SarahSV (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Money Transfer[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Purely promo article with nothing to suggest notability (WP or real life); fails WP:NCORP. Article by the same name has been previously created (by the same editor with possible COI) and deleted a couple of times, from what I can tell. Therefore should probably be salted as well for good measure. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite heroic efforts on the part of the creator, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP in that it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Also, it is WP:ARTSPAM. While it does not meet my threshold for deleting under WP:G11, I would not object if it were speedily deleted. I have not checked prior iterations to see if WP:G4 applies. Analysis of sources extant in article: Transferwise, routine promotionally toned coverage lacking depth; Ace Money Transfer, subject's website; Androidbank, comparison with another product, but not in sufficient depth; Checkout, routine, promotionally toned coverage lacking depth; My News Desk, press release. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous iteration speedily deleted by me. WP:G4 does not apply. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noting similarly titled ACE Money Transfer was WP:A7'd and SALTed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:41, 24 September 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. People disagree about whether to delete because this doesn't exist (yet), or keep because it has nonetheless been covered in sources. Sandstein 20:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1776 Commission[edit]

1776 Commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-existent entity. Yes, Trump said on September 17 that he would "soon" create a 1776 Commission.[14] Trump says many things that come to nothing. Surely it's not time for an article about "the" 1776 Commission until a 1776 Commission actually exists? Bishonen | tålk 11:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now or alternatively Merge to Political positions of Donald Trump#Education - That something exists or does not exist is not a rationale for keeping or deleting. As an example, WWIII is clearly a notable subject even though it has not happened and may never happen. There's no question that this event has received WP:SIGCOV the only real question is whether it's going to be WP:LASTING. Like it says in the guidelines for whether something is or is not a pass for lasting coverage: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable", so the real question is whether this is likely to have lasting impact or not. Well, this is really hard to know at present but it seems very possible since this is a policy announced by the President of the United States and so is likely to have substantial impact. Even policies that Trump has announced and then never actually followed through on live a kind of half-life for years afterwards in reliable sources (e.g., The Wall). I'm therefore leaning to keep for now and revisit this in a few months when the "weeks or months" period in the guidelines has expired, but if we don't keep then per WP:PRESERVE just merge it into a section on Trump's education policy (which should probably have its own article at this point anyway). I could also see opening a new article on the concept of patriotic education as it is a general phenomenon globally (particularly in China) and merging to there, but this article doesn't exist yet. FOARP (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FOARP, WWIII is a real risk, something that many of us worry about, and that some of us think is already amongst us (because there are many different definitions). By contrast, the 1776 Commission seems to be vaporware. I don't understand how you make it out to be "a policy". Is everything that comes out of Trump's mouth thereby a policy, really? I'm reading the definition of policy in our article, and I don't see it. Bishonen | tålk 21:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen - The Trump administration is sclerotic enough that there is no clear dividing line between his brain-farts and actual policy, so it's quite possible this ends up being acted on - and even if it doesn't it's also quite possible that this concept becomes a topic of academic or political discussion. For now it's received WP:SIGCOV as its been discussed (and is still being discussed widely), it's clearly verifiable, the only question is whether the coverage is going to be lasting - and we really can't know that at this point but we do have guidelines saying that this can take "weeks or months" to assess, so I'm saying that we leave it up in the meantime. And if it doesn't then the appropriate solution is to merge to Political positions of Donald Trump#Education as it is clearly a "political position of Donald Trump", not delete it. FOARP (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why is this considered for deletion? It is factual. You can't ignore fact. Censorship is not the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.195.56 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - there was an announcement that an Executive Order would be signed, but as yet nothing has been issued [15]. Coverage consists of arguments about what it might or might not be. I think it's WP:TOOSOON. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of any potential future event (e.g., WWIII) will necessarily consist of speculation until it happens. This doesn't mean we cannot have an article about the topic.FOARP (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course, if President Trump actually creates this commission (which is possible) than it will be worth having an article on it, but the mere suggestion of having an intent to do something is not enough to create notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per above. They seem serious about organizing this commission, and it has picked up some good sources which add to its notability. Wikipedia contains articles on upcoming films, television shows, and other topics. This one may fit that mode. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether or not the commission is ever formed, the proposal is notable, and a lot has been written about it. It would be interesting to expand this article to cover the political arguments for and against, to explain federal vs. local involvement in education, and to watch over time as local school districts debate or make changes under the banner of "patriotic education". -- Beland (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least merge. DT has made lots of statements that seemed "serious" at the time. Yet we are still waiting for Melania to present the paperwork showing that her early work met the criteria for her to be in the US that he promised would be revealed in a couple weeks. We are also still waiting to hear about the "incredible things" that his (non-existent) investigators were finding as they searched for Obama's search records in Hawaii. Wikipedia articles are not a debating society. There are plenty of other places on the interwebs for that sirt of thing. MarnetteD|Talk 02:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - It's a notable enough topic, but it may not warrant its own article unless more comes of it. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 05:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source, another recent source at which Trump says he will soon sign an executive order creating this commission. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its notable and there is good sourcing from all media outlets. Deletion is premature when this appears to be a high profile item for both Trump and his supporters. Progressingamerica (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify/merge to Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Education. Does not exist yet; if an EO is signed the commission is still not likely to be formed in a Biden administration... Yes, things have been written about it, as has about everything he does, and it can be covered in his positions or general administration coverage. Reywas92Talk 01:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel that the proposal alone has been talked about enough to fulfil notability requirements concerning sources dealing with the subject at length. If there isn't a consensus to keep, we should at least merge to a related field, because people are certainly going to search for this term given the interest and controversy that the proposal has already generated.YUEdits (talk) 01:57, 2 October 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Pebody[edit]

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

Mathematician who solved a problem in recreational mathematics, and who has since left academia. Citation levels are too low for WP:NPROF C1, even in a low citation field, and I don't see any other indication of notability. Recreational math has an above-average chance of being discussed in mainstream news sources (for possible GNG), but I didn't find any sources of this type. Listed as 2nd nomination, since it was discussed at "Votes for Deletion" in 2003 (part of this discussion is present on the talk page of the article, but it otherwise seems to be lost to history). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially per nom. Citability is too low here (h-index of about 5), and nothing else to show satisfying WP:PROF. Does not satisfy WP:GNG either. To the extent some notability is present here, this appears to be a WP:BIO1E case. Peabody's solution is already referenced in the necklace problem article, and that's sufficient. Nsk92 (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem he solved doesn't seem to be so significant that it conveys notability on him separately for solving it, and there seems to be little else. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps enough to justify the one-line mention that is already at necklace problem, but does not meet any notability criteria to warrant a WP:BLP. --Kinu t/c 21:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am Luke Pebody and see very little need for this page to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.128.35 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. While we can take the subject's wishes for deletion into account in marginal notability cases, per WP:BLPDELETE, there is no way for us to verify your assertion that you are the subject of the article. Usually in these types of situations a person wishing to have a WP article about them deleted should submit a request to OTRS through the OTRS ticket system. They can verify the details there, while preserving the privacy protections, and if the claim checks out, somebody from OTRS then posts a verification note in the relevant AfD. You can find more details and relevant links at WP:OTRS. Nsk92 (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that Nsk92 says is correct. I'll add that barring last minute arguments, the page will probably be deleted in another day or so (7 days from posting). So you might want to wait before going to the trouble of figuring out OTRS. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not related to the question of deletion: if anyone could take a look at Necklace problem#Formulation and convert it into something decipherable, that would be wonderful. (I left a comment on Talk:Necklace problem, but this page seems more likely to attract attention.) --JBL (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken a pass. It turns out that Pebody made significant progress but does not appear to have completely solved the problem. He solved it for all odd-length necklaces and formulated a conjecture for even length that appears to remain open. This also leaves open the question of which lengths have the worst case and what that worst case is. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, that's much better! --JBL (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The work is interesting, but does not warrant a WP:BLP article for the author. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auslogics[edit]

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

This is a bundled nomination of Auslogics and two of its products:

These articles all fail the notability guideline for companies and products. They are either unreferenced or solely cite unreliable sources, and I could not find any qualifying sources in an additional search. (Note this nomination does not include either Auslogics Disk Defrag and Auslogics BoostSpeed, since whether or not they meet NPRODUCT is a bit less clear. However, opinions on these articles' notability are still welcome as I am considering further AfDs). – Teratix ₵ 10:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 10:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 10:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 10:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless other users contribute to the article and expand it to meet the guidelines, else please go ahead and delete it. I don't have much information that I can expand on. Thanks Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 04:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Sources exist. Including software reviews. The page creator has blanked his talk page many times, go read the message at the top. My, my. The page creator will not do the hard yards fixing up the sources, this is indicated on the talk page. So move to Draft. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Whiteguru: I'm opposed to draftication until a) specific, WP:NCORP-satisfying sources are shown to exist and b) an editor commits to improving the article (otherwise it's just a pointless six-month countdown until a G13 deletion). – Teratix ₵ 12:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Teratix: I realise there is a pointless six-month countdown in the works. I am quite prepared to improve the article. -- Whiteguru (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Whiteguru: Do you know of any suitable sources to improve the article? If so, can you link them here? If not, how are you planning to improve the article to a NCORP-qualifying state? – Teratix ₵ 14:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Saif Sporting Club season[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2019–20 Saif Sporting Club season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS and there is nothing worth keeping from either article.

2019–20 Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spiderone 09:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG, sufficient sources. Note, this article was included in the nomination at this AfD and there was a consensus to keep the articles. --Zayeem (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources linked in that AfD are for a different club. Where is the GNG coverage for Saif and Sheikh Jamal? Spiderone 17:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Saif SC: The Daily Star, Dhaka Tribune, United News of Bangladesh, New Age, bdnews24.com.
For Sheikh Jamal: The Daily Star, Dhaka Tribune, New Age, United News of Bangladesh --Zayeem (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Each of those articles is a routine match report, apart from one on each which is about COVID, which is not an indication for keeping an article on an individual season. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac and, importantly, see WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 08:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Dhaka Abahani season[edit]

2019–20 Dhaka Abahani season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS Spiderone 09:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I suspect sockpuppetry behind this also. Govvy (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ref 1 - okay for coverage
ref 2 - just routine transfer news not WP:SIGCOV at all
ref 3 and ref 4 - this is just a match report, no SIGCOV either Spiderone 12:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Izno (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Franek[edit]

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

Does not have coverage in independent sources. Sources are student newspapers and performance announcements. Couldn't verify that he won either of the two awards mentioned in the intro, nor that they are notable awards. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:36, 24 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Van Buren[edit]

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

This isn't a Wikipedia article, it's an essay about a person of questionable notability. —S Marshall T/C 09:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG; the only source cited is this [16] which is a local paper and lacks any real detail and merely calls him 'Van Buren' so could even be about a different person Spiderone 15:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Izno (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hill (guitarist)[edit]

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

I'm unconvinced of this person's notability. —S Marshall T/C 09:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 09:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:16, 29 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JT (YouTuber)[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable, he made various accusations against other YoutTubers, but he himself does not meet GNG. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we possibly make it a Redirect to Keemstar#Controversies? Foxnpichu (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable YouTuber. There is no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. That the subject has 546,000 YouTube subscribers and some trivial mentions in some unreliable sources does not confer notability on the subject. Northern Escapee (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:48, 28 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schooled (DVD)[edit]

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

First of all, the article is misnamed. The Schooled here refers to two television specials that first aired on ABC Family in 2006 and then on The CW in 2007, which were then distributed in DVD format. A WP:BEFORE search revealed this Variety (magazine) article[17], which clearly states that the specials were outright promotional ventures commissioned by OfficeMax to boost sales at the start of the school year. The creator of the article (now inactive) is in all likelihood a fan of The All-American Rejects who were the main performers of the CW special. It is not an independent album by the band. The article fails under both WP:NTV and WP:NOTPROMOTION. TheRedDomitor (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is literal primetime paid programming, and seeing that it aired on a Sunday there's no doubt its ratings were incredibly low (and the performances were likely of the mimed lipsync to the album track variety). No N now or then. Also going by the 'plot' of that special I feel pain that the kids and teachers of that school had to do that all...for school supplies. Nate • (chatter) 12:55, 24 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swing (2011 film)[edit]

Swing (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable short film, tagged as such since 2013. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rogermx (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reviews, no coverage, clear GNG and NFILM fail Spiderone 14:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Wickes[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Not every early American colonist merits an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: doesn't meet notability, don't know if it can. The author appears to have left, unless Jonah161 objects, I'd like to request a copy for my userspace.   // Timothy :: talk  19:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not every colonist is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's CD-ROM[edit]

Artist's CD-ROM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, indiscriminate, not sure if the the subject even exists as a concept, most search results come up with Wikipedia mirrors, and those that are not WP mirrors mostly refer to a specific artist. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it was indeed a thing for a while, but the idea is now very dated. I don't see much in the way of sourcing in a search, and see nothing much worth merging somewhere else.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorporate into the article Artist's Book. The concept is the same as the artist's book. The use of CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMs was a very minor period in the development of artist's books but is notable for exploring the medium of hypertext art. wayland (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and broaden the depth of the article and its sourcing on this short-lived, transitional media. To my mind, in the visual arts CD-ROMs are more of a type of new media art or digital art rather than artists books (although I understand that point of view also). However they were also deployed in numerous other disciplines, such as music, (see Lewis Foreman's article in The Musical Times, which subsequently received several reviews)[18]; ethnomusicology,[url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/852766] philosophy such as Mark C. Taylor (philosopher) [19] (requires log-in); strait-up education [20],[21], [22], ; library science [23],[24]; etc. Is it a dead media? Yes, pretty much dead - it went the way of the Zip disk, LaserDisc, 8-track cartridge, U-matic - however it is historically significant dead media, which is why I think it should have its own article. Netherzone (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Ooops! Just noticed that this AfD is for Artist's CD-ROM, not CD-ROMs in general; mea culpa! I have changed my !vote to Weak Keep, as most of my argument is for CD-ROMs in general. Still think there is enough sourcing out there to justify a short article. Netherzone (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - CD-ROM would benefit from an Applications section and Artist's book would be improved with a CD-ROM section but we don't have a single citation here so I don't see that this material will not be particularly helpful for either. I could not establish notability as a stand-alone topic. ~Kvng (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it was a thing for a little bit, but since a CD-ROM is not really a medium that allows a specific form of expression, but merely a storage medium, all artist's CD-ROMs (with the possible exception of Philips' CDi are simply digital files that require a computer to be played. A number of plausible merge targets have been suggested, I think new media art could work, but I don't see a lot of content that could be merged, because the article has no citations. The pages that the article links to often don't mention CD-ROM, and the ones that do, have very scant references, with the exception of Tamblyn. Vexations (talk) 22:06, 27 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ricky Ponting's achievements and statistics[edit]

List of Ricky Ponting's achievements and statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Statscruft overload, most of the key achievements are summarised already on his BLP article. Also based on previous AfD's these articles are not supported by community consensus :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international awards of David Warner Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of International Awards received by Mashrafe Mortaza and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International awards by Sanath Jayasuriya Ajf773 (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just a pile of fan-cruft. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just stats. Not encyclopedic content. Nigej (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS; article consisting mostly of indiscriminate trivia, anything significant should already be included in the main article. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft, same as the other previous AfDs. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lugnuts. Ponting's career is covered enough in the numerous articles about him. StickyWicket (talk) 21:11, 25 September 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 03:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Flashlight[edit]

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

Relies on a single source. Article was written with promotional language. Fails notability for a company or product. Balle010 (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only is there just a single citation being used in the article, but it does not appear to be from a reliable source. Searching for any additional sources only turns up basic information on the company on databases, sales pages, and mentions in forum posts, but no actual coverage on the product or company. Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks general notability, typical of cottage industry busienss. Graywalls (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Françoise Elizée[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be much to say about the biographee. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The magazine article is basically a promotional interview, probably generated by a press release. An extensive Google search turned up nothing substantive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:55, 24 September 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. We still do not have widely accepted inclusion criteria for lists (WP:LISTN notwithstanding), and it shows here. People do not agree on the applicable inclusion criteria for these lists. Sandstein 14:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegetarians[edit]

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

While the general topic of vegetarianism is certainly notable, there is no encyclopedic value to collating a list of the people we have articles about who have made some sourceable comment somewhere, sometime indicating that they are or were a vegetarian. Virtually no one on this is list is notable for being a vegetarian. It's almost never a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (although there are undoubtedly occasional exceptions). This list further has columns for "occupation" and "country", but these have nothing to do with being a vegetarian either. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating

List of vegans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of pescetarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

for the same fundamental reasons. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to List of notable vegetarians. Speaking informally, yes, I knew that Mohandas Gandhi was a vegetarian, but Voltaire - I had no idea. I do not see any reason whatsoever why such information can not be provided as a list to readers who are interested in the subject of Vegetarianism. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking formally, one should check Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists. It tells Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. 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. That one certainly was discussed in RS in that way, there is even a book "Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today". My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LISTNAME recommends avoiding words such as "notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc." The name is concise and compliant with the MOS, and this is an AfD discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This isn't a move discussion. We also don't declare people "notable" in Wikivoice; see MOS:NOTED. It's Wikipedia jargon, and it has no business in article titles. As for the rest of your comment, this list provides no information about vegetarianism to a reader who's interested in it, other than "some people are vegetarians". None (or very very few) of these people are actually notable for being vegetarians. (Ditto the other noms). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, it does provide interesting information about vegetarianism, namely the list of famous people (aka celebrities) who followed this tradition. This is an interesting information for anyone who would like to look at the subject of vegetarianism. Same about many other subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, no, it doesn't provide any information about vegetarianism other than "some people are vegetarians". I find a lot of things interesting that don't necessarily warrant articles (lists or otherwise) on Wikipedia. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to disagree, but Mohandas Gandhi, Voltaire and other historical personalities being vegetarians or vegans are important facts that do belong to encyclopedia. Making a list is a good way to present such information. But my time is up, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, keep List of vegans. This is a significantly different subject/list related to animal rights. This is not just a selection of food, but an ethical position (and for many vegetarians as well). Would you suggest to delete a List of abolitionists? My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was an indiscriminate list of everyone who once said "slavery is bad", then yes, I would. If it's a list of people who were notable for being abolitionists, then no. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list of people who said "slavery is bad", but a list of people described in RS as abolitionists. Same with other lists. Some of them are mostly known for something else, not for being abolitionists. That does not matter. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is well sourced. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Being well-sourced isn't sufficient for keeping, and it wasn't even brought up in the nomination rationale. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it correct procedure to nominate 3 articles for deletion but direct them into 1 single afd discussion? I have not seen this done before. The afd list of vegans and pesecetarians seem to now direct here to this discussion but all are unrelated separate articles. This is a mess and may confuse readers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think the nominator should fix it. They think the subject is the same, but it is not. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one possible option; see WP:MULTIAFD. These are similar enough I felt bundling was appropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)−[reply]
Veganism and Vegetarianism are different pages and subjects, and for a good reason. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vegans used to be listed as part of the List of vegetarians article but were split out. Therefore List of vegans is technically a sub-list of the List of vegetarians. Any AfD for List of vegans needs to be considered alongside the List of vegetarians. For example, if there were a consensus to delete the List of vegans then that would essentially amount to a merge in a practical sense, if the List of vegetarians still existed. And if the list was deleted on notability grounds would this prohibit splitting the list again on the basis of size? In other words, the point I am making is that the fate of both articles really need to be determined together otherwise you could arrive at contradictory outcomes. In that sense I favor discussing all three articles together. Betty Logan (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three Each list is or can become well-sourced. However, I have constant concerns that a fly-by-night entertainer courted by PETA gets as much listing as Adam Schiff or Cory Booker. Further, I would keep for a number of reasons other than that the position is an ethical position, but that point ought to be more deeply considered by detractors. MaynardClark (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't actually said why we should keep them, and sourcing isn't really the main concern. On a side note, why should politicians get any more airtime then other entertainers? Schiff has a one-sentence "Schiff is a vegan." with no other context in his article. Even the source used just mentions it in the briefest of passing. If anything, that just goes to show how indiscriminate of a list this is. What possible difference does it make it some random athlete happened to mention they were vegetarian or vegan in an interview once? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: List of vegans was nominated in August 2019 and was judged Keep by a 13-0 consensus. What has changed in the last 12 months that would suggest there would be a consensus to delete it now? I would also suggest to the nominator that responding to every single keep vote and reply posted so far feels like WP:BLUDGEON behavior; if your argument is strong, you shouldn't have to respond six times in the first two hours of the nomination. I would suggest taking a step back, to allow other editors to look at the article and the sources, and arrive at their own decisions. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand about the bludgeoning, and I generally try to avoid it, but not every case of thorough replying is bludgeoning. In this case, there were a number of subsequent keep votes that had no substance, and I don't think it's totally unreasonable to press for more there. But still noted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ... But you do see the irony of replying to me, right? Everyone who bludgeons thinks that they're investigating votes with no substance. A person with a strong argument is confident enough to allow other people to challenge the insubstantial votes. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm responding to your criticism of my behavior (from which I was directly addressed), not your !vote. There's no irony there any more than there is when you dismiss my self-defense against bludgeoning by calling it more bludgeoning. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three:
  1. Agree with nominator that the article's lack of encyclopedic value is based on the fact that people don't attain notability for being vegetarians: If each of the members of the list isn't notable on the basis of teh subject of the list, then the entire list as one unit lacks notability.
  2. In addition, being vegetarian isn't like being, say, Black: i.e., we have, for example, a List of black Academy Award winners and nominees and we have a List of Latino Democrats because Black and Latino are attributes intrinsic to a person (they are born with them), as opposed to vegetarianism, something people can practice today but abandon tomorrow. In this sense, this List of vegetarians would be like creating a List of men married to women named Mary. Compare such useless lists to List of black Academy Award winners and nominees and List of Latino Democrats, lists that depict static, non-changing attributes.
  3. Also, List of vegetarians is non-notable. This is why we don't have a "List of meat-eaters"? Such lists are frivolous.
  4. Also, we don't need lists like these because we already use WP:Categories to fulfill the need to track people who were notable for X reason but then also happened to be vegetarians, for example, Paul McCartney and John Harvey Kellogg (both members of the Category:Vegetarianism activists) or, additional categories can be created, such as [[Category: Vegetarian singers]] and [[Category: Vegetarian doctors]], to track such vegetarian people.
  5. Having a list like List of vegetarians is somehwat akind to attributing notability to a someone solely on the basis of being a writer: a person is hardly ever notable for being a non-fiction writer - you become notable as a professor of biology who, as a by-product, also wrote a book about Biology of dead organisms, or you become notable as a historian who, as a by-product, also wrote a book about the History of the Appalachia, or you become notable as a poet who, as a byproduct, also wrote an Anthology of Byzantine poems, etc. That is, just writing a book doesn't suddenly make you notable: you must have made some significant contribution to biology, history or poetry first and become notable on that basis. This is one reason why we don't have articles like List of murdered Americans.
  6. An additional basis for deletion is WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "To provide encyclopedic value...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
  7. At best, if kept, the list should include only those people who are notable primarily for being vegetarians, like Herbert M. Shelton, Lewis Gompertz, and Claire Loewenfeld, as opposed to being notable in some other field but also happened to be vegetarian. But, frankly, the distinguishing lines here can be so subjective as to making even such limited list, potentially, an exercise in futility.
Mercy11 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just a few comments.
  1. The criteria for inclusion to lists and categories are always happened to be. A protein can be included to the list of proteases just because it happened to be a protease, not because it is a notable protease. You say: "people don't attain notability for being vegetarians". Yes, sure, most of them did not, but the inclusion to a list does not require anyone to be notable specifically as a member of a list. This is because an item can belong to several different lists or categories. For example, a protein can be a protease and a membrane protein. Is it notable for being a protease or a membrane protein? No, it was simply described as such in RS. Is it "important" or "characteristic" for a protein to be a protease or a membrane protein? Yes, simply because it was described as such in multiple RS. Same about people. Is it "important" or "characteristic" for a person that he/she was a vegan? Yes if he/she was described as such in multiple RS and was self-identify as such. Same would apply to Latino, etc.
  2. One should also check Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists. It tells "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. 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. That one certainly was discusseed in RS in that way, there is even a book "Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today".
  3. "Black and Latino are attributes intrinsic to a person (they are born with them)". I always thought that "More generally, these demographics include all Americans who identify as Hispanic and/or Latino (regardless of ancestry)" - as our page Hispanic and Latino Americans tells. So, this is not an attribute "intrinsic to a person".
  4. "List of Latino Democrats, lists that depict static, non-changing attributes." What?? Consider a Democrat who becomes later a Republican (or vice versa), a member of Green Party, whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That you MVBW -- good eye! Although my focus was on the intrinsic nature of one's race/ethnicy, and not non-intrinsic nature of one's political party affiliation, my argument is most brilliantly made with my additional illustration above of List of black Academy Award winners and nominees. I am hopeful you did understand that was my point. Thanks for teh observation. Mercy11 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[following comment by Historyday01 moved from insertion in the middle of Mercy11's comment above, in response to "3. Also, List of vegetarians is non-notable..." -Ed.]
I disagree with this assessment. How is being a vegetarian not notable in and of itself? Most of people, especially in Western societies, are meat-eaters, with vegetarians in the minority. Just look at a recent survey by the Vegetarian Resource Group, which commissions surveys on the topic every year. While over half of the U.S. population "always or sometimes eats vegetarian (including vegan) meals when eating out," only 6% call themselves vegetarian, half of whom call themselves vegan. I support limiting the list, but I think it should still exist, as it is still a notable characteristic compared to the general population. In some countries, yes, there are many vegetarians, but are nowhere close to the majority. A push for vegetariansm and veganism has become akin to a social movement. As Mandy Meyer of WTVOX put it, "the number of vegans in the world is on the rise. We see significant pro-veganism movements in Western countries, Eastern Europe, Australia and Israel. Moreover, as cultures and landscapes change for the better, veganism has started to gain momentum in Latin America, Asia, and Africa as well." Additionally, many vegans and vegetarians return to meat-eating, making the number of people who stay vegan and vegetarian smaller as well. These are both reasons that this topic is notable. Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keeping this was always an error, and one I find hard to understand. It's not characteristic or important that someone was a vegetarian. It can be and often is charactertic and important and well worth a list that somebody is a vegetarian advocate. The list fails to distinguish. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this rationale. Keeping this list is important. If you wish to limit the list by specific criteria, that is a discussion which should be limited to the talk page of the article, rather than in an AFD.Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the other people who want to delete this, such rationale is illogical. A list of meat-eaters would be just as absurd as a list of straight people. Yes, vegetarianism and animal rights are different, and there is already a List of animal rights advocates page. Vegetarians are notable because no matter how you slice it, there is no country where vegetarians are the majority. Not even India, where 98% of the population eats meat. All the stats are noted on the Vegetarianism by country page, proving my point. Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That logic, like the others who want to delete this article, makes little sense. I see no issue with people saying in interviews that they are vegetarian. Would you rather cite tweets or instagram posts instead? Interviews are fine secondary sources. Unlike a list of people who bicycle to work, vegetarians are notable in and of themselves due to the fact they are clearly not the majority in any society of any of the countries on Earth. Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listing people by diet is not a good idea in my opinion. For example, there are entire cultures where vegetarinism is the standard.★Trekker (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vegetarianism is more than just a diet. As it states on the Vegetarianism page, "...many people object to eating meat out of respect for sentient life. Such ethical motivations have been codified under various religious beliefs, as well as animal rights advocacy. Other motivations for vegetarianism are health-related, political, environmental, cultural, aesthetic, economic, or personal preference." That alone shows it is more than just a diet and just flipping off a light switch. Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nom incorrectly cites a guideline standard WP:DEFINING that only applies to categories; it does not apply to lists. Nor is there a requirement that someone be notable “for” something in order for it to be listed. postdlf (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY: whenever I see lists like this I find that these notable people should best be mentioned in a history article, like history of vegetarianism in this case, with context on their impact in the field. If they are WP:UNDUE there it may be for their biography. If it's not due there either there's nothing encyclopedic to write about. Moreover, we have categories for this, like Category:Vegetarianism activists... —PaleoNeonate – 14:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, but I still feel that the list has value. If you'd like to limit the page, then discuss that on the talk page rather than on this AFD. The talk page seems like the proper place.Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Mercy11's arguments. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The topic of vegetarianism is a minority position and therefore it is prone to WP:WPDISCR by editors who do not adhere to requirement of NPOV. The repeated nomination of these pages shows discrimination and bias against these topical lists of people by minority dietary and ethical stance taken. All these lists should be kept as useful encyclopedic tools and not deleted. BrikDuk (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're an active member of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism and you accuse others of not adhering to NPOV? Like, really? - The9Man (Talk) 19:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The9Man: What exactly are you saying here? Could you spell it out? Why are you objecting to another user's involvement in a WikiProject? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: I have no idea how you end up with the interpretation that I am opposing their involvement in a Wikiproject! I was just pointing out why they are accusing others of not adhering to NPOV while they favor a point of view as well. - The9Man (Talk) 09:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The9Man: I'm afraid I'm still not following. There is no requirement that any member of WikiProject Vegetarianism and Veganism favour any particular point of view -- members don't have to be vegans/vegetarians, for instance, just as members of (say) WikiProject Socialism don't need to be socialists. (There may be a certain amount of self-selection; no doubt, similarly, there are lots of feminists in WikiProject Feminism.) BrikDuk raised concerns that editors are not adhering to the NPOV guidelines, and you objected to the suggestion, seemingly on the grounds that BrikDuk is a member of the WikiProject. But now you tell me that you have no idea how I felt you were objecting to their membership in the WikiProject. I ask again: what exactly are you saying here? I'm afraid I am lost. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: BrikDuk accused that others are not adhering NPOV and I asked him why they assume that while they also 'seem' to not doing the same. I extend my apologies to @BrikDuk: for 'assuming' that if they feel offended. 'Objected' is the wrong use of wording altogether, I didn't object to do anything.
If you are still not following me? That's absolutely fine. Since this is not constructively helping this AfD in any way, I won't be responding this to any further unless if BrikDuk have something to say. Let's use our time better for the project. - The9Man (Talk) 06:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not seeing why you think that BrikDuk does not "seem" to be adhering to NPOV -- the only "evidence" you have provided, as far as I can see, is that they are a member of a WikiProject, which is not really evidence at all. You suggest that this conversation is not helping the AfD. Maybe that's true, but I'm not going to apologise for asking for you to explain on what basis you are accusing others of (seeming) misconduct. (If objecting was the wrong word, so be it.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of meat-eaters literally isn't a page, so this argument doesn't hold water.Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, my point sailed right over your head. The argument holds water precisely because there "literally" isn't a page. jps (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, this argument does not hold water. This is just a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT for you.Historyday01 (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe that List of vegetarians and List of pescetarians should be grouped with List of vegans here, since the first two are primarily a dietary position while the other is an ethical/moral stance, and thus the two discussions should be separate. I don't think the same arguments work for both. Osario (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, certainly. They have been discussed separately at the previous AfDs, with nearly all participants voting "keep" for the list of vegans. The results of previous AfDs for the list of vegetarians were less convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an indiscriminate list of people by diet choices when diet choices can change a lot. The reasons for various diet choices are complex, and there is no reason to treat people making these diet choices as unified groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the list can be limited, but not having a page for vegetarians seems wrong. If there can be a List of animal rights advocates, a List of people influenced by Ayn Rand, a List of anarchist musicians, a List of fictional anarchists, and many other Lists of people by ideology, then why not have lists for vegans, pescatarians, and vegetarians.Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The dominant mainstream culture shows bias and discrimination against vegetarians, a minority group, and one common such way is by treating vegetarianism and veganism as purely a choice about diet and food when that is false. Vegetarianism is both an ideology and a movement and therefore as such is much distinguished from Weight Watchers, Atkins, gluten-free diets. Because of vegetarianism's ethical, religious, and social movement components it has articles not just for vegetarian cuisine but also too articles for vegetarianism, environmental vegetarianism, and vegetarianism and religion. Vegetarianism is not merely a dietary choice. All vegetarians are joined by shared beliefs that many not every time be the same but as such distinguish them as a definable group and movement. BrikDuk (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really?? Vegetarians have extremely diverse motives: health, animal rights, environment, religion, or some combination of two or more of these. To say that they have "shared beliefs that...distinguish them as a definable group" makes no sense. What "shared beliefs" are there between a Jain and an overweight American celebrity who's heard that a vegetarian diet is a great way to lose weight? NightHeron (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Personally I am not a vegetarian, but this is certainly not just a diet, but an ideology and a movement (especially vegans) related to refusal to killing animals. This is an argument to keep the list. My very best wishes (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not encyclopedic? Please see Encyclopedia Britannica, the Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism or the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. These lists clearly pass WP:LISTN and that's what matters here, not some irrelevant ideas about categories. See also WP:CLN, which explains how categories are inferior to lists and WP:DELAFD which explains that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. I also want to draw attention to Osario's comment. There's potentially a lot of scope for separating veganism from pescatarianism in that veganism is often seen as something a lot more central to someone's identity. It's certainly not just (to quote someone above) "a diet choice". (I can provide some references if needed.) Even if there is good reason to delete the list of pescetarians (and I'm not saying that there is), that need not mean that there is good reason to delete the list of vegans. I'm concerned about the fact that these articles have been bundled together. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Mercy11. The Britannica article is a list of the 8 most famous vegetarians; I could see us having something like that as a category, or perhaps a section in an article about vegetarianism or the history of vegetarianism (undoubtedly there are some people for whom being a vegetarian was/is a defining characteristic), but this is basically a WP:NOT violation as explained by others above. (Same rationale for the other two.) Lev!vich 21:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are more than eight vegetarians who should be listed. I understand and agree with limiting the list, but that should be discussed on the talk page of the article, not in an AFD.Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list of vegans and list of vegetarians. Three reasons, following WP:LISTN/WP:SAL: First, there's plenty of coverage of lists of notable vegetarians/vegans as a group. Second, there are many people on each list who are indeed notable for their vegetarianism/veganism in the sense that there are multiple sources which talk about it beyond mentioning it off-hand. Third, it could be a reasonable navigational list. None of this is to say the lists should remain as-is, but refining inclusion criteria or rethinking organization (or even pruning and merging if it wouldn't be unwieldy) can be handled on the talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list of vegans and list of vegetarians. The rationale in the deletion proposal, and most of the arguments for deletion, have nothing to do with the accepted reasons for deletion in Wikipedia's deletion policy. An exception is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which does merit some consideration. Are these people "loosely associated"? I think the answer comes from many of the same sources that support WP:LISTN (see the footnotes I have added to the top of List of vegetarians). These sources identify various vegetarians and vegans and talk about the significance to them - why they adopted it, how it has affected their lives. That is what should be included, not the irrelevant information that Deacon Vorbis rightly objects to. But that's a matter for the talk page. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (all) per BLP and WWIN. These are a "dietary choices" that have been sourced from a single point in time. However, diets and lifestyles are susceptible to being changed at any point during a life (without getting media coverage to notify the world). Since WP:BLP requires we use the highest grade of reliable sources and not write something wrong about people, then these lists present a unique maintenance challenge for ensuring that the information is correct at all times. Hint: No one is checking each entry on a regular basis to ensure that the information is still correct, and it's highly unlikely you could even find out that someone was no longer being a vegetarian (or vegan or pescatarian) because that is not news.
The lists also don't have much value even as trivia. If there were a few select people who were unbelievably veggers, such as current athletes (because ordinary people such as myself find it unbelievable that real athletes wouldn't eat meat), then they could be presented in, say, the vegan article. But no one cares if an actor or musician or other ordinary folk is a vegger. Per What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, we are cautioned against inclusion of trivia or content that has no context.
These lists have no cohesion to the collection; these people are as diverse a group as you can probably get. The lists are, in my opinion, simply a lengthy collection of names for the purpose of veg advocacy. These people aren't notable for their dietary choice. There are a few people who are well-known for being vegans, but most of the people on these lists are obscurely-veggers. I made the same argument at AfD for List of veterinarians which contained a huge list of people with veterinarian training that weren't known for that part of their life. Lax, indiscriminate inclusion criteria devalue a list, making it less useful and less interesting. Since its inception, these vegger lists have indiscriminately included all persons who ever once mentioned they had that dietary choice, with no evaluations on whether someone is notable for, known for, such. This violates WP:LISTN or is simply just weak/indiscriminate selection criteria... which leads back to WWIN (a collection of trivia). And what someone eats IS trivia for the majority of the persons on these lists. At least an early version of the vegetarian list (2004) was more interesting, mentioning a bit about each person or quotes of what they wrote, but within six months had lost most of its interesting bits.
I vote to delete, predominantly because good BLP practices cannot be maintained for these lists. Selection criteria is a fixable problem; the BLP is not.
— Normal Op (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream news media often and with regular frequency report on notable people who are no longer vegetarians. It is one of the ways dominant culture will use to try and best downplay significance of vegetarian movement and try to prove by that it is a diet and not a longstanding social movement of today and to ancient history. Members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism actively watch articles that include information regarding that a subject is vegetarian. This information in articles is modified or removed if reported in reliable news sources of that person no longer being part of vegetarian social movement. BrikDuk (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrikDuk: Notable (currently) to news media and notable (once ever) to Wikipedia are two entirely different uses of the word "notable". A once-notable person, who was granted an article in WP based on that old criteria, may no longer be of interest to news media. I doubt seriously that news media cares about 90% of the people on these lists and they wouldn't bother to report if any of them "started eating meat". Let's use a little common sense here; this list cannot be maintained to any standards required by BLP. And you using such language as "downplay significance of vegetarian movement" cements my viewpoint that this list is the cruft of advocacy editors. Normal Op (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion would be better served if arguments focused on notability and the inclusion criteria. Poor sourcing is not a justification for deletion: it can be fixed through more rigorous enforcement, so it's a non-issue. Likewise, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and therefore not expected to deliver up-to-the-minute developments. I suppose if somebody's status as a vegetarian/vegan is notable then it is still notable if they cease to be one. If Paul McCartney decided to tuck into a Big Mac I would argue that his vegetarianism is still notable since it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources. On the other hand, I think you can reasonably question the value of including somebody like James Franco on the list. The lists may amount to trivia but considering that Hitler makes an appearance I really don't think vegetarian advocacy is an accusation that holds water. Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Betty Logan: Don't re-frame my post as a "poor sourcing" issue. My point was that you cannot keep up with it, not simply that no one is maintaining the list often enough. Arguing NOTNEWS as your excuse for poor reporting or late corrections to content is irresponsible and violates BLP. I don't mean to say that vegetarianism is advocacy, I mean that the creation of this list is part of veg advocacy amongst Wikipedia editors. And I stand by my viewpoint that someone's dietary choice IS trivia; only advocates who wish to present veg diets as common and mainstream rather than an alternative see such a veg label as non-trivial. One common element I've found amongst all "ethical veggers" is that they believe everyone else should be, too, and refuse to see that it is NOT a choice of the majority. The veg movements may have expanded beyond FRINGE, but they are still a minority. Realize that and you can see that this list IS trivia and its presence in WP IS advocacy; both adequate reasons to delete these lists. Normal Op (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS is not an excuse, it is a guideline. It is not Wikipedia's mandate to record the latest developments because it is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Notability is supposed to be enduring so it is irrelevant if someone if someone has stopped being vegetarian. Per my example, if Paul McCartney stops being vegetarian his vegetarianism is still notable. And as for not being able to "keep up" with the sourcing, that is clearly not accurate: all the entries are sourced. If they are not properly sourced that has no bearing on notability. I am actually trying to help you strengthen your arguments here: when this discussion is closed the closer will assess the discussion purely on grounds of notability and whether the list is indiscriminate, not on whatever sourcing issues you think it may have. Betty Logan (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is a vegger, and why are you contrasting "veggers" to "ordinary people"? It's perhaps no wonder that people are raising concerns about these articls not being given a fair hearing. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn: Vegger is merely a word I coined to save me from having to type "vegetarian, vegan and/or pescetarian". Normal Op (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you should avoid "coining" words to refer to members of minority groups. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Especially when you insist on contrasting members of the group(s) in question to "ordinary people". Interesting that you chose to ignore that question. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite a stretch to claim that an entire list of people, many of whom are dead, violates WP:BLP - especially since every entry has at least one source. If a source is problematic and there is reason to think that the associated entry will be challenged, a better source can be requested or the entry can be removed. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RockMagnetist: Re-read my comments, which include the FACT that maintenance of the list in terms of removing still-alive people from the list is impossible, therefore it can, and always will, violate BLP guidelines. I'm not saying putting someone on the list in the first place (with citation) is a violation of BLP, what I'm saying is that this list cannot be effectively maintained, and that that violates BLP. It's a shortcoming of this list that cannot be solved (except for the dead people, who won't be changing their dietary choices). Normal Op (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason these articles were submitted for deletion was because of another afd discussion on Transcendental Meditation. Transcendental Meditation is a crackpot topic. You can see the comments on that afd on 23 September 2020 where several users then compared that article to this one. The mistake here is to confuse veganism/vegetarianism or pescetarianism with "fringe" or crackpot ideas. I noticed a few users who voted delete are regulars on the Fringe theories noticeboard. About 50 ago you could argue that vegetarian, pescetarian or vegan diets were "fringe", but that is no longer the case. In the last 20 years mainstream health agencies, charities, organizations and healthcare systems, for example British Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, British Heart Foundation, American Institute for Cancer Research, NHS, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, National Academy of Medicine etc have all pretty much recommended a semi-vegetarian diet to the public. Each one of these agencies or organizations has published articles on their websites telling people to avoid eating red or processed meats because they increase the risk of heart disease and cause bowel cancer. Indeed you can see posters like this [25] on the American Institute for Cancer Research website and articles on the NHS website [26], these sort of facts are what pescetarians, vegetarians and vegans have been claiming for years. So yes the research has now gone mainstream and is supported by robust scientific evidence. Even the Cancer Council website of Australia advices people to eliminate processed red meats from their diet and instead "Try a vegie pattie burger, vegetable lasagne, tofu stir fry or a falafel wrap" [27]. The scientific consensus has shifted to a semi-vegetarian diet and is heading towards a plant-based diet. Consumption of poultry has been linked to increased risk of heart disease [28]. The consensus in the next 10-20 years will be to eliminate all or nearly all red and white meat from the diet. The EAT Lancet is currently investigating this sort of thing. Certain users are thus mistaken to conflate vegetarianism/veganism/pescetarianism with "fringe" ideas. These ideas are now "ordinary" in diet, nutrition and medical research. I do indeed believe there is a bias to want to have these lists removed because of the false association with crackpottery (for example, the list of vegetarians is now on its 4th deletion nomination). Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No. This was brought to my attention by way of another AfD as an analogy (where I notified in a reply to the person who did so; maybe I should have indicated that in my nomination statement, but hopefully it was normal enough), which was itself brought to my attention from a discussion at FTN. No one has claimed that this is a fringe topic in any way, shape, or form. None of your long post extolling the benefits of a vegetarian diet has anything to do with why I claimed this list should be deleted. I make absolutely no claim that there's anything fringe about this (nor do I even think so), or about any of the pros or cons of vegetarianism itself. This is only about the indiscriminate nature of this as a Wikipedia list article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologist Guy: Correct, the veg-isms are no longer FRINGE, but they ARE in the minority and are NOT mainstream. My crystal ball is broken, but yet you declare "The scientific consensus has shifted to a semi-vegetarian diet and is heading towards a plant-based diet" and "The consensus in the next 10-20 years will be to eliminate all or nearly all red and white meat from the diet." What you have described are semis... neither vegetarianism nor veganism. Semi isn't it. Doctors et al have been advocating "eat less red meat" for a very long time; still not vegetarianism or veganism. Normal Op (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normal Op has repeated a rather absurd interpretation of BLP above that would actually prevent us from having any content about living people, the honestly ridiculous claim that our articles must continually keep pace with what is factually true even if not reported: “No one is checking each entry on a regular basis to ensure that the information is still correct, and it's highly unlikely you could even find out that someone was no longer being a vegetarian...” We satisfy BLP by providing reliable sources for claims made about living people. If something has factually changed since that RS was published, we would only know about it and would only be able to update the article with that change if a subsequent RS supported it. If no RS reports it, BLP remains satisfied so long as our article is supported by what has last been reported. That’s true regardless of the nature of the claim. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Postdlf: Re-read my coments and responses above, which include the FACT that maintenance of the list in terms of removing still-alive people from the list is impossible, therefore it can, and always will, violate BLP guidelines. I'm not saying putting someone on the list in the first place (with citation) is a violation of BLP, what I'm saying is that this list cannot be effectively maintained, and that that violates BLP. It's a shortcoming of this list that cannot be solved (except for the dead people, who won't be changing their dietary choices). Combine that with the fact that someone's dietary choice is TRIVIA (unless they are a known advocate for vegging), and you have a list built upon ADVOCACY that is prone to BLP violations. Normal Op (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understood you, and your interpretation is not valid. There is no “duty of continuous investigation” in BLP to keep ensuring that some circumstance cited to an RS has not changed since it was published. Ironically the only other time I’ve seen anyone make that claim was to say we shouldn’t continue to describe anyone as “living” unless we continue to have new sources asserting that. Unworkable and absurd from either angle. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Normal Op, if someone's dietary choice is trivia, why are you so worried about someone being temporarily mis-labeled as a vegetarian or vegan? As the policy says, there are hundreds of thousands of articles of articles on living persons, and "it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles". What it doesn't say is that we can't possibly keep all these articles up to date, so we shouldn't have them. Anyway, there is nothing defamatory about calling someone a vegan, especially if they actually were at some point in their lives. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable but indiscriminate I certainly think we should endeavor to hold biographical information to the same standard across the board, regardless of how harmless the claim is. What I am troubled by is this issue of keeping things "up to date". For me this goes to the heart of the problem with these lists: they are clearly notable but they are indiscriminate. The problem is caused by treating vegetarianism as a status rather than a characteristic of somebody's notability. For example, Hitler's vegetarianism has been extensively discussed, but would we scrub him from the list if it were confirmed he ate liver dumplings for his last supper? Paul McCartney's vegetarianism has extended into activisim and business interests; if he gave it up tomorrow would his vegetarianism cease to be notable? On the other hand I can't see why it matters for somebody like James Franco, who simply is vegetarian but it doesn't characterise his notability in any way. If he ceased to be vegetarian there would be no point in mentioning it all. In other words I would expect a featured article to cover the vegetariansm of Hitler and McCartney but not Franco, and whether they are or not currently vegetarian is besides the point. I think it is this kind of perspective that these lists should offer. At the moment they do act as a kind of "super category". I think it is the indiscriminate nature of the lists—rather than their notability—that is the root of the problem. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Betty Logan. I agree that someone should be known for their vegetarianism to qualify for entry on such a list; not simply a list of everyone who ever mentioned it once. The weak/inclusive inclusion criteria makes for a list of trivia; the well-defined strict criteria would make such a list interesting. Normal Op (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There may indeed be grounds for improving the inclusion criteria, but that's an issue to discuss on the article talk page, not an AfD. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would help to resolve the AfD if it came to a consensus about what the actual problem is though. Solutions usually become obvious once the actual problem is nailed down. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: On Talk:List of vegetarians, I have proposed that the table format be disbanded and information on each entry emphasize the significance of vegetarianism for that person instead of forcing contributors to give the occupation and country. I don't have any great ideas for a better selection criterion. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea posed by @RockMagnetist is a good one. I fully support limiting the list, but deleting it as the OP proposes would be a bad idea. I do not understand why this AFD was necessary. If the OP had issues with the page, why didn't they discuss it on the talk page? Historyday01 (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think its worth adding more sources to this page and that should be worked on, but I would say that it is notable enough to keep. I similarly think that the List of pescetarians should be kept as well for similar reasons.Historyday01 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, a valuable list resource with long-time reader usage and interest, and per discussion. I'm surprised that Wikipedia doesn't have a policy or guideline that once a page passes three deletion attempts that it is "safe" from further deletion discussion. Fourth attempt? Forgetaboutit. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have a policy. It states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, although that wording doesn't put a cap on what number "repeatedly" works out to, and doesn't say it can't be done. Three seems a good limit as an unwritten rule that really should be written. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the second AfD ended in deletion. So how would that be counted? Better to stick to arguments about notability and what is encyclopedic. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of attempts was more or less an aside, my reasons for keeping the page are as stated and an analysis of the overall discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an essay not a policy or guideline. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: These lists do have encyclopedic value. Specifically to people who are interested in the topics of vegetarianism, veganism and animal rights. One does not need to be notable, for being vegetarian, in order for the knowledge that a person is or was to have value. Leonardo da Vinci certinly isn't notable because he was a vegetarian. However, the fact that he was one certinly does have encyclopedic value. The idea that these list have no encyclopedic value is baseless and unsubstantiated. Zippy268 (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: all three. per nom and Mercy11.   // Timothy :: talk  16:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all This is something notable about them, sources cover it, it a perfectly valid navigational list. Dream Focus 16:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list of vegans and list of vegetarians, agnostic on list of pescatarians. While not many people are notable or prominent due to their vegetarian or vegan diet, vegetarian and vegan diets are a sufficiently important topic and often an important part of the life stories of those individuals. This isn't always the case, such as someone who just went vegetarian based on a doctor's advice in their 60s for heart disease risk, but it is enough the case for so many people that the list is warranted. I think the list of pescatarians is a less obvious decision. There is no prominent pescatarian social movement. Not many notable people see it as important for their identity. I could go either way. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization and per nomination. Hekerui (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the "cross-categorization"? That is always taken to mean the intersection of two separate facts ("vegetarians who went to Harvard"), but here the list just classifies one. postdlf (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not seem to apply to this topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This good faith nomination should be withdrawn because it is heavily based on Wikipedia:Defining which itself is solely about categories. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Rebuttal to comments above:
  • “nomination should be withdrawn because it is heavily based on Wikipedia:Defining which itself is solely about categories.”
Comment: The nomination is supported by a mix of WP:PG. Following are some of the PG's this list violates: WP:IINFO, WP:OR, and WP:LISTCRIT, yet the word “category” isn’t mentioned even once in any of them. It also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY because it is a “List …of loosely associated topics”. Most notably, ”there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.” These people are neither associated with vegetarianism nor contributed to the topic of vegetarianism. Their only "association" is that they are vegetarians themselves, just like a List of Little League patrons. The people in this list are associated with whatever occupation, under the “Occupation” column made notable, and not with vegetarianism or any of the others. Otherwise we could have a List of Levy jean wearers as well.
  • “it does provide interesting information about vegetarianism, namely the list of famous people (aka celebrities) who followed this tradition.”
Comment: In this case, how about creating a List of celebrities who were meat-eaters, that is, a list of famous people who followed the meat-eating tradition?
Comment: Yes, that one should be deleted also. There is, in particular, no reason for that list to include people who, like Maria Grazia Giammarinaro, were born after slavery had already been abolished worldwide, since "slavery" has a very specify meaning in people's mind.
  • “Is it correct procedure to nominate 3 articles for deletion but direct them into 1 single afd discussion?”
Comment: Yes, because all 3 lists fall under WP:IINFO, and that’s reason enough to group them. If there was also a List of people who bicycle to work plus a List of men who married women named Mary, then all 5 can be grouped in the same AFD because all 5 fall under the same WP:IINFO.
  • “A protein can be included to the list of proteases just because it happened to be a protease, not because it is a notable protease.“
Comment: The "Fallacy of composition” – ”Because a protein can be added to the list of proteases just because it happened to be a protease, and not because it is a notable protease, then people can be added to the List of vegetarians just because they happened to be vegetarians, not because they are notable vegetarians,” which would make most people on the list red-linked.
  • “there is even a book ‘Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today’.”
Comment: The “Proof by example” fallacy – ”If there were no books written about vegetarians, it would be a non-notable list, but since there is 1 book written, then it must be notable.”
  • “How is being a vegetarian not notable in and of itself? Most of people, especially in Western societies, are meat-eaters, with vegetarians in the minority... it is still a notable characteristic compared to the general population.”
Comment: In this case, why not also create a separate, stand-alone List of former vegetarians? That would a be a list of notable people who became vegetarians, but then left the practice to become meat-eaters again. After all, such list would, also, be in the minority of the minority and, following that logic, such micro-minority ought to be even more notable yet in and of itself.
  • “These are both reasons that this topic is notable.”
Comment: These are both reasons that the topic on vegetarianism is notable, and the reason why no one has put an AFD on Vegetarianism. This AFD here is on List of vegetarians, not on the very valid topic of Vegetarianism.
  • “[there IS a no] requirement that someone be notable “for” something in order for it to be listed.”
Comment: No? Please see WP:N, which determines outright whether or not an article on individual x can or cannot exist. Or, forgive me, perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps what was said meant that anyone can add their names to the list, simply because they are vegetarians (redlinked), as opposed to already being notable for something unrelated to vegetarianism (bluelinked). In this case that implication/suggestion would appear to be that it’s OK for the list to grow into the, perhaps, millions of names (most of which will be redlinked).
  • “The repeated nomination of these pages shows discrimination and bias against these topical lists of people by minority dietary and ethical stance taken.”
Comment: The “Affirming the consequent” fallacy – ”Because it has been repeatedly nominated, then its nominators must be biased” (much like, “If the room is dark, then the lamp must be broken,” without considering that a dark room could instead be the result of the lamp not being plugged in, etc.)
  • ”Yes, certainly [they should be discussed separately]. They have been discussed separately at the previous AfDs, with nearly all participants voting "keep" for the list of vegans.
Comment: The "Historian's fallacy" – ”Because they were discussed separately before, then it’s only right for them to be discussed separately now.”
Comment: The "Faulty generalization" fallacy – ”Because all of those other exist, then this one must exist also.” Or, in plain English, we don’t have a List of fish rights advocates, List of people influenced by Jesus Christ, or List of anarchist engineers, either.
  • “this is certainly not just a diet, but an ideology and a movement”
Comment: Vegetarianism may be an ideology and a movement, but this AFD isn’t proposing to delete the articles on Vegetarianism, Veganism, and Pescetarianism. This AFD is proposing deletion of List of vegetarians, List of vegans, and List of pescetarians.
Comment: No, they don’t pass WP:LISTN because, with the exception of Encyclopedia Britannica, the rest are books about Vegetarianism -- not books about vegetarians. This AFD is about a List of vegetarians (and the other 2 lists in question). In case of the Britannica exception, the Britannica list is a list of 8 people not the 700+ people currently in the list being AFD’ed.
  • ”[And see also] WP:DELAFD which explains that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.”
Comment: No, WP:DELAFD doesn’t say just that, and the statement above was cherry-picked. What WP:DELAFD says is, “After a deletion debate concludes and there is no consensus or the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page….It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.” That’s what it says. As follow-up, some digging in shows that List of vegetarians was last AFD’ed on 2 April 2008, or, over 12 years ago. List of vegans was last AFD’ed on 31 August 2019, or, over a year ago, and List of pescetarians has never been AFD’ed before. The “reasonable amount of time to pass” requirement has been met in all three cases.
  • ”Even if there is good reason to delete the list of pescetarians (and I'm not saying that there is), that need not mean that there is good reason to delete the list of vegans.”
Comment: There is a good reason to delete all 3 because all three (1) lack encyclopedic value: there is nothing notable about a person being a vegetarian, (2) are trivial: there is nothing particularly notable about them as a group, other than they chose that lifestyle, (3) fail WP:N (think why we don't have a List of meat-eaters), (4) are lists that would serve a purpose if they were List of Vegetarianism activists, List of Veganism activists, and List of Pescetarianism activists, but not as a simple list of vegetarians; the list is useless other than as WP:PROMO advocacy, (5) there is no notability on being a vegetarian by itself, anymore than there is in being a biker-to-work life-style adopter, (6) the list falls under WP:IINFO, and (7) the list fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING because it has grown to just a list of people who are notable for something else, who also just happen to be vegetarians.
  • “it could be a reasonable navigational list.”
Comment: The "Appeal to probability" fallacy – ”Because it may be needed by someone at some point in the future, it should be kept.”
  • “An exception [to the claim that “The rationale in the deletion proposal, and most of the arguments for deletion, have nothing to do with the accepted reasons for deletion in Wikipedia's deletion policy”, would be] WP:NOTDIRECTORY…”
Comment: WP:NOTDIRECTORY sure is a valid criteria for deletion of a list, and does apply here because this loosely associated list of notable people have no other tie than they happened to pick the same life-style, religious-practice, etc. This is why we don't a have a list of notable people who are also boaters, List of boaters.
  • “The mainstream news media often and with regular frequency report on notable people who are no longer vegetarians. It is one of the ways dominant culture will use to try and best downplay significance of vegetarian movement…”
Comment: The "False dilemma" fallacy – “Because you are damned if you do [include a “list of former vegetarians”], and you are damned if you don’t [include it]”: if it’s not included, then those proposing the list be deleted are also labeled as being anti-vegetarian movement people for not reporting on those who abandoned the practice. So the mainstream media is to be blamed (just like those proposing the list be deleted) if they report (700+ times) on people who are vegetarians and it is also to be blamed if they report on people who are no longer vegetarians (aka, "have the cake and eat it too").
  • “The lists may amount to trivia but considering that Hitler makes an appearance I really don't think vegetarian advocacy is an accusation that holds water.”
Comment: The "Inappropriate generalization" fallacy – ”Because if someone as detestable as Hitler is included, then the lists couldn’t possibly be the work of vegetarian advocacy group.”
  • “The mistake here is to confuse veganism/vegetarianism or pescetarianism with "fringe" or crackpot ideas.”
Comment: This isn’t an assault on Veganism, Vegetarianism or Pescetarianism; this is an assault on List of vegetarians, List of vegans or List of pescetarians.
  • “There may indeed be grounds for improving the inclusion criteria, but that's an issue to discuss on the article talk page, not an AfD.”
Comment: No, this is not an issue for a Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS because a major tenet of the Encyclopedia is being violated: namely, WP:LISTCRITERIA, prompts editors to ask:
  • “Would I expect to see this person on a list of [Vegetarians]?”
  • “Is this person a canonical example of some facet of [Vegetarianism]?”
Since these people wouldn’t be expected to be found in other publications for their Vegetarianism, but for their contributions under the “Occupation” column of the table, the guideline at WP:STANDALONE isn’t being followed. Likewise, since these people are not canonical examples of some facet of Vegetarianism, they don’t belong together in this list. In the sense that these individuals were grouped together into a list, without any other RS grouping them together into a list, the list is, in addition, a violation of WP:OR.
  • “a valuable list resource with long-time reader usage and interest.. I'm surprised that Wikipedia doesn't have a policy or guideline that once a page passes three deletion attempts that it is "safe" from further deletion discussion.”
Comment: “Valuable resource” isn’t an WP:inclusion criteria. Notability is. And, yes, there is a guideline regarding number of deletion attempts, it’s called WP:Consensus can change. Since WP:CCC, the number of deletion attempts is unlimited.
  • ”These lists do have encyclopedic value. Specifically, to people who are interested in the topics of vegetarianism, veganism and animal rights.”
Comment: Again, this AFD isn’t about vegetarianism, veganism and animal rights, but about people who follow that practice. This list is tantamount to a List of Trump supporters, List of Satan worshippers, etc.
  • “This is something notable about them”
Comment: Sure, being a vegetarians is something notable about them; that’s why their vegetarianism is discussed in their own articles. However, there is absolutely nothing to tie them as a group and thus nothing to bring them together into a list. This is why it’s called an indiscriminate list. Mercy11 (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bazinga! All your points are spot on! Most pertinent one, in my opinion: "as opposed to already being notable for something unrelated to vegetarianism (bluelinked)". Right, the people on these lists aren't notable for being vegetarians; they're notable for something else and their vegetarianism is trivia. If the list were only comprised of people who were notable for their vegetarianism, then that might be interesting to read. Normal Op (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do believe that's the first time I've ever seen a thorough bludgeoning done in a single edit. Lost me at affirming that the same principles you're arguing would also support deletion (not editing, not splitting, not tightening the criteria for) of list of abolitionists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not only are most there people not at all notable for their at times short-lived dietary choices, some of them either stopped embracing these diatary choices before they became notable, or only embraced them long after they faded from the public eye.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure that what you're saying is correct. I've not, as far as I can recall, edited the vegetarian/pescetarian lists. But the vegan list doesn't list just anyone who was at one time vegan, but (in the case of living people) people who are currently vegan. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are my 24 responses to Mercy11, reformatted:
  • response to comment #1: Any issues with this page should be discussed on the talk page, not here.
  • response to comment #2: That would be an indiscriminate list which would violate Wikipedia's rules. This list does not.
  • response to comment #3: That list is just as notable as this list. Again, if the list should be limited, it should be discussed on the talk page. Why do people think AFDs can solve problems which can be solved with a discussion on the talk page?
  • response to comment #4: Again more false arguments, which all boil down to you not liking this page and the ones also connected to this faulty nomination.
  • response to comment #5: The point they are trying to say is that this topic is notable and they are right. Proof by example is not a Wikipedia rule and is a badly sourced article, so it does not apply here, with the talk page of that article questioning the article itself.
  • response to comment #6: A list like that, however, would likely become a battleground of sorts, violating WP:NOSALESMEN, saying "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, draftspace, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages." As such, a page like that would make no sense.
  • response to comment #7: Its good that no one has done a AFD on vegetarianism, but as I've said before, the issues raised in the AFD could discuss the issues on the talk page rather than a AFD. Having an AFD is just extreme.
  • response to comment #8: Specifically, WP:GNG says that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list," and this list fulfills that completely.
  • response to comment #9: Again, this fallacy is not a wikipedia rule.
  • response to comment #10: I would say, actually, that talk page is the best place to discuss the issues, not here
  • response to comment #11: I was making the point that this topic is notable, by noting topics that are notable.
  • response to comment #12: Again, I was saying that this is topic is notable and countering what some said about vegetarians in this discussion.
  • response to comment #13: Once again, if there should be changes to the list, they should be proposed on the talk page, not in this AFD.
  • response to comment #14: In any case, AFDs for all those pages are unnecessary.
  • response to comment #15: If that is all true, then issuses should be discussed on the talk page.
  • response to comment #16: That rule is not valid here because this fulfills none of the seven listed on that page.
  • response to comment #17: Once again, that fallacy is not a WP rule, and they are rightly pointing out the notable of this topic.
  • response to comment #18: I don't think Hitler should be included, but that is an issue that should be discussed on the talk page.
  • response to comment #19: Perhaps, but admitting this is an "assault" on those pages makes it clear is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT clearly and a violation of WP:NPOV too.
  • response to comment #20: List improvements, again, should be disccused on the talk page. I stand by what I said, You can have consenus on a talk page. Who says you can't?
  • response to comment #21: Once again, those changes should be discussed on the talk page.
  • response to comment #22: Well, this deletion attempt is definitely worthless.
  • response to comment #23: It is about vegetarianism, veganism and animal rights because people are challenging the notability of the lists.
  • response to comment #24: I think its interesting you say that "being a vegetarians is something notable about them" but then you declare that the list is "indiscriminate" and imply they aren't notable? Those two statements don't even make sense together and, in fact, they contradict each other.
And finally, in response to Normal Op, as I've said before, if you wanted to make those changes to the list, why not have a discussion on the talk page about it? Why have a AFD? It makes no bloody sense. Also, in response to Rhododendrites: Yeah, it was a pretty bad argument by the person who supports this deletion attempt, all around. Then in response to Johnpacklambert, You are doing to have to provide some evidence of those claims, buddy. And as I've said before, this should be discussed on the talk page, not in an AFD. Historyday01 (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01: Because it isn't being discussed there; it's being discussed here. No AfD is going to stop mid-process just to a discuss the same thing somewhere else. If it were being discussed over there, I would go over there to discuss it. Logical common sense. Normal Op (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it should have been discussed there INSTEAD of having this AFD. That's my point. If the page doesn't end up being deleted, then I'd be glad to discuss the issues on that page. None of these list pages are perfect, but wanting to delete it is going to the extreme.Historyday01 (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These huge lists of replies are not helpful. They do not facilitate conversation, and lend themselves to confusion and upset -- this sort of thing. Yes, there are plenty of problems with what Mercy11 has written. But it's going to be extremely difficult to point them out and start meaningful conversations about them -- as, I suspect, Mercy11 knows. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list of vegans and list of vegetarians. They pass WP:NLIST providing information and navigation. WP:DELAFD Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep all three. I believe these lists pass WP:NLIST.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Mercy11's analysis. Fails NLIST & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 11:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of vegans for sure; that's far more than just a dietary choice. Re: It's almost never a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (although there are undoubtedly occasional exceptions). Absolutely disagree. Veganism is a defining characteristic for 99% of vegans -- basically, for anyone who is doing it for any non-health reason, it's absolutely a defining characteristic. And really, any list that gets hundreds of daily views is clearly of interest to readers. I think that makes List of vegetarians of encyclopedic value. I'm not sure I really understand this nomination...Lists are lists. —valereee (talk) 12:20, 3 October 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 Now United. Sandstein 14:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summer in the City (Now United song)[edit]

Summer in the City (Now United song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet GNG or NSONG. The sources in the article do not meet SIGCOV, addressing the subject (the song) directly and in depth. Most are about the group, some mention the song, others are promos. Author seems to be creating articles for all Now United singles without regard to guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  00:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  00:36, 24 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atheneum Suite Hotel Detroit[edit]

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

Article does not meet GNG or NBUILD. Single source in article is a one paragraph brief directory style entry. BEFORE showed nothing that meet RS SIGCOV that covers subject directly and in depth. Article makes no claim for it being notable.   // Timothy :: talk  00:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  00:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only good coverage I could find was on the Athenium Suite Hotel in London. This was the only source even remotely close to providing SIGCOV I could find, and even that is clearly a promotional puff piece. The only inline source currently in the article is a primary one, so for all intents and purposes it does not matter if the book provides SIGCOV, as the hotel will fail GNG either way. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daxbot[edit]

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

Paid article, and it shows it. First warning sign is the cute professional photo. Then looking at the text, the name of the product is used too much: once in each sentence-- an almost invariable promotional device. Going on to the references, 7 out of 10 references are from local sources discussing a local company; they even say that's why they're covering it. Two are from the company itself. The remaining one is a promotional interview in a trade paper, the very sort that is not accepted as independent according to WP:NCORP, and reading it, it's typical of such: the head of the firm says whatever he pleases about the virtues of his project and the future for it. And if we judge by common sense, rather than the GNG, this product is too minor to be worth encyclopedic coverage. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable product fails WP:GNG. Clear WP:PROMO piece from a startup looking to expand their communication outreach or simply increase website traffic/online interest. KidAd talk 00:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey KidAd, I wrote the article, and I do have a conflict of interest, which I tried to be very open about. The repetitive use of Dax's name wasn't for promotional purposes but to avoid using gender-specific pronouns- although now that you mention it I can see how it would look that way. I used the nicest photo of Dax that I had available, but I could switch it out if I need to. Quite a few of the news articles that cover Dax delivering are local (except for Katu News and Oregon Business, which are Oregon news companies), and that's because Dax is creating noise locally. I asked for a lot of input when I wrote the article in an effort to offset any natural bias, and used the Articles for Creation process, and I've tried really hard to be open and transparent. I'd appreciate any suggestions you have for making the article better, although I'm trying not to add more info directly to the article because of my aforementioned COI. Lizzythetech (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lizzythetech it is not the purpose of wikipedia to help you "create noise" for your product, or spread knowledge of it beyond the single state. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG You're right: it certainly isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to advertise for anyone. Wikipedia exists to collect verified, noteworthy info that already exists, and make it more accessible to people. I meant that most of the news coverage on Dax so far is from around where Dax is doing deliveries because that's where people run into him (for now- Dax isn't just an Oregon robot, and he'll most likely be doing deliveries for companies out of state as well). Dax is one of the first operational delivery robots in existence, and one of the very few robots making deliveries for the general public. That seems noteworthy to me and worth learning about. Whatever the Wikipedia community decides I really do appreciate the help it's given me so far and the work it does for the larger community Lizzythetech (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
now you seem to be using this discusion page to continue your promotional effort. I suggest some other admin do a speedy delete, and perhaps a block. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see any uncorrectable WP:NPOV issues here. This is the sort of contribution we want to see from COI editors - COI disclosed, article very short, list of references longer. Local coverage doesn't help meet WP:CORP but the article is about a product, not the company and the sources indicate the product meets WP:GNG. Since the company is discussed and this is apparently the company's only product there's an argument to be made that WP:CORP must be met. ~Kvng (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Made by a small private company with 5 people. No indication of being notable. The only reason they are here is to advertise it. All hyper-local coverage in the home town. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. scope_creepTalk 06:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clearly there is consensus to not retain this article as it is. Nsk92 is willing to attempt a rewrite as a biography and there is some support for this so I will userfy to their userspace. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saipancakes[edit]

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

Non-notable flash-in-the-460-degree-pan. Qwirkle (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have listed this in the mathematics delsort because he is a mathematician and published an article about this in Math Horizons [29]. That does not mean that I think he is notable as a mathematician. He appears not to be. The article has zero citations and he doesn't have much else better. So any notability is for the media buzz for his pancakery. Although the sources used here span a two-year range, I think much of that is just an echo chamber effect where one source sees a story and decides to repeat it themselves a few months later rather than taking the effort to research a new story themselves. I don't see the enduring interest in this needed to escape WP:NOTNEWS and achieve true notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A few human interest pieces, but nothing substantive to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 04:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think at this point the page probably should be moved to a biographical page about Nathan Shields himself. There is a lot of news coverage of him that describes him as a culinary artist practicing pancake art and his notability appears to concentrate in that area. These are not just "human interest" stories, they are substantive profiles and I don't think we should dismiss them out of hand because of the low brow subject matter. For example this 2016 story from the Cosmopolitan, What It's Really Like to Be a Pancake Artist, begins as: "When Nathan Shields started making truck-shaped pancakes for his son Gryphon and daughter Alice, he never imagined he'd one day be making zombie pancakes for an AMC promo for The Walking Dead. " A 2014 story from Today, Batter up: Pancake dad turns weekend ritual into edible art: "We're not just talking Mickey Mouse here. The professional illustrator, math teacher and dad of two likes to entertain his two young children Gryphon and Alice by making truly spectacular pancake art. Recently, his pancake portraits of all four members of the Beatles have gone viral." And so on. IMO, there is plenty enough to satisfy WP:GNG here. Nsk92 (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: attractive though he is as pancake artist, and mathematician, this article can't stay like this. Consider the above keep comment seriously. Meanwhile, the TNT is there to blow it up. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/request. I admit that currently the article is in a sorry state. If this AfD results in the article being deleted, I request that a copy be copied to my user space, or perhaps saved as a draft. When I have the time, I would attempt to rewrite the page into something more reasonable. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify so that the article can be reworked and refocused as Nsk92 suggests above. There's also a mention in Boing Boing (2014), an item in CNET (2015), and ABC News reporting on his appearance on Good Morning America (2016). Together with the links above, that's enough to suggest that a decent article could be written. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he might indeed meet our notability guideline, but I have to ask what the story is here: is it that he knows how to make cool pancakes? This strikes me as being on the same level as something cool you see at a carnival. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, once we get rid of the bad sources for human interest newsfluff, we are still left with human interest newsfluff. No matter how well this is is sourced, it ain’t gonna make its way into the next Britanica. Qwirkle (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is my concern as well. Do the sources actually give us enough information to support a legitimate WP:BLP? In all honesty, the sum of the sources in the article and presented here tell us that he has two children, is a math teacher, and makes pancakes, but beyond that, is there anything substantive upon which to build a biography? --Kinu t/c 21:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that while there is coverage, it is very thin and perhaps not enough to sustain an encyclopedic article. Maybe he could be mentioned on the article for Pancake art and redirected there. Spicy (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am unable to see the encyclopedic value of this article. If anything, merge a sentence or two to Pancake art (can't believe we have that article either). Netherzone (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Pancake Art. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, it is clear that there is enough coverage for a decent article on Nathan Shields, and there is no point needlessly deleting content when it is clear that things can be salvaged from it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:41, 29 September 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.
  1. ^ https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/tamil/2010/mar/16/goa-was-my-big-break-ravikanth-139701.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_September_24&oldid=981668089"