Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 5: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:34, 5 January 2020

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 January	6 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Closing, the nominator is a sock puppet and it's pretty obvious she's a notable figure given her award nominations etc. Missvain (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhreagh MacNeil

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

Delete: Not a notable actress, winning minor Canadian awards is not the same as notability.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC) nom blocked for sockpuppetry[reply]
Keep. Both the Canadian Screen Award nomination and the VFCC award win are major, not "minor", awards which are notability clinchers for an actress; the Atlantic Film Festival less so, admittedly, but that's not her primary notability claim and the other two are most certainly more than enough. The Canadian Screen Award for Best Actress is a top-level national acting award, for which there can be zero people in that list who are somehow off limits for us to have an article about — if her name appears in that list at all, then an article must be unconditionally allowed to exist, and notability questions are automatically off the table forever. In the entire history of that award, there are just four actresses who don't have articles yet — and even that's only because nobody's gotten around to them yet, not because they're somehow not notable in the first place: everybody in that list must be either an existing article or a valid potential article topic, with zero exceptions. And furthermore, the article cites numerous reliable sources — the only one that's even slightly questionable is supporting the weakest notability claim (AFF), while the stronger ones are supported by the Halifax Chronicle Herald and the bloody mothertrucking CBC, so the sourcing is not a problem here. Bearcat (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: has only had one significant role (as far as I can see), so I don't think she quite meets WP:NACTOR at the moment. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that she got nominated for a top-level national acting award for it, and won another notable acting award for it, both of which mean an article must be allowed to exist about her. Notable acting awards are, in and of themselves, notability clinchers for an actor regardless of how many other roles she has or hasn't had. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Bearcat has it right here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Important to note the nom was blocked for sockpuppetry. ミラ P 20:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Snowball, significant coverage and yes, Gemma Hickey does matter and is notable. Missvain (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Hickey

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

*Delete: I am trying to understand the rational for Hickey being notable. The first homosexuals to marry in NL do not have Wikipedia articles and they were also engaged in activism. Are we saying that Hickey is notable as a filmmaker?--NL19931993 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Also Hickey was the head of a national organization but this does not automatically make someone notable. Also doing international travel to promote your organization does not automatically make you notable. Having a local non-profit in a small city, with no staff or major operations, also does not automatically make you notable.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC) banned sock[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also note https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/corner-brook-volunteers-add-female-content-to-wikipedia-1.5057040 I am not sure if Hickey was one of the articles but it may be relevant to this discussion.--NL19931993 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:BASIC based on sustained and thorough coverage: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] TJMSmith (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV as found by TJMSmith. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TJMSmith. Nomination seems to be based on WP:WHATABOUTX completely ignoring the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, also nom should like get woke that use of “homosexuals” is generally demeaning and inappropriate except in clinical usage. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. plethora of press.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes GNG, not even remotely borderline. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources added above by TJMSmith Dartslilly (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added. Toughpigs (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insight Communications

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

Not seeing what makes this pass WP:COMPANY. BEFORE does not show anything that's not a passing mention/press release. Could redirect to list of TWC acquisitions or such, perhaps? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being the 9th largest cable TV operator in the U.S. at the time of acquisition would probably make it reasonably notable. It also operated the major city cable systems in downstate Illinois and some of Indiana and Kentucky; for some reason, some of them went from TCI to AT&T to Insight, then to Comcast in 2007, instead of straight from AT&T to Comcast. (See https://callcenterinfo.tmcnet.com/news/2007/04/04/2463307.htm for an article that originally was from the Peoria Journal Star.) So it's not just a TWC predecessor. It appears that TCI may have owned part of Insight when AT&T bought TCI, so that might have been a factor too. It may take a little digging to get pre-TWC information, since all this cable company consolidation and system swapping was before and during the time that news publications started putting their stories on the web. --Closeapple (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect I don't believe the 9th largest of anything imbues notability. NCORP establishes specific guidelines for notability which includes a level of referencing that this article doesn't have, nor seems to be available to it. BIG BURLEY 23:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Burley22. Size has nothing to do with WP:Notability, as evidenced by the AfD for Central 1 Credit Union, which had ~$100 billion in AUA but little press or other reliable, independent source coverage that met WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. As such, it failed WP:NCORP. I'd offer the weakest of support for a "redirect," as I'm not sure it's helpful in this case. This is an ultra-short stub-class article and there is nothing especially intellectually original worth preserving attribution history that isn't already mentioned in parent company articles. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Resources

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

What makes this pass WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY? Curren references (and all other I see) are either mentions in passing or press releases or reprints of such. Prod declined by anon with no useful comment. Could perhaps redirect to company that acquired it few years back (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It's not even wrong that it might be "largest privately held company of crude oil and natural gas" since the lead makes no sense. It's all unverifiable. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kohlberg_Kravis_Roberts#2010_to_present_day, where the company is mentioned. In looking for sources, only its acquisition by KKR and bankruptcy seem to have generated independent press coverage. Both events are mentioned in the indicated KKR article section, and I think that is probably due weight for the independently verifiable material about the company. For verifiable material, alternatives to deletion, such as a redirect to a relevant article, are preferred to deletion per our policy WP:ATD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect could be a problem, as the current post-2017 company, Samson Resources II, whose site is linked in the article, appears to be distinct from KKR? (Which still leaves the question as to whether Samson Investment Company, Samson Resources or now Samson Resources II has ever attained notability?) AllyD (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonetheless, the company Samson Resources itself was part of KKR for a time, so the redirect seems reasonable. In my view, that another company was formed from the wreckage of Samson Resources after bankruptcy does not change the historical facts or their modest independent coverage. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and AllyD. I agree a redirect is problematic here, but for a different reason. Sure, it's a somewhat generic company name and having a redirect could discourage article creation per WP:REDLINK, but this is just an investment holding company of a private equity firm. It's quite unlikely someone would be searching Wikipedia for a non-operating investment company subsidiary of a private equity firm. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not seeing coverage specifically about this firm under any of its several forms. Such coverage as exists appears to be merely point-in-time announcements regarding acquisition and bankruptcy, which falls under the Trivial Coverage provision ("expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business") of WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brouwerij 't Koelschip

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

Not seeing what makes this company pass WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG. Through maybe there is some coverage in Dutch since the only plausibly substantial stuff I am getting is not in English (everything else, including current refs, are passing coverage, not in-depth). Dutch wiki entry on this is not much better, so it is of little help. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable brewery and has held the title of strongest beer in the world, and its quads routinely win awards. Article should be expanded, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.246.51.142 (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It apparently made a very high ABV beer and that got some attention (and not enough to merit its own article), the company itself is not notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few passing mentions located in various gSearches (most in Dutch). I agree that this article subject fails WP:ORG and it also lacks WP:SIGCOV.The "world's strongest beer" might itself be notable (though I see that title might be disputed), but the organization does not necessarily inherit the notability of one product, so the beer itself belongs in the beer article or elsewhere.Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ames True Temper

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

Not seeing what makes this pass WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. There is some coverage, but mostly in passing/press releases/local (ex. [14]). WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. On the other hand, it's a company with 200+ year history, and it could be notable - if we can find some decent coverage. My BEFORE failed, not seeing anything in books/scholar that goes beyond 2-3 sentences :( Maybe there is something more in [15] but I can't get full access to this (do note, in either case: "The modern Ames True Temper was formed in 1999 when Ames, founded in 1774, and True Temper, founded in 1809, were combined by their parent at the time, US Industries Inc "). A merger to Griffon_Corporation#The_AMES_Companies could be a valid option here as well. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that this is the same "True Temper" that was the brand of tubes for (steel) bicycle frames. Other major brands are Reynolds and Columbus; and googling for the three brands together brings up a lot of talk of True Temper and particularly of its demise. Of course, blog entries, forum chitchat and the like may not be the stuff of WP articles, but it does all suggest that something is there. I'll mention this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling. -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seeing as 2 weeks later, we have failed to turn up any reliable sources, I don't believe the company is notable. Of course, if someone presents new sources, I am willing to reconsider. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's real, an old, longstanding manufacturing firm in need of an editor with the time and access to sources - which are readily visible in searches I just ran. IceFishing (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This isn’t even the name of the company anymore; “Ames True Temper” became “The AMES Companies, Inc.” in 2014. While it’s WP:PRIMARY and from AMES’ parent company, this source claims that AMES is the third-oldest continually operating company in the United States. If reliable sources confirming that history can be found, I’d imagine that would make it notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ames Free Library, the public Library in Easton, Massachusetts provides a detailed company chronology: [16].IceFishing (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- New York Times published a fairly detailed corporate history in 1974, headline "Ames Prospers as It Marks 200 Years." IceFishing (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The first reference for the Ames Free Library does not have an attributed author, potentially fails WP:RS. The second reference relies entirely on information provided by connected individuals with no indications of any Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND. That said, there does appear to be other references, for example there are a number of pages in Logistics Management (starts around page 40) which provides details on the company although I cannot see all of the text. Another book Surviving in Spite of Everything: A Postwar History of the Hardware Industry likewise has a section on this company. Appears to meet notability requirements. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be numerous references that meet the requirements for establishing notability. I've linked to two books above and there's more. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is whether the coverage is about THIS company, or its earlier form. All those mergers and acquisitions make this a rather confusing mess IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The infobox already has a list of predecessor names, article needs an upgrade, which can start by moving this to the current corporate name. There really is no argument for deletion. It's just another article in need of an editor.IceFishing (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have sources. They're not optimal, but they're not negligible. So either keep, whether under its current title or as "Ames Companies"; or somehow merge it with Ames Manufacturing Company or with Ames Shovel Shop; or merge all three. (If the first among these options, we can probably ignore the "The" and we can certainly ignore the vanity capitalization within "The AMES Companies".) Which among these would be the best choice is something that I leave to editors far more experienced in US corporate histories than I am. -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption School (Millbury)

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

Promotional. No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletin discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just took out a bunch of blatantly promotional language, and what do you know, there's nothing left. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tiny (100 students) that is obviously run of the mill. No evidence it passes WP:GNG. Fails my standards. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Milpitas Unified School District. RL0919 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Spangler Elementary School

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

Attempted to redirect however it’s been contested. This is not a notable elementary school so nominating for delete and redirect. Praxidicae (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Milpitas Unified School District. Elementary schools are generally not notable, and while I can find information that proves this school exists, I can't find anything that would fulfill GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: our assumption for an elementary school is that it is not notable, and this article does not show otherwise. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 04:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Milpitas Unified School District per Hog Farm. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, and as we usually do in such cases. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete policy would say Redirect- but there is no content here notable enough for inclusion. We don't list principals- or cafeterias. The Wlink, to another school leads though a redirect back to the Milpitas Unified School District. ClemRutter (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Turek

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to do some digging for references since it asserted she played for the Team Canada senior team (listed here for the 99/00 season, she played two total games). She made no appearances in a World Championships or Olympics, just two exhibition games against the US before the 2000 National Hockey League All-Star Game, where she scored a goal. This source is about the only thing I found that is more than a mere mention in a list, and it still only consists of a single paragraph about her after scoring her one goal. Also according to that article, she is the daughter of Ed Turek as a possible merge/redirect target, but even his article could use some help. Yosemiter (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per GNG. Finished my searches, not finding any news hits, doesn't appear to be discussed in books, and a Google search only turns up few stats sites and mentions (The Globe and Mail paragraph I previously posted still being the best, the rest are all single sentence mentions in the WP:ROUTINE "Turek scored a goal..." vein or just part of list). Yosemiter (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordyn Jackson

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

Singer who doesn't meet WP:SINGER. Albums appear to be self-released. The AllAboutJazz information is from a part of that website that can be user-submitted; several other sites repeat the same information. There is some local media coverage of her, but much of it is in the style of press releases and other promotional material, and I don't see enough to meet WP:GNG. EddieHugh (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I had to go quite deep into the web to find a few sources but she has no reviews on Allmusic and no lists on Setlist. Bearian (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the musician general notability guidelines. Despite a handful of regional mentions, there isn't a landslide of reliable secondary sources for me to feel she is article worthy yet. WP:TOOSOON perhaps. Missvain (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tolani Fatilewa

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. Majority of the sources cited in the article are not reliable. The subject is an up-and-coming artist who has not made a mark in the Nigeria music industry. Maybe in a few years, he may be notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Asides the obvious COI between article creator and it’s subject, the subject of article in itself doesn’t satisfy WP:ANYBIO & WP:GNG as he hasn’t been discussed with in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I'm not sure if it's fan- or PR-created, but in any case, there's no coverage in reliable sources that I can see. If you find anything good, please ping me. Bearian (talk)
Delete it may be WP:TOOSOON Dartslilly (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur on the WP:TOOSOON Missvain (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maricoxi

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

Does not appear to be an established mythological or scientific topic; all reports seem to originate from Percy Fawcett. –dlthewave ☎ 21:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Percy Fawcett if he's the only source. see below Sophie means wisdom (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These were a real people of the Amazon, if any truth at all. We don't need to be repeating Fawcett's "missing-link" junk calling them apes and monsters. I removed all that from the article.—eric 22:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough information to justify a stub. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per OP. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Time to snow delete this one, I think. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE. It's some sort of alleged ape-man/Bigfoot from South America, but I can't find any good sources, just junk online. I found two sources with passing references. It was apparently created as a hoax by a yellow journalist. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent points above. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FRINGE content doesn't belong in an encyclopedia Dartslilly (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batutut

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

Fails GNG; has not received significant coverage outside of fringe sources. –dlthewave ☎ 20:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source is some crypto mirror in Archive. Zero usable content. Three alternate names are unrelated. Origin is barely a page from de:John MacKinnon, no secondary sources i can find.—eric 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnacceptable sourcing. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there's a lot of crap out there. I found two sources. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. The two sources above -- Daily Mail and The Star -- are tabloids and not suitable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Easistore Self Storage

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

Non-notable company, just more WP:MILL and I'm not sure that awards by such a small industry specific award is very meaningful or helpful. Praxidicae (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage that suggests any notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and Timtempleton above. No news coverage whatsoever, let alone any that meets WP:SIGCOV let alone WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm kind of surprised, but also pleased, to see Timtempleton at AfD as I've only seen him at CfD and editing Canadian bank and credit union stubs. ;)Doug Mehus T·C 03:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: Where have you been dude? I’ve done hundreds of AfDs! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton, Cool! I've only started participating in AfD in the last 4-6 months, so if you've been in that area before that, I wouldn't have seen them. And maybe you just don't normally participate in company AfDs, or at least not Canadian bank and credit union AfDs? Doug Mehus T·C 01:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The awards are industry-niche and best toilet awards, while gratifying, are not indicative of encyclopaedic notability. Searches find nothing to demonstrate this to be more than a firm going about its business. AllyD (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xecced

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

PR spam, no coverage, it's all funding and WP:MILL Praxidicae (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: baseless and wholly unfair... Simply reading the first reference would clearly prove otherwise... Nneka Francis (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How so? None of your sources are in depth coverage, they're all PR, announcements and funding information. Praxidicae (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been attacking my submissions with clearly baseless and inflammatory remarks... Wikipedia stipulates evidence based discourse at all times... Even the first reference is clearly an in-depth interview of the organisation (attached below):^[1] Nneka Francis (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Daniel Mpala [https://ventureburn.com/2019/11/xecced-ventures-4thiria-fund "Xecced Ventures to invest in African startups through $100m Industry 4.0 fund", VentureBurn, 19 November 2019

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak DeleteThis article has pretty clearly been WP:REFBOMBED. The sources themselves are mostly a combination of PR and funding, from sources that do not seem entirely reliable. The AfrikanHeroes one seems decent enough, but all the rest are either just repeating a company announcement, or are pretty clearly promotional, including the Ventureburn one. Of course, as subsaharan startups are not the most reported on of subjects, I could potentially be missing something. Also, the behaviour of User:Nneka Francis does lead me to suspect there may be a conflict of interest in relation to the creation of this article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn’t know better, I would say you were chummy with Praxidicae, whom appears to have a penchant for this... Daniel Mpala and VentureBurn are a bonafide tech journalist and newspaper, reporting “facts of the operations” of an “impact investor”... I’ve a bonafide track record of making high quality edits, e.g. received thanks for edit... However, WP:N says: “Article and list topics must be notable, or worthy of notice". The criteria for the Guinness of Records is being first and only, which this evidently is, and thus by definition “notable, or "worthy of notice”... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 11:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Wikipedia’s Encyclopedic criteria (WP:N) means the article should not just be notable but also significant, e.g. this is precisely the sort of information cash-strapped Africans - a 1/4 of the world’s population - would actively search for given the low availability of venture capital (read Africa section) in Africa, and the rapidly growing impact of AI, e.g. automation rapidly replacing human workers... Nneka Francis (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Splinemath (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s evidently received significant coverage by reliable, independent, Africa-tech focused sources, as it’s the continent’s first and only AI VC fund, i.e. western media seldom cover such Africa news... It saddens me that Wikipedia now appears to reflect global inequalities, i.e. a lot of the entries seem unencyclopedic, but subjectively significant to westerners... “If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it.” - WP:IAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently fails GNG and NCORP. Most of the coverage is PR churnalism and the other coverage isn't enough to put it over the notability threshold. Could be a case of too WP:TOOSOON. Additionally, there is no indication that the significance of being the first AI VC fund or any area-specific fund, for that matter, on any continent or region (or even just being the first AI VC fund in general) is enough to meet notability requirements. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AI now shapes virtually all aspects of our lives, e.g. Wikipedia bots to Netflix recommendations and the machines that assemble our cars. The fact this is the only fund covering a 1/4 of human civilisation should in of itself warrant an exception WP:IAR, even before what has now become a subjective debate on whether non-western sources have no cachet... I’ve more than a passing interest in making Wikipedia live up to its egalitarian ideals, e.g. the fact those advocating for deletion appear to be Caucasian American should give us pause for thought... Nneka Francis (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Promotional article whose sources are either press releases or articles about fundraising. Neither establish notability. Article creator is strictly promoting this company (spam added to List of venture capital firms has been reverted) and resorting to personal attacks (i.e., blind accusations of racism in response to GPL93) on anyone who disagrees with her is certainly not advised. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beemer69, wow, I merely pointed out an observational fact... If it isn't true, disprove it. After all, this is meant to be a civilized forum of debate, and Wikipedia's goal is to be egalitarian... Furthermore, I added it to the list of List of venture capital firms after a comment asked me to de-orphan articles, and I'll go further to say that this entry is more notable and significant than many on the list, e.g. please compare with Sevin Rosen Funds on the same list... Any source on an impact investor will invariably be about it's investing, which appears to rankle some here...Nneka Francis (talk • contribs
Suspected suckpuppeting or collusion: I'm getting the same comment, slightly different wording, at nearly the same time, giving the impression of suckpuppeting or collusion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from personal attacks. Just because people are commenting with the same policy doesn't mean they are sock puppets. At some point you have to ask if everyone else sees something and you don't are you the one in the wrong. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered that why we are saying the same thing is because we see the same issues with the article? It appears that the only editor in this discussion to fail Wikipedia's "egalitarian ideals" has been you. GPL93 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a sockpuppet now? Please grow up and stop ranting to every comment that disagrees with you, as it's doing nothing but clogging up the discussion while your continued incivility will result in you being blocked. Much appreciated. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP additionally most of the sources appear to be press releases or other cruft unsuitable to meet our sourcing requirements. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. We can't build a neutral article on pure churnalism and marketing hype. - MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any strong reliable sources, just press releases and similar links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional PR article. From other observations This user may not be here to build an encyclopedia.Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: This user opened their account barely two weeks ago and wasted no time in creating an article about Muhtari Adanan, which was recently deleted due to lack of notability, and editors were badgered over there as well. Adanan's name is also prominently featured in this article, so it's clear Nneka Francis is a promotional account for this individual. For that, in addition to their ongoing uncivil behavior, in my opinion a permanent block is warranted. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beemer69 Hypothetically speaking if she’s a single purpose promo account then it wouldn’t be a stretch to say they may have received a financial reward, at least a part payment for the creation of the deleted article & this soon to be deleted one. You can only imagine their dilemma/trauma/panic right now. Yep! an indef block is best.Celestina007 (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: @Celestina007: Although I agree that it is likely a COI/UPE editor I think that the current block is the right call for now in the off chance Nneka Francis is just an over-zealous editor who's passion for a subject got in the way of his/her better judgement. This article will in all likelihood be deleted before the current block ends and how Nneka Francis edits once the block is lifted will either confirm his/her intentions either way. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93: Yeah, I discussed this with User:Bishonen recently and she concluded that the three-day block was fitting in lieu of an immediate permanent one, which makes sense. The article will soon be gone anyway while the paid-SPA editor will be on a very short leash when s/he returns. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beemer69 & GPL93 forgive the digression, I see a he/she used to address the article creator which is a bright idea when unsure of the gender, I’m no expert but “Nneka francis” per editor first name “Nneka” is a Nigerian name usually used by the igbo people of Nigeria for a female. So yeah it’s okay for you both to refer to article creator as a “she” & yes her overzealous nature without understanding core policies is quite annoying.Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete the article and the spam editor. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Lots of sourcing, but looks like classic overcite.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ban-manush

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

Fails GNG due to lack of RS coverage. Current sources (Calcutta Review and Report on the Census) refer to a tribe, not a folkloric entity, however neither topic has received significant coverage outside of fringe sources. –dlthewave ☎ 20:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this article low important and Not a philanthropic entity, but both subjects did not receive significant coverage beyond border sources. Fail WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 19:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom looking at the sources. Sure they are not 15 meters tall?—eric 01:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fail WP:GNG - MA Javadi (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As the only two keep arguments have compelling rebuttals which were not countered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orang-bati

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

Fails GNG; no significant coverage outside of fringe sources. –dlthewave ☎ 20:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source listed in the article is available at academia.edu and misused somewhat. wikt:orang is a "later innovation" in Malay. Looks like all from Shuker.—eric 23:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC);[reply]

Delete not at all notable. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm going to go out on a limb, pardon the pun, and say there's an argument to be made is is a notable mythical creature. There's been some coverage in periodicals, books, and a scholarly article on mythology. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first two links are just to google searches. The third link is a good article, but the only reference to the Bati is a work called Esuriun orang Bati, the worldcat summary is On esuriun, local wisdom of Bati people of Seram Island, Indonesia. (and see wikt:orang) You can search for Bati Muslim Seram and read the non-cryptid results. Near as I can tell Karl Shuker heard stories of these people and turned them in to flying monkey cryptids. You have to be very careful with anything related to cryptozoology.—eric 01:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice to recreation if sufficient sources can be found to build an article on the mythical creature. This article is on a cryptid and there's nothing useful in it for a potential new article. Thus a "delete" is the best approach, IMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion above. If we can dig up reliable sources discussing folk belief in this entity, then I'd be happy to see a solid article put together, but if we're stuck with a bunch of fringe sources, well, deletion is the only real option. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing found by Bearian. I think we have enough coverage to warrant an article. There are enough books that have determined this subject is notable. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Google searches don't carry any weight at AFD. Could you list a few specific sources that could be used to establish notability? –dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bati are a real people[17][18][19] who have been considered sorcerers by their neighbors ...feared and admired throughout the central Moluccas for their powers are the highland Muslim "Bati" of east Seram, wo are said to be able to take the form of deer, fish, and birds.[20] They are not a "cryptid" or mythical creature but a people with legends surrounding them. Most of the reliable sources are in Indonesian, the cryptozoology crap is in English and floods your google search results. The origin is one unqualified person who briefly visited Seram in 1986 and sent a letter to Shuker repeating some stories. Notability for articles is determined by reliable sources.—eric 16:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many other similar cryptozoology type articles on Wikipedia. What should we do with articles like Garkain? Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Ragle

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

not my field, but I doubt notability -- never a head coach at a college level, never a notable player DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either a coach or player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete part of the List of current NCAA Division I FBS football coaches page. While not a head coach, he is a coordinator at a Power 5 conference school, as well as a multiple time state champion head coach at the high school level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowers77 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found a number of substantive articles in reliable third-party sources about the subject: [21] [22] [23]. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Jweiss11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's the subject of multiple in-depth profiles, beyond even what Jweiss11 found. There's considerable scope of expansion. Note: Jweiss11 notified me of this debate because I'd previously expressed concern about Wikipedia's coverage of likely future head coaches in the coordinator ranks, such as Sam Pittman. WP:CRYSTALBALL and all that, but Ragle fits that description. Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caring.com

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

This is nothing more than a PR puff piece about a website which as far as I can tell, has received no meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promo article for a website with no significant coverage or notability. Celestina007 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spam. Blackguard 22:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It seems like not all the sources presented as proof of notability have been rebutted, although it's a weakish "keep" conclusion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CECPQ2

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

Originally nominated for PROD with the justification There doesn't appear to be any coverage in independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG, possibly just WP:TOOSOON. The initial editor removed PROD and provided two additional sources, but neither of them has significant coverage of the subject (in fact, neither of them even directly refer to it by name). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a lot of coverage but what there is indicates that this is independently notable and likely to become more important as part of an important research field. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nomination says: two additional sources were added, but neither of them has significant coverage of the subject (in fact, neither of them even directly refer to it by name).. Well when I check out one of those sources [24] I see CECPQ2 thoroughly discussed during it. Now the chance of me using remembering SSL is Secure Sockets Layer is minimal but just possible; remembering TLS is Transport Layer Security; or even the difference between them is minimal and I'd probably simply say TLS/SSL if I needed write something down about it. My chance of remembering CECPQ2 is Combined Elliptic-Curve and Post-Quantum 2 and quite frankly to mention the latter in most places might to some I might know might turn the sir blue. The key point is the nomination has in my view falsely scummered the document and misled the AfD by claiming the document did not discuss the subject; which it clearly does. The nomination did not even discuss any thoughts of merging to CECPQ1 ... and I would oppose that at this stage .... maybe an expert might do it later. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark, the source you linked above is one of the ones that was originally in the article before I nominated for PROD; the issue with that source is that it is not independent, as it is written by one of the researchers involved in developing CECPQ2. The two sources that were added post-PROD were [25] and [26]. Maybe there's something in there that I wasn't able to understand, but I would be amazed if you can find evidence that they discuss the subject in detail there. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well having had a look at [27] again carefully I'd have to agree with you on Langley. The wonder of imprecise citations being made a little better slipping me up. Apolgoies and thanks for setting that out. There's better than that on Scholar and to some extent its the sheer waste of my trawling through the lot ... and the issue of no consideration of the merge remains in all events. Some like [28] (P.18) would be better choice to stand up. [29] and ([30]) are better choices. Therefore I remain keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 03:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wunder (creative agency)

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

Excessive references most of which don't even mention this company. The agency has worked with some notable companies but notability is not inherent. Jikaoli Kol (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for possibly over-referencing some of the work, I did not consider how that might be seen as an issue. I’ve further trimmed the list of references while still keeping the article well referenced by a combination of industry magazines, news publications, and international awards.

In terms of notability, I live in the region and this agency is well known in Atlantic Canada for the campaigns they’ve produced. As such, they are most certainly of interest to Nova Scotians, Canadians, and other Wikipedia users with an interest in business and marketing agencies.

I believe that having their work covered in the media (even if it only briefly mentions the agency) says more about an agency than having a self-written press release published. I realize notability is a subjective standard, but this agency far exceeds the standard established by many similar advertising agency pages: AdGear, Due_North_Communications, Groupaction, Kaboose, Lowe_Roche, McMillan_(agency), Razor_Creative, Round_Table_Advertising. JMacD77 (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OSE and WP:COI. Jikaoli Kol (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. In order for a topic to meet the criteria for notability, there must be multiple sources that discuss the company specifically, and this must also be significant coverage containing in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. None exist. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGCRITE. scope_creep^Talk 12:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill company that represents other companies. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC) P.S. FWIW, WP:SIGCOV is not a subjective standard. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Albania under the Ottoman Empire with history left intact. The article has interesting sources but is of very limited scope; there is a significant consensus here that it does not belong as a standalone article but good suggestions have been made that it potentially deserves mention in related article(s) and potentially a Wiktionary entry. The history is left available if anyone wishes to do either of those things. ~ mazca ^talk 20:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albanokratia

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

Per WP:NOTABILITY, this entire article can be condensed to more or less a single sentence at Albania under the Ottoman Empire and/or a Wiktionary entry. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Amanuensis Balkanicus. --Albert Falk (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Does the first part of this need to be transwikified to the dictionary as Albanocrat?

No, Peterkingiron, I think it should be transwikified as Albanokratia, which roughly translates to Albanocracy. The rest of the content can be included in Albania under the Ottoman Empire and this article deleted. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, since it is a term used in 18th century Greece to denounce Albanian leaders in Morea. It is therefore relevant. --Albert Falk (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 19:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fa alk, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Historical uses of the term can be added to related articles, but it does not merit an article of its own. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary .... an entry in Wictionary though.... Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki as suggested. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT Wm335td (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CIGNEX Datamatics

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

Fails WP:NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Old article. I don't really have time to dig out more information about this company. But it does exist. Should not be deleted as there are many unknown celebrities and smaller companies which are included in Wikipedia. Here is some data I just found on popular sites - Crunchbase https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/cignex-technologies, and Business Standard - https://www.business-standard.com/company/datamatics-glob-21187/annual-report/director-report --Tech editor007 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tech editor007, thank you for your comment! Unfortunately none of these really work as reasons to keep the article. As per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for corporations, both of the sources you give are considered "trivial coverage" and cannot be used for the purpose of establishing notability. Age of an article is not used as a reason to either keep or delete; and other "unknown celebrities and smaller companies" having articles is also not a reason since we must evaluate on a case-by-case basis. If you find an article covering something that isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines, then perhaps it too is a candidate for deletion. –Erakura^(talk) 22:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Practically all coverage I can find, and nearly all of the existing article references, are either trivial per WP:NCORP or the company's own marketing literature and press releases. –Erakura^(talk) 21:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we merge this article with an article about the company's parent company, Datamatics?--Tech editor007 (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That could feasibly be done; however, Datamatics itself appears to have a number of subsidiaries just like this one, so the section would be pretty short. I also think at this time that merging it into Datamatics may be a waste of effort; it appears that CIGNEX Datamatics is being acquired by Relevance Lab, another company which itself doesn't have an article and for which I'm having some difficulty in establishing notability. That said, all this is my personal take on the situation, so perhaps others will chime in with their thoughts. –Erakura^(talk) 20:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the current sources are not reliable/independent enough to demonstrate notability Nosebagbear (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Shiraz

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

This person gets some coverage in the tabloid/gossip/gutter press, but I don't see enough in-depth coverage in solid reliable sources either to justify having a page or to enable us to write one. She has started a small business, and that is covered by NewsComAu. She is apparently th same person as Nicole Asgar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I seems like there was a previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicole_Asgar), which resulted in a delete. Achaea (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are quite a few stories in gossip magazines as well as some serious news reporting places. So topic this passes WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is plenty of material in various gossip publications, but there is nothing sufficient that I can find in any mainstream publication. And gossip publications are just that, not reliable. By the time one removes references soley due to the subject's boy friends, some of whom are notable in their right, but notability is not inherited, and the facebook, and the instagram, and the twitter, and photo sites, and the "spot the celebrity who is only famous for being famous" sites, etc., there was only a very small handfull of hits left, referring to BossLadies, but not enough that I could see to support anything like GNG, and then that would be inherited, ie Boss Ladies might be notable but not its creator. I am okay with being corrected if someone can give me appropriate counter examples. Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A ProQuest database search of all Australian and NZ newspapers revealed 3 extremely brief mentions of Shiraz in equally brief articles about a realty TV star and LA Lakers basketball player. While the sources are national publications (Sunday Telegraph and Daily Telegraph), none of the articles are substantive about the subject, let alone Shiraz. Fails WP:IRS. Cabrils (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A celebutante with significant coverage is still notable, even if she's merely famous for being famous. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provided that coverage is in reliable sources though? Aoziwe (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I love love loveeeee my binge-worthy celebutantes (lol, I had never heard that before until Bearian mentioned it) and any excuse to look at stupid trashy websites, but alas, I think it might be WP:TOOSOON. This Heavy article is the closest thing to a source I consider trustworthy (in the US it's a popular, trusted popular culture magazine). I will gladly write it when she does make it out of the Daily Mail and into Cosmopolitan. Missvain (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although she is very pretty, all that supports this page is a few gossip column mentions.NotButtigieg (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully beauty has nothing to do with having a Wikipedia article. Phew! Missvain (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking reliable sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen@Mushon

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

Barely any coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO. No fans, no social media, no plays. scope_creep^Talk 11:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Sorry I can't give a stronger vote on this, but there may be enough notice for a brief stub article on this group. Three of the footnotes currently in the article are to fairly robust profiles in a publication called Mako that appears to be a somewhat reliable music source in their country. Also note that very little comes up with a search of "Cohen@Mushon", but a search via the Hebrew spelling ("כהן@מושון") brings up some more media sources from their country in their own language, showing that they have been noticed as a hip-hop act from an unlikely location. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ I added a couple of sources, more material came up in search. ~~Seems to suffice.~~NotButtigieg (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just released his debut album, all indicative of being non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One is press release about Michael Cohen, not Cohen@Mushon and the other one about Cohen, so neither is about Cohen@Mushon. scope_creep^Talk 18:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is a press release, both are signed news articles about one of the duo that ran in reputable news papers with brief mentions of this duo. There is more coverage like this: [31]. Coverage can be brief but still be coverage. NotButtigieg (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~What an abusive message.~~ Coverage that is brief is not coverage. scope_creep^Talk 19:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<Abusive? seriously?NotButtigieg (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After perusing the Hebrew material, I suggest that this musical duo be discussed on the pages of each of the two performers.NotButtigieg (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at 1000's of press releases over the last 5 years over 100's of articles, as part of NPP and AFC, COI and SPAM, you get to be very good at recognising what is a press release and what isn't. That last ref again is a name drop. It not coverage sufficient to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Its a mention. scope_creep^Talk 20:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onsight Deeda

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the sources cited in the article are not reliable. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICIAN with no viable third-party coverage. Article creator has had a spate of BLPs recently deleted due to lack of notability and this is no exception. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article has been improved since nomination such that notability is established through reliable sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ulric Browne

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

Does not meet any of the three points on WP:NACTOR. Browne has portrayed the role of an extra in 103 episodes of EastEnders, and that's about it other than minor guest appearances. DarkGlow (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Somehow, having played a small part/extra in over 100 episodes of EastEnders almost seems notable in and of itself! I am inclined to agree with the nomination/nominator, however. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Browne speaking practically broke the internet in 2017. It might be some silly celeb news sites, but, he is indeed the longest serving extra on Britain's longest running show and he clearly has a cult following. Missvain (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Missvain's added sources. That looks like a cult following to me. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Silly celeb news sites" are not RS. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Digital Spy, one of the "silly celeb news sites" used in the article, has been defended as a RS many times: 1, 2, 3 etc. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of RS including Metro, BBC 1Xtra, Irish News, Digital Spy, The Observer, these are not “silly celeb news sites”.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record: I LOVE reading my silly celeb news sites! Missvain (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Missvain's expansion / improvement (although please do not cite The Sun in BLPs). [32] Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clensta International

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH scope_creep^Talk 11:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one reference mentions them by name, and it's a low quality press release or rewrite or one. Some mentions in passing, etc. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per g5. This is corporate paid for spam. Praxidicae (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The overall consensus seems to support keeping this article, as unlike some of the other, recently redirected similar D&D monsters, this has at least received some coverage in what many participants consider decent sources for this kind of material. Merging this to the list article is a reasonable argument given the good-faith disagreement on the exact line of notability for these kind of things, but multiple users assert that there is enough sourceable content that it would be excessive for an entry on a list article - supporting its continued existence as a standalone article at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 11:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gelatinous cube

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

All other oozes were redirected to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. This one has a bit better sourcing, through I think it is insufficient to merit a pass at GNG/NFICTION for the stand-alone article (two paragraphs in a niche column that is close to blog quality, one paragraph in a list of monsters, another paragraph at another list. Neither is an in-depth analysis, just a fan 'journalist' tongue-in-cheek commentary. Redirect to Ooze (Dungeons & Dragons) or one of the monster lists? Or would anyone want to argue the current refs suffice for keep? BEFORE does not show anything much better, I am afraid (ok, [33] is in-depth but it is a niche fan-site not far from blog level again). It's better than most other DnD monsters, but I am afraid it still falls on the wrong side of GNG, not enough reliable sources/in-depth coverage, just few fan-pages. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this one does have some independent sources, but failing that at worst merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve per WP:NEXIST see: ^[1]^[2] among others. The page may even require a disambiguation as some point in the future because of the band named after the monster.^[3]. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ennis, Tricia (2018-06-08). "Chosen One of the Day: The Gelatinous Cube from Dungeons and Dragons". SYFY WIRE. Retrieved 2019-12-21.
^ Hall, Charlie (2015-09-02). "Out of the Abyss: D&D's next campaign goes deep into the Underdark". Polygon. Retrieved 2019-12-21.
^ Hutchinson, Kate (2016-08-11). "Thee Oh Sees: A Weird Exits review – cult garage-rockers on pummelling form". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-12-21.

Delete As non-notable, almost all "sources" are minor listicles. "It's big in Dungeons and Dragons" is not a valid argument for keep. It's possible that the overall monster trope, blob monster, may be notable enough for an article, but the gelatinous cube itself doesn't seem so._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; iconic, and there are a few good enough sources. There are probably more out there. There are a few hits on Google Scholar (though nothing substantial, I don't think) but Google News throws up lots of pages that could work as sources; this, this, this, and this from the first page, for instance. There's enough out there for an article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most are pop culture listicles. "9 scariest monsters", "15 weirdest creatures", "125 greatest monsters". It's certainly not "significant" coverage._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. Plenty of hits on Google Books, too; some third-party material about their role in the game, for example. I can't access all the pages, but there's perhaps useful stuff in Dungeons and Drawings: An Illustrated Compendium of Creatures, Through Dungeons Deeper, and The Monsters Know What They're Doing. I'm pretty sure there's enough out there to write a decent article, and I don't think the current article is that shabby, so I stand by my comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An example of the sort of thing that's out there. I could add more, but I don't want to spend too long on the article if it's going to end up deleted. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That example, which is about gelatinous/ooze/blob creatures in fiction, seems like it would work a lot better in a broad concept article like maybe Blob monster. Gelatinous ooze on its own is simply too narrow a topic. As an example, I created the article Gargoyle (monster) which is notable, even though Gargoyle (Dungeons & Dragons) probably would not survive AfD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it perhaps has a place in both articles (if they exist). My point is that there's something to say; the article can be much more than in-universe information or lists of books in which it appears. We can have some discussion about inspirations and origins, roles/uses in the game, critical response, and real-world impact (e.g., perhaps the band mentioned above if we have a good source). That's a whole lot more than most other D&D monsters, which doesn't surprise me, because it's so iconic. Again, if all these sources were pulled together, we could end up with a decent article. I think there's room for legitimate disagreement in cases like this; it crosses the bar in my eyes, but perhaps not in yours. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article some more, please take that into account. Daranios (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Notable monsters. Not convinced that it passes the GNG sufficiently to need a stand-alone article. The Reception section just says it's notable within the franchise and should be covered somewhere on wikipedia. The other three section can fit in the two columns of the merge target. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -Listicles, especially ones so extremely focused on a single characteristic like "X D&D monster," are bottom of the barrel in terms of establishing notability. They are basically filler sources to bolster an already notable article. They should never be the primary means of trying to establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Notable monsters. There is some non-primary coverage, but it appears to amount to being little more than just a description of what it is. Even those lists being used as sources are just brief paragraphs describing the creature, and does not contain any real information that could be used to sustain an independent article. That said, the coverage does at least make it one of the few D&D creatures that should actually be on the target article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient information that it would be too much for Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Notable monsters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FobTown (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clear iconic stature. Artw (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient cumulative coverage apparently satisfying GNG requirements. GNG does not require that its requirements be satisfied within any set number of sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A few blurbs in "The 9 scariest most unforgettable monsters from dungeons dragons" type of lists is hardly iconic-establishing. A redirect of the name to a DnD list is fine. ValarianB (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources listed above are multiple, indepenent and cover the topic in-depth. So WP:N is met. Doesn't need to be "iconic-establishing". Also [34], [35] and many others show that the monster exists in fiction outside of D&D. Hobit (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments of User:BOZ, User:FobTown and User:Hobit. In addition to all the secondary sources mentioned, The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, p. 193, has something to say about the origin and role of the gelatinous cube as a tertiary source. Daranios (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interestingly, The Ashgate Encyclopedia does call the gelatinous cube "iconic" on p. 194. Daranios (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Great spot; the mention on the previous page is also useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Of Dice and Men and Ashgate Encyclopedia are quality sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love that a gelatinous cube is a thing. Missvain (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it was also a very scary thing to a kid who did a lot of caving and tunnel exploring! Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know that WP:NEXIST says that existence of sources trumps their use in the article, but I still think its useful to look at how sources are actually used here. If there are good sources that support notability, as some editors are claiming, then they should be used to back up non-trivial statements. But at least at this point, everything sourced in the article is trivial: publication history (which exists for every D&D monster), a note on amebas, fictional ecology, and a fairly unimpressive "reception" section that boils down to: some people like the monster. I don't think this qualifies as non-trivial coverage. If the sources offer anything more, it should at least be mentioned here, and preferable added to the article. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BenKuykendall, you just named practically every section of the article and said that they were all trivial. There are quality sources backing up "Creative origin" and "Fictional ecology", both of them relevant to the subject. -- Toughpigs (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there are more sources above that cover other aspects - such as the role they play in the game. But to repeat what I have already said, I'm not going to spend time improving the article if it's just going to be deleted. As you yourself accept, BenKuykendall, you're holding the article to a higher standard than the relevant policies/guidelines demand. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Schwartz (meteorologist)

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

Notability. A television meteorologist on a local channel. Big in Philadelphia. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Easily the most well-known weatherman in America's 4th largest tv market. In the past he has appeared on national tv (the Weather Channel). Also, co-author of an award-winning book [36]--Rusf10 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appearing on "national TV" on the weather channel is not a sign of notability, and awards are a dime a dozen, nothing defining about these awards. Weathermen are not generally notable, and Schwartz is no exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Rusf10. Notable figure and inductee in the Broadcast Pioneers Hall of Fame... — Hunter Kahn 14:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local tv personality, little coverage seems to extend beyond Philly. "Inductee into the Broadcast Pioneers Hall of Fame" appears impressive at first glance, until one views the website, which looks an artifact from 1996. It is also just a local organization in Philadelphia. ValarianB (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I need to do some deeper-web research on this one. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since Bearian might do a little more research...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually a pretty notable meteorologist. It's not surprising that most of the coverage is Philly area, but it is one of the largest metro areas in the U.S. Has won several awards. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keepof all pages to delete this should not be one of them. he is a legend in the 4th largest market in the country and has had a career that included national exposure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.31.34 (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is not just some random weather guy, but it actively involved in the AMS and has spoken to them about forecasting winter storms. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has commented on national news outlets about hurricanes and has written a well-received book. Notability as a meteorologist is shown through wide coverage via reliable secondary sources. Passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of original (pre-war) Martin D-45s

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

Fails WP:LISTN. These aren't Stradivariuses. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are the acoustic guitar world's equivalent of Stradivariuses. Read the Lead: "generally recognized to the most desired, and highly valued, acoustic guitars ever made; in "American Guitars - An Illustrated History", author Tom Wheeler describes them as "among American guitar's irreplaceable treasures"". They are known as the "Holy Grail" to acoustic guitar collectors. Also read here: Vintage Guitar Magazine: Classic Instruments: 1939 Martin D-45. This finishes with the sentence: "If there is any one flat-top steel-string vintage American guitar which can be viewed as a “holy grail” to collectors, the pre-World War II D-45 Martin is it." Just a note, you can buy an "ordinary" acoustic guitar for $450. One of these in top condition will cost you closer to $450,000. There are no production acoustic guitars (vintage, desirable) (other than one-offs with celebrity association) that are worth more.Tony 1212 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. There is a Martin D-45 article for that sort of stuff. It's the listing of each guitar I object to. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above statement. Thanks for the response Clarityfiend... the Martin D-45 is a production model today that you can buy off the shelf, and has been made in a number of variants since its re-introduction in 1968. The 91 pre-war ones are a special set in my opinion and that of most other interested parties. Of course this list could be incorporated into the genral D-45 page but my view is that it is rather different in slant and would also make that page a bit long...

I refer to the WP notability criteria linked above:

Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. 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, per the above guidelines.

Some quotes from "independent reliable sources" showing that they are typically discussed as a set:

https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/20677-pre-war-perfection-the-martin-d-45 : "Today, more than 80 years after Autry’s D-45 was built, these 91 guitars are coveted by players and collectors worldwide."
Martin D-45 Master List (2009): "A place to list and help identify the first 91 D-45's"
https://www.guitarplayer.com/miscellaneous/introducing-the-d-45-authentic-1942-from-martin : "The new D 45 Authentic is made exactly like Martin made the original 91 pre war D 45 Dreadnoughts. And like the originals, these new D 45 Authentics could well become the next "Holy Grails" of acoustic guitardom. These are magnificent."
https://umgf.com/the-91-pre-war-d-45s-t180739.html : The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum > Guitars > The Vintage Corner > The 91 Pre War D-45s
https://shop.gryphonstrings.com/products/1941-steel-string-acoustic-martin-guitar-d45-53459 : "Thanks to Blom's recent neck reset and refret it's highly playable with medium gauge strings and delivers the powerful sound and rich bass response that has made pre-WWII D-45s legendary."

This is a selection of web sources to hand. There will be more in print sources (guitar books etc.) as well.

Happy to debate further of course. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as explained above, these are like Stradivariuses of the guitar world. Not quite literally, but certainly enough to pass WP:LISTN. Adding on, from Fretboard Journal (in the December 2013 issue article Catch of the Day: 1941 Martin D-45) (emphasis added): “As most guitar geeks know, Martin only made 91 prewar D-45s, which makes this instrument a very rare bird, indeed.” This is an assertion in a notable publication that the exact number of prewar D-45s is well known among guitar enthusiasts! This is a rare and well known historical set of acoustic instruments, this page list certainly has encyclopedic value as it details that set. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally concur with User:Shelbystripes. Here is another quote, this time from a respected reference book: "History of the American Guitar: 1833 to the Present Day" by Tony Bacon (ISBN 1476856389, 9781476856384): "Only 91 pre-war D-45s were made, and in the view of many players and collectors they are among the highest quality, best sounding guitars ever made. With so few in existence and with such wide knowledge of their almost magical quality, these superb, rare, and inevitably expensive instruments appear to follow the rules of supply and demand perfectly." Regards Tony 1212 (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for this very rare and valuable instrument. It is sought after by collectors. Per WP:LISTN we keep list like this.Wm335td (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satyendra Pakhale

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG with very few reliable sources about the person. I also get an eery feeling that this might be self-promo, as all IPs are from the Netherlands (where he is based) while there is no article in Dutch. The Banner talk 20:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the article itself has many statements for which there are no sources whatsoever, and does not particularly come across as WP:NEUTRAL. That being said, after some searching, I did find a few sources (e.g. New Indian Express, Telegraph India and TL magazine), though most of these are articles seem to be interviews. He does seem to have some possibly notable works, e.g. BM horse chair, Horse stool in V&A and Chair in Stedelijk Museum. The reason I put this as a comment, is because I am not knowledgeable enough about designers to know if these are actually passing WP:ARTIST, but wanted to share what I found. Achaea (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My point for this nomination is that it is a BLP, so sources should be about the person. The Banner talk 17:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The Banner: Sure, that is why I put in those sources about him. I wanted to add the works, because they can count towards WP:ARTISTS, specifically under "4. The person's work (or works) has: (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.", so the works are still relevant to the BLP. Achaea (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do know design and he does check out! He passes GNG for artists. He's probably more of a household design name in the Netherlands, but, I do consider him notable enough for inclusion, the article just needs work. I'll drop some citations on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also dropping a few reliable secondary sources on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He definitely meets WP:ARTIST#4, with works in the Victoria and Albert Museum, Stedelijk Museum and Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Having work in major museums like those strongly suggests that SIGCOV exists. I have done some edits on the article, and will do more - including adding Missvain's sources, and also checking the long lists of sources and external links in the article, some of which should probably be included as inline references. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medhai

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

Unknown film that is undersourced. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in reliable sources such as a review in The New Indian Express which although a bad review it is clearly independent, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFILM. Coverage available in independent reliable sources. Sambhil32 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball (video game)

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

The article fails to establish any kind of notability. The only reviews present are ones from Allgame and Nintendo Power, but as others have pointed out NP barely talks about the game, instead just comparing it to other baseball games on the NES. Could find nothing else on either MobyGames or the Wayback Machine. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the first MLB-licensed games for the NES; searching for "Major League Baseball" + "LJN" would for sure find more sources. Nate • (chatter) 19:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And how many of those come from reliable sources? Its historical importance is not an argument to keep something if there exists little to no sources for it. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mrschimpf Currently undecided, but did you seriously just left the search term (as a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES classic case) without you doing your own proper research to keep (or you think the nominator didn't do that which is a failure of WP:AGF since you said "would for sure find more")? Whatever the case is, it's bad. The search term just manages to find two press releases (in reliable sources, but still PR) about the lawsuit by a 9 year old where the game is barely mentioned. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there's a questionable or too broad title, it certainly isn't a bad thing to suggest good Boolean searches to the nominator to help them out (I've done this many times without any objection). The game was a wide-selling NES game, thus I feel it easily merits a keep. Nate • (chatter) 05:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures do not make something automatically notable. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a ref in Bleacher Report [37] and a book ref [38]/[39]. Will try to find more if I can, but I would advocate a merge to a bigger article about MLB video games as whole. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was noted as one of the best selling video games of 1988 by the LA Times (added to article.) Very difficult to search for given the title, but it does get mentioned in books [40] and a "review" from Golf Digest in 2018 [41]. I don't know how to search period magazines, but I'd be shocked if this wasn't notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Brief mentions in other sources do not make something notable. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of those sources aren't brief, including one of the books. It's been notable enough to be reviewed by a major newspaper again as a NES baseball game in 2018, I can't search period magazines, but I have to assume period reviews would be available if it was one of the best selling games per retailers/the LA Times source. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Sources found above are close to the GNG bar. I can't see the LA times article, but it looks like there was a capsule review of this? The Golf Digest one isn't great (basically a whiny capsule review) either. But given it's still be written about and how hard it is to search for, and it was on the NES and sold well, there are certainly detailed contemporaneous reviews out there. So basically "just at the bar of GNG and darn good reason to believe there is plenty of coverage out there". weak keep. Hobit (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There were reasonable arguments for notability being met (through different guidelines) and for it not (specific criteria and sourcing). Due to the Weak Keep I originally viewed it as a being either a No Consensus or Keep, however, the original nominator is primarily encouraging a merge, so a Keep appears reasonable. A merge discussion can be triggered if still desired. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Apple!!

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

I don't believe that this meets WP:NOTE; it basically serves as a collection of hardware port videos for the Alstroemeria cover. I think that a merge with "Touhou_Project#Reception_and_fanworks" would be more appropriate. — Goszei (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems to be passing wp:gng, although wp:cleanup can be done.Shubhi89 (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (biased here having done the research that lead to the article). Not sure why this is categorised under AfD/Music; it's perhaps better suited for Afd/Technology—the topic of the article is notable because of the gradual evolution and the ultimate wider-scale use in the 2010s as a test source for under-powered computing platforms. The article nonetheless follows the chronological development from (1) obscure 1997-game chiptune in Japan; (2) 2007-pop remix; (3) 2009-independently/collaboratively developed shadow puppet animation; (4) 2010s the use of (2) + (3) together as the basis for computer/engineering audiovisual test material. At the risk of being shot down for comparisons; Lena Forsén + the Leena test image developed over time as well—a model in a male-centric magazine centerfold might not by itself notable; it is what followed over the next decades that *received* notability. There appears to be more material around Bad Apple!!; but it's slow going, as quite a bit is in Japanese; and the only other pre-existing Wikipedia article was in Chinese (zh:Bad Apple!!). What would be useful is clear feedback as what could be expanded/improved (with sources); rather than a jumping to AfD because somewhere the page happens discusses the contextual origins as a game theme and pop song.
TL;DR, if reviewing this article and it had been authored by somebody else (not me), it would be Keep. —Sladen (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NALBUM, not strongly but I think there's merit in the article and a bit of effort into the article would improve it. eeveeman (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NSONG (NALBUM is for albums, which this is not, and it does not meet that criteria) as it did not chart, has not been nominated for any significant awards and certainly not covered in any way by significant artists. GNG easily fails as none the sources are reliable: blogs, open wikis, and SPSs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sladen's reasoning. Even if notable as an individual song (I didn't realize awards were necessary to establish notability), it's notable as an Internet phenomenon.--WaltCip (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Leitner

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

A declined A7. Could not find any indication on notability, either in the article, or in a WP:BEFORE. None of her works have ever materially charted, and no proper RS has ever done any kind of piece on her (e.g. zero SIGCOV) – E.g. why would Wikipedia? All I find are blogs, Instagram-type posts and some small refs like local Irish free newspapers on upcoming preformances (here). I will leave it to the AfD community to decide. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and every other basic notability criterion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at http://db.musicaustria.at/node/81882 - she has a list of recordings and international positions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC) - Also adding https://www.egonwellesz.at/e_wellesz_archiv.htm - rare repertoire in South Africa[reply]
- Comment That is a discography; if that was the criteria for a BLP, we could include everybody who every recorded a classical/jazz piece. The problem is that her Wikipedia article is the major "plank" of her notability – it should be the other way around (e.g. us summarising RS on her, not disography lists). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is a discography? An entry in the Austrian musicians' database? A list of concerts? Here's also https://www.wienerzeitung.at/startseite/archiv/68963_Konzert-am-Wochenende.html performance at traditional Vienna hall as soloist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is existence, but not notability? If the rap music sector got its act together and started equivalent databases for every rap performance, would we allow them to be used for GNG, of course not? I could make the same argument for authors (all of whose publications are recorded on various databases, but that doesn't justify a BLP). We need to be chronicling RS that profile her as a notable subject (e.g. even one SIGCOV); but these are just directory-type listings I am afraid. I don't think that classical musicians should be held to a lower GNG standard than all others just because a database records their existence; but no classical music magazine wants to do a piece on her – think about it, if the many magazines/journals of the classical music industry don't want to do a piece on her, why would Wikipedia? sorry for this. Britishfinance (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need sources that go beyond showing professional performances to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no more time for her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:MUSICBIO#1 - the page of Reviews on her website [42] includes reviews of her CDs and performances from 1993 to 2019, from Die Presse, Vienna; The Cape Times (South Africa); Gazeta Wyborcza, Warsaw; Irish Music (magazine); and others. These can easily be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MUSICBIO#1 is not WP:GNG, which she must meet, but doesn’t. References to recordings in minor RS does not make a BLP. Britishfinance (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, actually. WP:N states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;" (my emphasis)

WP:MUSICBIO is one of the subject-specific guidelines, which are explicitly stated to be an alternative to WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, I don't think MUSICBIO overrides GNG (unlike say WP:NPROF). The header of WP:MUSICBIO usefully states: Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. In addition, the sentence introducing the 12 criteria also states: may be notable. I have never read the 12 criteria of MUSICBIO as being SNGs that override GNG (unlike for example, the 8 criteria of WP:NPROF that explicitly state: Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable, or WP:NBOOK that also explicitly state A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria; and thus both do override GNG).

However, let me go through the media list on her website (I am on mobile at the moment and can't seem to access the links through several of them; of the ones I have seen, they look like small regional papers/non-RS (e.g. Irish Music (magazine) is pretty low-grade as an RS and while it could scrape for an Irish traditional musician, it would not really be applicable to an international classical musician); however, let me give it a full look and I will return to see if they could meet GNG. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:MUSICBIO#1 Subject must meet SNG or GNG. This one meets SNG. But RebeccaGreen has found some RS. Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above – MUSICBIO is not the same as NPROF (i.e. it does not over-ride GNG); GNG still applies. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion - as I quoted above, the intro to WP:N states that the subject-specific guidelines are alternatives to WP:GNG. Within WP:NMUSIC, WP:NALBUMS specifically requires that "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER don't say that.

However, the criterion which I believe that she meets actually requires "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself", so arguments about whether SNGs override or are alternatives to the GNG are moot, for this AfD. I would not call capital city newspapers in Austria, Poland and South Africa "small regional papers", myself - they are exactly where I would look for reviews of musicians performing in those capital cities. You may not have read the reviews in Irish Music (magazine), or the partial track listings on her CD page - they do make clear that some of her albums, such as Music of Irish Drawing Rooms, Sky Magic, Fire Magic, Music of Great Irish Houses, etc - include traditional and classic Irish tunes, and Celtic musical traditions more generally. Irish Music seems eminently well placed to review them, and any other musicians playing Irish music. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wordings of WP notability guidelines are (unhelpfully) variant, however, where an SNG explicitly states that it does not guarantee notability (as per WP:MUSICBIO, and several other SNGs, like WP:NFOOTY), then GNG still must be met. At this stage, this BLP doesn't have a write up in a material RS that would meet GNG (e.g. SIGCOV)?

She would never be considered an Irish traditional musician (in any sense), and her Music of Irish Drawing Rooms is the recital of international classical pieces in Irish stately homes. There is a legion of classical musicians who do this circuit in Ireland (and Britain), all of whom have CDs for sale after their recitals, but none of whom are worthy of a Wikipedia BLP?

Having a BLP in Wikipedia should mean something – E.g. you should be clearly notable. Mentions of your recordings/pieces and coverage in small or non-notable RS, does not add up to a BLP, and there is no WP:PRESERVE here. Why bother having notability if cases like this could pass it (e.g almost all recorded traveling professional classical musicians can have a BLP)?

Her Wikipedia BLP would be – by far – the biggest "plank" in her notability? However, it should be the other way around? Britishfinance (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added reviews to the article, so other editors can assess whether there are "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician". RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Excellent job by Gerda Arendt, RebeccaGreen and Wm335td to fix this article's issues, by removing cruft and adding sources. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Bearian stated before me, great work and now passes WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Krizek

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

Asides the WP:COI with the article creator and article subject, I just cannot see subject of article having in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree - fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was not finished adding sources to article- added 9 new sources today. Emarias22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I appreciate the addition of more references, the subject still does not meet the general notability guidelines, as none of the references cited meet all three criteria: significant coverage, reliable sources, and independent of the subject:

U.S. Census: Not significant coverage
Classmates.com: Neither reliable nor significant
Congressional record (both House and Senate versions): Not significant coverage
Library of Congress interview: Not significant coverage
Runner's World: Not significant coverage
Asian American Press: Not independent (it's a press release)
Mount Vernon Gazette: The closest of all provided sources to meeting the criteria, but it's only a local newspaper
Christian Relief Services: Not independent

My search has not uncovered any better sources either. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Mount Vernon Gazette is a very local paper, and even if we could ignore that one source does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is coverage of his accomplishments in major newspapers [43].NotButtigieg (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While he is mentioned in these article, they are not actually about him - they only mention him in relation to Billy Mills. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reliable source is about somebody he mentored, Billy Mills. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG per the analysis above. SportingFlyer T·C 11:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jmertel23's analysis of references. Fails GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG he has founded a notable organization, and has served on several government positions, including one appointed by the Kennedy administration.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not cite any actual sources that could be relevant for notability. Sandstein 09:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doist

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

Previously deleted, now recreated but still fails WP:NORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete agree with the nomination rationale.~~ I want to note that it says "It employes 40 people in more than 20 countries". This doesn't make sense because the only number which is more than 20 that 40 can be divided by is 40 itself.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the source says more than 40 people.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Storm nominated this article for deletion 2 years ago and Storm created the article again in 2019?--SharabSalam (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it is a unique (remote) company, and for which coverage exists. The company is already known for some notable softwares. I will try to add more sources. Störm (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed my vote because I feel that one of their apps is notable in google play and has more than 10 million downloads [44].--SharabSalam (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If sources are added. I believe the subject of notable enough to have some RS, it just needs to be added in. Puddleglum^2.0 15:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is it just me? Or are you saying, as it currently stands, the subject is not notable but you believe that if some other editor finds good sources (but not you, you can't find any), then it will be notable? And that's your sole reason for !voting to Keep? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If an article is nom'd for deletion by someone and recreated by that person without reasoning that in many ways is a concerning thing; as it avoids in my view an unethical avoidance of attribution. This creation was in fact a somewhat untypically article for this creator; and the creator has nominated better for deletion themselves so there might be questions if this article was created in expectation it might be sent for deletion. There are possibilies WP:RS may exist for article retention and if so I have objection to WP:REFUND of the deleted article of perhaps Barkeep49 might indicate if a histmerge is possible. Thankyou.86.158.216.81 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article's history is entirely independent of the previous version and so no merge (in reality it would just be the opposite of revision deletion) is necessary. All the edits on the page now are properly attributed to the editors who've done them - the previous version of the article being quite different. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Woody Woodpecker (film series). Wanted to give this another 24 hours to get some more feedback. I think redirecting is the best - thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dapper Denver Dooley

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

Non-notable cartoon character. Article is currently unsourced and I can't find evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Woody Woodpecker is a good soft delete and redirect target. Hog Farm (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Merge into a "Characters" section in Woody Woodpecker (film series)? Toughpigs (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or smerge to Woody Woodpecker (film series) sounds fine. All there really is to say is that he was an antagonist; his individual appearances are already borderline cruft. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - The article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per toughpigs as this subject is not too far from becoming notable now. NHS2008 (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Redirect or merge - I'm willing to give the article a chance, since Dapper Denver Dooley appeared in a number of Woody Woodpecker cartoons (and a Chilly Willy cartoon), but would also be Ok with a merge too. I think the only WW rivals most people really know are Wally Walrus and Buzz Buzzard (maybe Gabby Gator}. Also, Woody's main cartoons known to people were from 1940-1955, late 1959-1962 and the last one released in theaters. DDD cartoons appearances were in a not-to-notable period.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Woody Woodpecker (film series). The article fails WP:GNG, the only sourced website being nothing more than a listing of episodes. There is nothing in the article worth merging. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Woody Woodpecker (film series). Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 21:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Now that two decent sources have been provided, with no further concerns raised, the very valid concern that the original Keep votes were not in line with policy has been successfully alleviated. An informed consensus to keep can therefore be found here.

Note that this was originally non-admin-closed by the article creator [45] and very correctly undone by Britishfinance. The outcome ultimately was not in doubt, but the procedure very much was. ~ mazca ^talk 21:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Packages Mall

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

Fails WP:NPLACE and WP:GNG criteria. Redirect to Packages Limited. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A large mall with 200 stores, Multiplex Cinema, Food Court, Play Area, etc. Any mall of this size in the US would be clearly notable. This article is just once sentence with one ref, but AFD is not cleanup. Article should be kept and expanded. Searching finds many hits, but it's hard to find good coverage amongst all the store listings. This is one. MB 02:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mall is relatively new that is why some key information is scarcely available on the internet, but the mall is among the top three largest malls of Pakistan, and is considered a tourist and shopping attraction. Pakieditor (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable mall located in Lahore and is considered one of the major malls. Question: User:Vegan Gypsy is nominating articles started by me but never notified me, why? Störm (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. I agree AfD is not a platform to be used for cleanup. It's been said right here by so many editors before today. Personally I try to show respect for other people's time spent on editing and creating new articles. That's why I have never voted for 'Deletion' of any article here in my 6 years of editing on Wikipedia. How about simply tagging the articles on TOP of the article itself FIRST and allowing people some reasonable time to improve it? Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the Keep voters above have come up with a single source with in-depth coverage. Not to forget that AfD is not a place for vote count. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I have added references to the main article on the mall, so there is no need for relisting. You can not force delete an article when majority is against it. Pakieditor (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - huge mall, two good sources. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrivals (documentary series)

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

Article about a YouTube documentary series, not reliably sourced as the subject of any significant media coverage for the purposes of clearing our notability standards for web content. The only reference cited here is a blog entry which is not about The Arrivals at all, but just briefly namechecks its existence in an article about the Netflix series Messiah -- but the notability test is not getting mentioned in coverage of other things, it is being the subject of a sufficient volume of coverage about the topic itself to clear WP:GNG. And while I have been able to find technical verification of the fact that The Arrivals exists, I literally can't find anything that would count as a reliable or notability-supporting source about it. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, and fails WP:GNG. My speedy delete request ("Speedy delete. A7 applies because this "documentary film" is web content only") was declined by user:Espresso Addict ("Declining A7; fundamentally television not web content, despite Netflix distribution, so A7 inapplicable IMO"). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I may have misread this one; if this is definitely Youtube only then I'm happy to speedy delete under A7. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was incredibly confused by the fact that the sole source was about a Netflix series too, until I sorted out that Messiah and The Arrivals were two different things and not just alternate names for the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Isabella Bardua

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. New Zealand does not regularly qualify for the Olympics so her national title isn't sufficient on its own. Hergilei (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG; doesn't appear to get any news coverage. Schwede 66 10:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page was recently moved to shorter name, but I moved it back on the basis that page moves during AfD discussions should be avoided. PamD 10:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, fails both GNG and NSKATE. TheAnayalator (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
′Delete I agree. I tried searching for her under various combinations of her name in the databases I have access to and all I can find is mentions relating to her peerage. Idolmm (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons cited above. Zawed (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Education Loan Finance

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Lots of passing mention but no significant coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure advertising for a throughtly non-notable company. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional entry without the backing of significant independent reliable sources coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krishan Hooda

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

As a director has directed one film Rebellious Flower rest are all short films. None of the awards received are notable. What ever coverage is for Rebellious Flower. Cant seem to find any in-depth coverage. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 16:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 16:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 16:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The film is notable but the director is not. Notability can not be inherited. It seems the page was created for promoting this person. Sambhil32 (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Top Records catalog

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

WP is not a catalog. It wouldn't be so bad if WP had articles on these albums but they are all niche Blues records. Mattg82 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping - please consider improving with the sources provided by sillyfolkboy and if there are still concerns, consider PROD. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Road Race

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

I can't find any good sourcing for this that makes it notable by our standards, in books or news. (More notable, it seems to me, is the bicycle race under the same name.) The current article is really just a semi-promotional entry. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not my area of expertise, but the race has had coverage in several prominent Italian newspapers which makes the topic appear to meet general notability in my view. [46][47][48][49] SFB 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the actor has had significant roles in major productions, and that N:ACTOR is met. This was certainly not at all evident when the article was nominated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Francis

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

Failed PROD, as previously PRODded. Article consists only of a list of credits, without evidence that any are significant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing we have here is IMDb and the person's own website. We need reliable 3rd party sources. Especially since the article has existed for 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Keep. A brief (but by no means comprehensive) news search indicates that there are reliable sources providing reasonably in-depth coverage of this subject~~, although they have not made it into the article.~~ This one is certainly promising. BD2412 T 05:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft There is not that much coverage but he does have a couple of singles on Spotify that have more than 7 millions plays. One of them 10 million plays. He has fans and is signed. scope_creep^Talk 12:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft as he does have coverage that can be used to improve the article before it is ready for mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added sources and information to the article ,its still a work in progress but it can be improvedGeorgiamarlins (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 16:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisted one more time, any assessment from new or previous participants as to whether the late changes made by User:Georgiamarlins sufficiently solve the problems with the article would help us conclude what the consensus is here. ~ mazca ^talk 16:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NACTOR#1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". He was part of the main cast of Carl², Connor Undercover, Da Boom Crew, The Save-Ums! and Cross Country Fun Hunt, which doesn't have a WP article yet, but appears to have got a lot of coverage in Canada. The filmography showed him as having a main role in only one production, but in fact he had significant roles in several - either the lead, or a main supporting role. I have done some editing on the article, and will add more sources for his roles and music. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no great objection to keeping it now, as somewhat improved and subject to likely further improvement. BD2412 T 17:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now I have no objection to keeping, provided that the "Main role"s are legitimate. Again, there not being individualized references, I'm not sure which of the sources (if any) support the statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have changed my !vote above to Keep. BD2412 T 06:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhaned abu khumra

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in secondary reliable sources hence does not satisfy WP:GNG. Subject has won no notable award so WP:ANYBIO is not met either. Subject of article fails WP:CREATIVE also as I can’t see any criterion satisfied as his main works haven’t received WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up, but I can't find any RS to back this up, so move to the creator's page and delete. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete. They're some references in Arabic but not enough for a page currently fails WP:GNG. Lapablo (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abu Kumra is a notable director in Arabic world he already has a page in Arabic Wikipedia since 2012 also his work is widely known for Arabs and here is a list with his notable works in Arabic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8 and in English Wikipedia: Fashafeesh and Hawa Baghdad. Firasalbadri (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That I had edited the article due to a few grammatical mistakes and reviewed it.

Then Cited the article with more noticeable English articles, from verified websites as newspapers and IMDb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi.hossam.hassan (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough information in a range of sources to support a decent bio article. There isn’t much in the sourcing that provides depth but there’s much more than we have for a lot of bios of eg. footballers and cricketers. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bullet for My Valentine#Members. RL0919 (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Paget

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

Speedy deletion declined because of his membership of Bullet for my Valentine, but this isn't a qualification of WP:MUSICBIO. All his success and discography has been via the band, he has had no individual notability (or been a prominent member of another notable group). Particularly worrying is the impression that this article is being used to promote his sponsorship by ESP Guitars. At best this should be redirected to Bullet for my Valentine, as per the previous AfD outcome. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sionk (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bullet for My Valentine, as was already done the first time the article was nominated. He has done nothing outside of that band so there is nothing precise to say about him in a personal article that could not be said at the band's article. Also, this personal article appears to be an attempted list of his gear, which is not necessarily out of the ordinary and has only been noticed by a non-reliable gearhead website. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, not independently notable from the band and a promotional laundry list of his equipment is unnecessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per nom. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Koas

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

The article fails notability criteria: WP:BASIC and if we go to SNG - also fails WP:NACADEMICS, WP:JOURNALIST, WP:AUTHOR. Less Unless (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG across the board at this point in time. Missvain (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Thessaly

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

Complete nonsense; a historiographical hapax used in the context of nationalist literature during World War I is not a serious encyclopedic topic. Constantine ✍ 13:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, and, no surprise, the term is not actually in the cited work. It appears to be yet another fake OR/POV creation by this author. Constantine ✍ 16:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See page LX for „another fake OR/POV creation by this author”. Angel Angel 2 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen it.In page XL, Ivanov writes of "Epirus and Thessaly" together, as indeed he does elsewhere in his work. Ivanov documents instances of "Bulgarians" or "Bulgarian language" in the region of Thessaly, but nowhere does he attempt to define a distinct region of "Northern Thessaly"; that is your OR, and reflects your POV (which you helpfully reveal with the completely unrelated analogy to Northern Epirus below). I still can't quite tell whether you are seriously POV-pushing this term or merely trolling, or both, but the end result will be the same. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a notable term historically or geographically. --T*U (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary, my dear Watson. Northern Thessaly is not only a geographical, historical, anthropological, but also a geological differentiation [50] of the area of the Thessalian plain - by Phthiotis, whose other non-Greek name in the Middle Ages was Ravenica. The delete suggestion is as deep as Lake Xynias (Ezeros). But act, you're home.

ps. For the Non-greek world, North Thessaly has the value of the neologism of Northern Epirus for Greece. Angel Angel 2 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and T*U. Typical POV-push by the account who created this article. Dr. K. 17:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if it was an established term and not just used in one book, this two sentence article could easily fit into Bulgarians in North Macedonia. Arved (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:OR, and WP:SOAP -- or if you insist, redirect as suggested by Arved, Bearian (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Northern Thessaly has absolutely nothing to do with North Macedonia, though; they are separated by the entirety of South/Greek Macedonia. Constantine ✍ 14:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Hartstein

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

PR puff piece about a non-notable animal behaviorist. Lots of interviews and passing mentions but nothing substantial or meaningful. Praxidicae (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of passing mention, but no significant biographic information in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly a speedy delete as entirely promotional, complete with the name-dropping of his celebrity clients. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that he is notable, even though he may work for celebrities.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be G11 case, DGG. scope_creep^Talk 13:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Moukala

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

I can find no sources that verify the only claims of notability here - including imdb. In the absence of that and any independent coverage, I can't see how he is possibly notable. Praxidicae (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although since IMDb is not reliable not being there is of no meaning at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No in depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence I can’t see general notability guidelines being satisfied/fulfilled. Celestina007 (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG across the board at this time. Missvain (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Missvain (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srikaran Kandadai

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

Fails basic notability criteria for athletes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; the source in the article is the only instance of significant coverage (barely, excluding the interview) I can find and that will not push it over the bar, but it does reference his participation at the World Championships. However, he seems to meet WP:ATH by having participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (the Racquetball World Championships) and given he got a silver medal as referenced in the source I think that it is fair to say that he can be presumed to pass our notability standards. Racquetball is not a significant enough sport to have its own notability guideline, but the significance of the silver medal more than makes up for that (even though it's doubles). He barely passes WP:BLP1E as a high-profile individual arguably given this as even though it is only an explanatory supplement it is linked from a policy so it carries some degree of importance. It also states that some subject specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event which would exclude it from WP:BIO1E as well. All in all, I believe that this article is barely notable, and I think that this discussion should have resulted in a demonstration of notability as well. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 22:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources provided at end strongly imply notability, although the first appear to be the same article run across different sites. It appears that GNG as well as NACTOR is met, negating the delete arguments. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pramod Khanna

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

Simply put under WP:N and applicable here, Khanna fails to meet the requirement as he "has [failed to] receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[.]" Therefore, "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article." Dr42 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It passed WP:ENT. He produced a film (see Pramod Khanna enters Dabangg 3 to play brother Vinod's role) and later acted in film where he appeared in a significant role see that released today see (Vinod Khanna's brother Pramod Khanna to play Prajapati Pandey in 'Dabangg 3').S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 22:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Plenty of profiles about him given the recent movie he starred in - which was a major character. The movie is a franchise that is big in India and starring in a film with Salman Khan is no laughing matter. He's a HUGE star.[51][52][53][54][55] He's also a subject matter expert about rugby.[56][57][58] etc... Missvain (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Disregarding the socks, per ThatMontrealIP's comment. Sandstein 10:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pino Concialdi

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

Nothing has changed since the last AFD other than his death. He is still not notable and there is no evidence to support inclusion of this article. Praxidicae (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he is in the collection of the Museum Bagheria in Italy [59]; and was in a show (it's not clear if it's from the collection, or just part of a collection of works shown) at the Museo del Arte Mediterraneo [60]. He's in the journal Arte Moderna, Issue 33, page 108 (but just seeing a snippet view). That is probably not enough to establish notability - it would be nice if a native-Italian speaking editor could do some research. The Italian WP has quite a few more citations the enWP. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone Where do you see this on itwp? its salted there. Praxidicae (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Praxidicae, my mistake - it's on French WP here: [61]
Comment In line with what Netherzone is saying above, there is a strong hint of notability. The French Wikipedia page has a couple decent sources (and several bad ones), and mentions a museum collection.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources on frwp are not good. Alchetron, for example is completely unreliable. The rest are blogs and links that are already here. This has been a several year long campaign by meatpuppets on several projects (including itwiki where it's been repeatedly evaluated and found every time, even as recently as January 2019, not to be notable.) I would say we should trust the judgement of native Italian speakers. Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said, there were several bad ones. But the first two look like low level news articles that are independent. There is a hint of notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of the citations on frWP is actually a press release that I had mistaken for an article. It's looking somewhat doubtful unless better sources can be found. Netherzone (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning towards Delete: We have typically required inclusion in two or more notable museum collections; Museum Bagheria is a private museum founded by an art dealer, and does not have a en wiki page. For me, it is not enough alone to establish NARTIST. That said, I do want to have someone with Italian language skills to do a proper WP:BEFORE. --Theredproject (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 22:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The museum has an article in itWP: it: Museum - Osservatorio dell'arte in Sicilia. Checking the other artists it has listed there, most of them have long established articles in the enWP :Ferdinando Scianna, Giuseppe Tornatore, Fosco Maraini, or in the deWP de:Nino Franchina, Salvatore Scarpitta. I conclude it's a very important regional museum, and its enough to turn the balance. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll go with DGG's reasoning. The museum's IT WP page says it was founded in 1927. if they can keep things going for 90 years, they are doing something right. The notability overall here is a bit weak, but it is there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Artist recognized and appreciated at provincial and regional level, criticized and honored in Sicily, with a definitely unique and interesting pictorial style reminiscent of American expressionists, but still certainly far from the criteria of national or international relevance that you need to have to appear on wikipedia --c (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)— 5.171.192.176 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tloks]]. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so far all of the solid delete !votes here are by accounts or IPs with less than five edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Two~~ Three sets of !votes by socks have been removed per the results of this SPI ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having only one work in a museum at a regional level where there are works by other important artists does not, however, confer notability on an evidently lesser artist, as in this case it is Concialdi. I would like to remind you that Giuseppe Tornatore (Oscar-winning director) and Ferdinando Scianna (photographer) are international figures, who have distinguished themselves in their fields, all proven by third party and reliable sources. It is clearly evident that Concialdi is not comparable to these two.--5.171.192.18 (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)— 5.171.192.18 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tloks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Sockpuppet IP, is this a family operation, or have you asked the neighbours to vote? You are (5.171.192.18 and your friend above is 5.171.192.176).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although page needs to be improved. They are in collections and enough coverage to convince me that it's a weak keep. Netherzone (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Netherzone here.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. We tend to keep those artist's articles whose work is in major collections. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Third party sources that certify that his work is in museum collections of national or international importance have not been received. Relevance is only local. I absolutely don't understand its importance--5.171.252.222 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: It's amazing to see such great participation from all the delete vote IPs on the 5.171.*.* Telecom Italia Mobile network! Thank you to

Now, since no good faith users have actually voted delete, I think this could be closed. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Sopranos characters. There is a clear consensus that this subject does not merit a separate article at this time, and a disagreement as to the next step. A subject need only be noteworthy to be mentioned in an article, and that is clearly the case here. Concerns about manipulation of the resulting redirect can be dealt with through a request for page protection with respect to that redirect. BD2412 T 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

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

What makes this fictional character notable? Seems like the usual PLOT with PRIMARY, failing GNG/NFICTION. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of The Sopranos characters. Article is entirely fancruft with no out-of-universe content. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simply not following Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, does not mean it should be deleted. It definitely needs improvement, however, fairly easily passes WP:GNG with several book sources and some NYT sources. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Trim and Merge into List of The Sopranos characters.~~ WP:ALLPLOT, only a main character for two seasons (a third of the show's run), no reason why this needs a stand-alone article per WP:SPINOUT. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Redirect to List of The Sopranos characters. Interested editors may merge material, but maybe it's best to WP:TNT. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the inclination to bring articles like this to AFD, since they are largely just plot summary. But I feel like much of the time if just a cursory search for sources is done, it's easy to establish notability, and in the case of this character in particular I think he does satisfy WP:GNG. There are a great deal of books that analyze The Sopranos from a critical perspective, and with just a little bit of minor searching I was able to find several that discuss this character. For example, the book Sopranos and Philosophy: I Kill Therefore I Am discusses how the character reflects mob culture, and how his act of betrayal runs counter to that culture; and the book Tony Soprano's America: Gangsters, Guns, and Money discusses how Tony's feelings about Bonpensiero's death reflect the recurring feelings of guilt Tony occasionally feels for actions, and also has some interesting discussions about how the way Bonpensiero manifests himself in visions and dream sequences post-death are some of the show's strongest examples of postmodernism. Those are just a few examples, there are more. And there are a number of news articles that discuss the character as well; one strong example I found very quickly is this oral history by Variety which discusses how the cast and crew of the show had issues with the way this character was killed off, and how it affected production of the show afterward. These are just a few examples of reliable sources that help establish notability here. The problem here isn't that the article needs to be deleted; it needs to be improved. I'd love to try to do so myself during the AFD process to help demonstrate that notability, as I've done in the past and am currently doing on other pages, but especially with the holidays and all I just don't think I'll have the time. But there is no deadline for such improvements to be made, so in the meantime I believe the article should be kept. — Hunter Kahn 15:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE The article, as it stands, is 95+% fancruft. It should be blown up for now and redirected to the List of The Sopranos characters article. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Sourcing has not been shown to be sufficient to establish notability. I'd say even if there are sources, unless extremely overwhelming, that they'd be better spent trying to get the character list to FA/FL status rather than regurgitate all this info over two dozen articles. TTN (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 22:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect. A side char, esp one that was only in for a few seasons, doesn't quite get the coverage that the main fictional chars have gotten, to justify a whole article. ValarianB (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If the result is redirect, there's no need to delete. We can simply redirect it, and that will keep the edit history intact in case anything needs to be merged to the list article, or if sufficient sources are found for someone to restore and improve the article later. — Hunter Kahn 16:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to avoid any of that, honestly. A plain redirect just makes it into a juicy target for malcontents to come along and revert when they think no one is looking. The likelihood that anything new will be produced about a character who was killed off nearly 20 years ago, i.e. citations to support an article, are nil. ValarianB (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear what you're saying, though I don't agree; there actually are a ton of sources about this character out there. The books I cited above discuss the character at length, and there are a multitude of news articles and reviews that discuss his role in the show and the parallels to real life mob culture. I just unfortunately don't have the time to add them to the article myself, and it doesn't seem like anyone else has been inclined to do so. So I think if someone decided to restore the page, there would be a great deal of sources they could draw from, and having the edit history intact would allow them to do so without starting the plot summary section from scratch... — Hunter Kahn 14:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is more than notable enough to have a redirect; any other concerns are conjecture and can be reverted on the unlikely chance his page is restored. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration of 1700 years of Edict of Milan in Niš

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

I'm struggling to see the benefits of keeping this lengthy, unsourced article about a celebration in Niš of 1700 years since the Edict of Milan. It basically says, in essence, not a lot more than that - and the Niš article already mentions the fountains which were created. Article created by a single-issue editor and remains unsourced after 6 years. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge to Edict of Milan, or just delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This feels like a local newspaper writeup. No justification for a standalone article, and I don't see anything in need of merging. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research about a single event in living memory to celebrate something else. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Constantine's edict of Milan was certainly highly notable, but a Serbian celebration of its 17th centenary is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Susan Templeton is listed as a contact for Marc Cushman in [62], so I'm disregarding the opinion by Susantempleton per WP:COI. Sandstein 18:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Cushman

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

I can find lots of PR for this guy, and a fair bit of fan bloggery and such, but I am really struggling to fix its lack of a single reliable independent secondary source. I't's got lots of inline links to sales pages, which contributes to a strong whiff of processed meat products and doesn't help the overall impression of being a promotional piece. Guy (help!) 11:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source secondary indepdent coverage. We do not build articles on PR buzz.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to support notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Marc Cushman writes in-depth books on the history of pop culture and has been recognized by several people, including the main cast of Star Trek, and the Saturn Awards, along with other accolades. If any of the above users had read even one of Mr. Cushman's books and the details he gives, they would not request deletion. He directly pitched television scripts to and wrote for Gene Roddenberry, which is mentioned in his "These Are the Voyages" series. His books are authorized so this is not a random writer trying to use Wikipedia for publicity. User:Susantempleton 7:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

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. Missvain (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien sketches

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

Few sources, no demonstration of notability. Why are these sketches notable and why do we need a list of them? Popcornduff (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Popcornduff (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sketches are an important part of Conan O'Brien's former talk shows Late Night with Conan O'Brien and The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. Abstrakt (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstrakt, but nothing in the article indicates their importance or notability. Popcornduff (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plausible content fork of Late Night. p b p 04:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack89, are you not concerned that almost nothing in the article is cited and there is no indication of these sketches' individual notability? I notice since adding your vote you have added more uncited original research to the article - why? Popcornduff (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you badgering everybody who votes keep? Also, for this to fail GNG, you have to prove that the COLLECTIVE concept of sketches are not notable. p b p 21:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89, I'm sorry that I appear to be badgering you, and I was conscious that it might come across that way when I responded. I decided to go ahead anyway because I find the two responses to this nom so far surprising - they don't seem to be responding to the problems I raised (lack of sources and no demonstration of notability). That is why I'm challenging you.

I do not think the burden is on the nominator to prove something is not notable. It's tough to prove a negative. Instead we have to agree that the notability can be demonstrated per WP:GNG. Picking some of the sketches at random, I can't find any independent reliable sources covering them at all, let alone the sketches "as a collective" as you put it. Popcornduff (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send it to ConanWiki: this is an inordinate level of detail for Wikipedia, and an excellent level of detail for Wikia. I can add the content to Wikia if needed, with URL attribution (maybe even a list of editors). As for what happens to the page here, well, until someone starts showing us some reviews of individual sketches then it's a ~~delete~~ from me. — Bilorv (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Gonnym, I'm striking the delete and replacing it with a keep, but I believe the list does need rewriting from scratch, with us only including sketches covered by reliable secondary sources. I also believe the rest of the content is a good fit for Wikia and I'll look at adding it there, whether or not the content is kept here. — Bilorv (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Bilorv, if this article is kept, is anyone who votes keep going to rewrite it from scratch? It's been in a dire state for over a decade, tagged, with no improvement - and in fact since I nominated it for deletion, one of the keep voters has added more original research, which I personally find amazing. I think this is a WP:JUNK situation: Wikipedia lacks articles on a lot of notable subjects. We don't need to keep an article with no merit in itself just because it might, theoretically, be possible to make a good article on the subject. Popcornduff (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Popcornduff, you have really overstepped the line into badgering here. Do not ping me again in this discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  All right, sorry to have gone too far there. Popcornduff (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the state of the article isn't good, however I believe this is an essentinal part of the show. I also don't understand the "send to Wikia" argument. If I'd wanted to read something on Wikia and get spammed with ads, I'd go there. There is a reason I and others like me, rather read here. Now for the notability part. It's kind of hard asking to get online(!) sources for something 20 years ago, however here are a few I found in 10 minutes of searching: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. Sure, not the best sources, some might not be valid RS, but again, we are talking about a sub-topic of something that was 20 years ago. I'm also sure there are more RS dealing with this subject in print from the time. --Gonnym (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, for this to meet WP:GNG, we have to see that enough individual sketches have had coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. If these sources can be found then great, but you seem to suggest here that they can't. You might find the information personally interesting or useful but WP:INTERESTING isn't a great argument. Popcornduff (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on how WP:GNG relates to sub-topics as the policy is mute on the topic. See for instance WP:NNC which says that Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Now if this list was part of the main article, your augment about GNG would be irrelevant. However, merging it into the main article will lead to a bad user-experience, which is why we split long articles. I also don't think finding the sources is immpossible, just not something that can be found in AfD. That is probably more serious research and finding actual hard print papers. That said, finding sources which aren't the top of the RS food chain that do talk about it, you can find enough. I'll probably not comment again in this topic, so no point in pining me anymore. Also, while WP:INTERESTING isn't a great argument (and wasn't my primary one either), nor is "send it to Wikia". --Gonnym (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, no problem if you don't want to contribute further. However, I don't think "send it to Wikia" was an argument for deleting it here. Bilorv instead said we should delete it as "this is an inordinate level of detail for Wikipedia". The Wikia idea was just a good-faith suggestion for how this WP:INTERESTING information could be rehomed elsewhere on the web. Popcornduff (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand the "send to Wikia" argument. If I'd wanted to read something on Wikia and get spammed with ads, I'd go there. You're free to go wherever you want, but my reasoning is that (a) this content is not suitable for Wikipedia and (b) it would be a shame to delete it when it's clearly an enjoyable resource to some. Now you've added some sources, keeping the article looks plausible to me, but it would need to be absolutely blown up per our policies that Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources, and that we're not a place for indiscriminate info (which lists "Summary-only descriptions of works" as its first example, and that's exactly what this list is). — Bilorv (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, personally, I do not think there are sources out there sufficient to create an article just for these sketches, even post WP:TNT. Yes, there are these bits of coverage like "best sketches" here and there on reliable sources, but they don't add up to a body of work where it's like "we simply cannot cover these sufficiently without their own page". Notable sketches can be covered where appropriate on articles about the shows themselves (such as Late Night with Conan O'Brien). Popcornduff (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your perspective but after a bit of reflection, I disagree. Gonnym has shown to my satisfaction that there are enough sources for a stand-alone list—though the articles about the shows should definitely have critical reception in them—but that list should only cover sketches with secondary source coverage, not the enormous list there is at present. — Bilorv (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, I getcha, but the problem with that is the article is called "List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien sketches" which implies a degree of comprehensiveness - it would be a bit odd if it only comprised the handful of sketches we can find sources for, when there have been hundreds and hundreds of them - and it invites endless dumping of cruft (see the current article). Popcornduff (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many lists have titles with similar implications e.g. List of Russians. An "endless dumping of cruft" describes the whole of WP:TV, really, but the solution is editor maintenance. — Bilorv (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, yes, fair enough. I remain skeptical that there is enough meat on the bones of these RSs to justify much coverage of the sketches though. Popcornduff (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gonnym. The sources he identified indicate notability, and I suspect they only begin to scratch the surface of what's available upon a wider search. — Hunter Kahn 02:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: WOW! The article has been tagged since 2008-09 which includes an WP:OR tag. The state of the article is horrendous. A problem I have (there are really more than one) is that many of the "Keep" !votes, such as "an important part of Conan O'Brien's former talk shows", or "Plausible content fork of Late Night" are not remotely policy or guideline based. The one argument listing references, so more valid, is provided by Gonnym, that has swayed at least two other editors.

The selection criteria includes "... and supported by reliable sources" and "... it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.". The article was created without using any episodes (only a few tagged with ^{[episode needed]}) and everything from the "Late Night sketches appearing on Tonight" section to the "Coked up Werewolf" subsection of the "Late Night sketches" section is unsourced.

The first source provided here is titled The 20 best Conan O'Brien late-night bits. The top 10 certainly has coverage and the "Masturbating Bear" could likely have a stand alone article. While I tend to think there is notability for "a list" (sub-topic) somewhat like this, "this list" has an issue with notability especially considering the criteria that includes sourcing.

This is not really complicated. The tags from 2008-09 mean that some attention is long overdue. If it is kept, as it appears it could be, will it be on a future AFD list? If it remains as "keep as is" it likely will be. Even if the provided extra sources are vetted and "all" are found reliable, that will not put a dent in the unsourced material. The policy on original research states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research" and that is hard to disprove with the immense unsourced content. At a point something should be done. Currently it appears the list fails Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Citing sources. The "tipping point" may very well be it needs completely rewritten, because "the damage is beyond fixing", and possibly limited to something like the "twenty" that is sourced. I do agree with Gonnym that there maybe more sources "out there" but that is not really a good enough reason to keep such an large mostly unsourced list article (especially considering the tags) that flies in the face of several policies and guidelines.

There is also a fallacy: "...for this to fail GNG, you have to prove that the COLLECTIVE concept of sketches are not notable.", is simply a non-true statement. The "collective concept of sketches" is not even a consideration. WP:GNG is concerning an individual topic, AND-- it is still "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.". Otr500 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there are several keep votes, several other folks have commented what seem to be delete votes, without actually stating their position. One should hope an extra week will give them time to write a vote down.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN. Information for our readers. Too long for any merge. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No agreement about whether to delete outright or to reduce to a list of notable synthesizers. Sandstein 13:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of classic synthesizers

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

Completely uncited (and has been for many years, possibly since it was created in 2008). No criteria for what constitutes a "classic" synthesizer. Seems to be a dump of original research based on what various editors reckon are classic synths. Popcornduff (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 10:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no clear inclusion criteria, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS (oh, the irony). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of synthesizers and do the usual things to narrow the scope of the list to those in the article, which already follow the rule of being not merely notable but influential. The lede addresses this distinction already: <synthesizers> "which marked a turning point in musical sound or style". "Classic" is of course objectionable, but I am quite sure we all agree for the most part on "notable", which has not been raised as an objection by anyone including the nominator, probably because almost all of the scores of synthesizers listed have articles. I would accept List of influential synthesizers but I doubt anyone else would, and I admit it suffers from the same problems as "classic", only less so. Anarchangel (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a "List of synthesizers" page might be a good idea, and I hadn't thought of that. If the outcome of this nom is to delete then I might make a new, sourced "List of synthesizers" page myself. Popcornduff (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of synthesizers as proposed by Anarchangel. If List of synthesizers is desireable content, List of classic synthesizers is a good leg up and these contributions should be attributed by preserving revision history of the list through move. ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujan cinema

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. No mention of "Bahujan cinema" in any reliable sources, not even in IMDB. The article was originally created as Bahujanwood but that term also lacks any significance in reliable sources. WalkingDisks (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WalkingDisks (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WalkingDisks (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the term ‘Bahujanwood’ is used in the first two sources cited. It may be possible to simply find an appropriate title for this article,or perhaps the content can be merged elsewhere, but straight deletion seems pretty drastic. Mccapra (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of sources meeting WP:GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LJ Music

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

Fails GNG and NMUSIC. No appearances in any charts that I could find, nor is there SIGCOV about her. Would not satisfy any other notability criteria. PK650 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If not deleted, needs to be at a better title, perhaps LJ (singer), and the entry at dab page LJ (to which I've just added her) needs to be updated. Would have moved the page, but it's not helpful to do so during an AfD. PamD 10:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article author

Hi PK650, I created this Wikipedia article for LJ Music. Please accept my apologies if there is something wrong with the page or I did not follow a specific Wikipedia rule or process. I've been an avid Wikipedia contributor for almost 10 years and have made hundreds of contributions and have created a bunch of pages for all types of people and organizations in the arts. I really hope this page does not get deleted because I feel it does warrant having its own page.

I read through your reasons for deleting her page. Thank you for taking the time to go through Wikipedia articles to ensure they are accurate and warranted! As a 10-year Wikipedia contributor, I strongly believe in ensuring Wikipedia is as accurate as possible :)

For your comments, are you suggesting that if a musician does not have an appearance in a chart that he or she should not be able to have a Wikipedia page? I don't necessarily agree with that requirement. I felt a Wikipedia article is justified for her for three key reasons.

First, LJ Music, from what I have found, is signed to a well-known record label/publishing company (RED Creative Group) that work with many reputable artists, which to me helps prove her reputation.

Second, from what I found, she has worked with, and appears to be currently working with, a bunch of well-known producers and songwriters who have been in the music industry a long time and have won many industry awards (such as Jeremy Stover, Paul DiGiovanni, Deana Carter, Monty Criswell, Kelly Archer, Sarah Buxton, and the Warren Brothers.)

And third, she has a bunch of credible third-party industry websites that have written about her, or mention her work, that satisfied Wikipedia's requirement to have verifiable sources. I felt these three reasons made her legit enough to have her own Wikipedia article, especially since she has songs that are live from those known individuals in the music industry. I don't think that just because she doesn't have a hit song that she should be disqualified for having a page?

Regarding PamD's comment, I can totally change the title. The only reason I chose "musician" rather than "singer" is because I have seen "musician" used in parenthesis all the time for musicians throughout my years contributing to Wikipedia. I was just trying to follow the same format and use the same verbiage I've seen other musicians used.

Do you agree with any of my reasonings? Would you feel more comfortable keeping the page if I found more information about her that increased her credibility? I understand anyone has the right to suggest a page for deletion on Wikipedia, but I was hoping my 10 years as a contributor, and the facts I've made hundreds of contributions over the years would help prove my credibility. During my daily browsing of the world wide web, when I come across an artist, musician, or other kind of enthusiast, if I see enough about that person, I try to create or contribute to a Wikipedia page. So that's why I decided to create hers, after seeing all the information about being signed, published, working with award winning songwriters and producers, and seeing so many third-party websites mentioning her and her music career.

Happy to talk more. And thank you again for bringing this to my attention! Hoping this page can stay. Salvatore42 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvatore42: Please look at WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC which were mentioned, but unfortunately not linked, in the nomination. Then make sure that the article has sources which satisfy the requirements of one of these, and make a "Keep" argument on this page pointing out how LJ satisfies those criteria. Thanks. PamD 00:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could I please have you clarify the following: "I created this Wikipedia article for LJ Music"? Do you mean to say you were working for/with LJ Music? PK650 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Sambhil32 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nominator and Sambhil32 that the sources provided do not adequately satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. As nominator, I've decided I don't have the right language skills to handle this one. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1914–15 SK Rapid Wien season

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

Non-notable season. I can find nothing besides statistical records for this season, although maybe sources exist in Austrian (if so, I can't find them). This article has literally one sentence of prose. Fails WP:GNG and especially WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. WP:NSEASON strongly suggests a redirect to the overall team article, but this season is not mentioned in the team article, and this era of team history is only briefly discussed in the overall team article, so I'm not sure how much value this would serve as a redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment they finished 3rd in Austria this season in spite of the season being shortened (probably due to the war?) I'd be surprised if they didn't receive any secondary coverage this season, but struggled to do an Austrian newspaper historical search, so can't vote. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. IDK, maybe it's just me, but somehow the fact that the nominator says that he went looking for sources in a non-existent language makes me wonder exactly how much WP:BEFORE was done here prior to filing this AfD nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn. I honest to goodness thought that Austrian was a language. Well, that's embarrassing (and also explains some things). Since it's evident that I don't have the language skills required for this article, I'm going to withdrawn my nomination. Hog Farm (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Jaden Donald

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

Nominating an article I created years ago for deletion. At the time, I thought there would be lasting coverage as it was covered in a few national publications/news services. However, there has not been lasting coverage nor is the incident notable in any way in the grand scheme of violence in Chicago. Andise1 (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 06:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 06:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No lasting impact nor media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. Seems to be just another in the long list of Chicago shootings.Sandals1 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hellier (documentary series)

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AFD was closed for procedural reasons, but it isn't any more notable now than it was previously. The main "sources" that were identified in the previous review are Richmond Register and Vice, which both are derived from press releases without significant original content, and these two obscure non-RS websites which have reviewed it. Does not meet WP:NFILM, WP:GNG, or anything else. The content is based on junk sources and needs to be scrapped. b uidhe 05:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 05:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 05:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of the last discussion:

Extended content
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellier (documentary series)}}

TheMemeMonarch (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sorry, but why was the 1st afd closed early ie. which point of WP:SKCRIT? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Coolabahapple, Because I said Merge when I meant Redirect. If nominator argues for merge than it can be procedurally closed, as it was. b uidhe 07:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Coolabahapple, but what Buidhe said is not confirmed. If MJL could comment, that would clear up any misunderstands as to why the first AFD discussion was closed.TheMemeMonarch (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMemeMonarch: Thank you for the ping. I closed the last AFD for procedural reasons as was mentioned. The logic behind it was Buidhe suggested it be merged with another article, and AFD is generally not supposed to be used to suggest mergers (see WP:MERGE). When that happens, generally the result is either keep or merge per speedy keep (example).
Theoretically, SKCRIT applies to suggestions that a page be redirected as well, but I will leave that to another potential closer.
Either way, to answer Coolabahapple's question, the logic behind WP:SKCRIT is to prevent AFD from having discussions where everyone agrees the content should be kept. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As just a commentator, I don't see how the Vice and Richmond Register sources are at all based from Press Releases. They seem pretty significant to me, and both give every indication that they're original reporting. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that the richmond and vice articles are merely based on press releases. Also here is another article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are lots of reviews and articles, plus this show is connected to the streaming giant Prime Video. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Sri Lankan parliamentary election

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

Creator of this article failed to realise this article already exists, at Next Sri Lankan parliamentary election. Rather than moving the article name, this user has created a whole new article leaving two separate articles in existance. Blackknight12 (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Blackknight12 (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 05:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth of Evil

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

I cannot find any reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this novel. Furthermore, Template:Star Wars Legends novels is a massive collection of fancruft. The vast majority of its contents should be deleted. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After just a brief search I was already able to find a couple of reliable sources that discuss this novel, and I've added a few of them to the article. I won't have time to do more until later, but I believe there is much more out there, and I will try to dig up more sources and add them as well. (A search on Newsbank appears to turn up a few more.) I also think this novel's direct connection to one of the Star Wars films, and the fact that it directly inspired plotlines in one of the Star Wars television shows, make it that much more notable. — Hunter Kahn 15:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The added sources do not fill me with confidence. The Verge, Wired and Entertainment Weekly articles mention the book in passing. The remaining three are two "Best of" lists and a primary source. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK criterion 1 and Hunter Kahn. The novel appeared on the New York Times best seller for three weeks and received several non-trivial reviews. I added a couple of the reviews I found to the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hunter Kahn and Fearstreetsaga's additions. The Verge article is an interview with the author about this book series, not a passing mention. I think being an NYT best-seller makes its notability clear. Toughpigs (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, bestseller and reviews, article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022 J.League Asia Challenge

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

Non-notable future event. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. b uidhe 04:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too far in future, WP:CRYSTAL applies. Giant Snowman 18:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with both the above. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an organized event two years in the future for which no claim of significance is made, much less any indication of notability (also too soon) or coverage in RS. I'd actually say this meets WP:CSD#A7 (organized event), but please tell me if this criterion isn't applicable. ComplexRational (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd probably have WP:CSD#A7'd this as well, even though I'm not a big WP:CSD#A7 fan. Even with the infobox, it's difficult to tell why this event is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 14:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superior border

AfDs for this article:

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

Impossibly broad redirect, not serving a useful purpose. Linked terms are now all redirects (different to situation in 2016). Propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one included is ref to margin not to border.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inferior border

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

All links are now redirects. This is an impossibly broad disambig that servies no useful purpose. Propose deletion Tom (LT) (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasons given.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BIMCO (congress)

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NN. Deleted in Russia Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability at all. Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Park (TV series)

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

This show has been acknowledged by Cracked and Screen Rant, but this does not seem to be enough to meet WP:GNG. Newspapers.com and Google Books yielded no results. The other sources are TV publications that only give directory listings as well, along with a blog that does not seem to be an RS. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have mixed feelings about this one. It has received some coverage in at least two secondary sources, according to the article's own references, indicating some level of notability, but the other refs at the article are all primary sources that don't count towards notability. The missing part of the picture is whether it got any media/press coverage at the time of its release in the 1980s – my suspicion is that might have (i.e. WP:NEXIST), but probably not much... My feeling here is that this is probably just barely notable, but it would be preferred if one or two more secondary sources for this could be found to "clinch" it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the "notability" of this subject stems from what an awful failure it was. In addition to the mentions on Cracked and Screen Rant, there's a page on TV Tropes and some YouTube videos dedicated to mocking the series. This kind of thing isn't usually considered significant coverage in reliable sources, but for this kind of topic, I think it indicates that there's legitimate public interest in this topic. At least all of the mentions of it are independent of the source -- the company that produced Peppermint Park is long gone, and the page wasn't written to advertise the series. I think it bends notability slightly but doesn't come close to breaking it. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: Having a TV Tropes page is not an assertation of notability. "Legitimate public interest" is not the same thing as Wikipedia-level notability, and this doesn't seem to pass it. Cracked and Screen Rant are literally the only coverage forms that are anywhere close to reliable, and I see no reason to invoke WP:IAR just because you think it's of interest to someone. All rare media is of interest to someone. Does that mean everything on Lost Media Wiki should have a page here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Well, notability is defined as "worthy of notice", and I think demonstrating "legitimate public interest" plays a role in that.

I looked on newspapers.com, and I found a couple mentions, which I acknowledge are very marginal:

Jordan Valley Sentinel (Murray, UT), Jan 14 1988, "Consumer Electronics Show: The Latest of Everything and Then Some": "E.J. Levine and the gang from Unicorn Video were there as were the people from the Peppermint Park video series which is a marvelous series for teaching preschoolers from Mark V Productions."
West Valley View (Salt Lake City, UT), Dec 17 1987, "Home on the Video Scene Dept.": "If you have preschoolers at home you can turn your VCR into a very pleasant learning tool with the Peppermint Park series of educational tapes which feature live action characters in various settings."

Looking at Lost Media Wiki, quite a bit of the articles featured there do have Wikipedia pages -- the current featured articles on the home page are Getting Together, Hortensius, Boone, the original version of The Good Dinosaur, Star-ving and a computer game called Big Brother that Wikipedia doesn't cover. I don't know if everything on Lost Media Wiki should have a page here -- I hadn't heard of it until I was looking up Peppermint Park yesterday -- but if that's meant to be a slippery slope argument then it doesn't scare me, particularly. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: The two articles you cited are both trivial mentions and not enough for notability. "But other stuff has Wikipedia articles too" is not a valid reason to keep this one. Have you found any reliable coverage? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: I have not. Just Cracked and Screen Rant, and (to the extent that it matters) TV Tropes. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then that is not reliable source coverage, and therefore not notability. If you can't find anything, then it must not be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice to a possible recreation of separate articles about the person and his company, if good sources can be found for either. Sandstein 10:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Afflelou

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

Insufficient evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about a person and company that completely fails WP:GNG. Poorly sourced and no evidence of notability has been established. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 23:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The guy has been flooding the French tv with ads since 1978. The French article has 29 sources, which includes Who's who and the légion d'honneur ([71]). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While per Comte the person may be notable, the article is a mess mixing info on a person and on a company. WP:TNT, with no prejudice to recreation of both topics in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The "delete" opinions don't address the sources cited by the "keep" side. Sandstein 10:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Nkesti

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

Article about a non-notable model who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The creator of the article fails to highlight why she might be notable, only writing it in a promotional tone. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I agree the article is not well-written and needs some big improvements, I think considering the news coverage of her (e.g. in Times Live, Cosmopolitan, Sowetan Live and Channel 24 among others), she does pass WP:GNG. According to these sources she's the first SA woman to have her own reality show on MTV, which I would say counts towards WP:ENTERTAINER. Achaea (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the page considerably and added some sources, hope this helps! Achaea (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable to meet WP:GNG. --17:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)--Richie Campbell (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources show she meets GNG and I just added two more. Thanks to Achaea for cleaning up the article! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:GNG based on the sources now present in the article. TJMSmith (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Cosmopolitan, Times Live, Standard (Africa), so passes WP:GNG and deserves to be kept, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per the sources provided by Achaea. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel baffle

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

Non-notable topic. There's already a paragraph about this at Bird feeder#Squirrels, which covers the topic in about as much detail as needed. We could redirect to there, but (see below) because of copyvio issues, somebody would have to put in the effort to figure out what part of the history is clean. Easier to just delete and redirect, but I'd have no objection to keeping the history if somebody actually wanted to put in the effort to figure out which revisions were copyvio free.

About half of this article was copyvios and listings for specific products, which I've removed. The rest is unsourced, and mostly WP:OR. My own searching failed to find any useful sources. Lots of mentions, but they're all just places that sell these things. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to main per nom. Reywas92^Talk 08:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to remove the copyvios, then Redirect per nom's observations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there's nothing to merge, so a delete is the best option. I'm not sure about a redirect, but can be done if anyone wishes after deletion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.theres nothing encyclopaedic to say about this topic. Mccapra (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Participants provide some decent sources of lists, and group articles, discussing various people as recluses. This supports the existence of the list on purely notability grounds via WP:LISTN, and I do not think the critiques raised about some of those sources reach the point of invalidating them as a whole. Those arguing to delete do raise some understandable problems with the article - "recluse" is frequently a negative term, and so BLP concerns absolutely must be paramount - but good sourcing solves the issue of negative information about living persons, making this overall a content and sourcing issue for the list rather than an existence issue. Ultimately this article needs to be improved with a more specific set of inclusion criteria, and a better introduction that details exactly what those criteria are. Good arguments have been made that a list like this can exist based on WP:LISTN, but very valid criticisms are made that the list as it stands is dangerous from a BLP perspective, potentially somewhat arbitrary, and is struggling to demonstrate why it's better than a category. All of these concerns are technically content issues that could be solved by editing, but if they aren't, I think there's a strong argument that the list is not helpful and it could validly be re-nominated in future. ~ mazca ^talk 17:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of recluses

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

I can't see any logical reason to list people who supposedly share a somewhat trivial and subjective personality trait such as reclusion. Additionally, I have this gut feeling there may be a WP:BLP issue regarding some of the people listed here. Vaporgaze (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the list's creator. Rolling Stone, Esquire, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, HuffPost, Times Union, etc. etc. all discuss recluses as a group. To paraphrase Greta Garbo, this list vants to be let alone. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Understandably the creator is going to defend their work. But while it's a nice bit of information, it's trivial at best and an article is not really needed as it's fueled off listicles such as above, all of which are based on someone's personal interpretation of the term. It has the potential to get out of control quickly with editors' varying opinions of the word and consequential namedropping whenever (insert name here) and "recluse" are spotted in the same paragraph of some random article. Not worth the inevitable headache. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Being a recluse is not "a somewhat trivial and subjective personality trait". Greta Garbo and Howard Hughes, just to name two, are extremely well-known for their reclusiveness, and their bios would be fatally incomplete without it. As for Beemer69's objections, the list satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE. It is covered by reliable sources and consists of notable individuals. It goes well beyond "someone's personal interpretation" when many journalists, writers, etc. all agree. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets our criteria for WP:NLIST and WP:LISTN and the article has WP:RSs. We keep such lists to serve the readers and to aide in navigation. There is no BLP issue; also many on the list are deceased. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good rationale to delete. Also WP:PRESERVE is a policy on Wikipedia. Wm335td (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary, vague, and subjective list criteria and concerns over WP:BLP are valid -- we wouldn't have a list of people with mental/physical health issues or a list of eccentric people and there would be a lot of overlap with people added to this.Citing (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. BLP states "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (bolding mine) should be removed. I've vetted the more questionable references, and all the people (dead or alive) are well-sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some more. An important thing to note is that in labelling someone a recluse, journalists often only mean that person is exhibiting some aspects of reclusive behaviour for a period. Note the quote in the Telegraph source you gave above "My belief is that ‘recluse' is a code word generated by journalists ... meaning, ‘doesn't like to talk to reporters.'" Labelling someone a recluse because they don't talk to reporters or stop working after retirement is not something we should be doing. Looking at non-journalistic reliable sources, a Google Books search reveals the term is used principally to refer to hermits, where we already have a list of notable religious recluses.----Pontificalibus 06:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word can be used to describe a hermit who willingly spends their entire adult life in isolation. It seems it can also be used to describe someone in public life who declines a few interviews in retirement. Listing both with no distinction simply because a source uses the word does not make an encyclopedia article. It would be like having a List of angry people, and claiming that every entry is ok because it's supported by a source stating that the person was angry. ----Pontificalibus 21:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend, an experienced editor who knows what they are doing. The delete votes seem to be of the slippery slope type. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE per WP:NOTCATALOG and objections raised above. The page for recluse already provides examples, which do not need to be complete in order to be valid. But attempting to maintain a running list of notable people requires efforts toward both accuracy and completeness, something not only difficult but also privacy-invasive toward living persons. Also, a list regarding character traits or behaviors should be given sensitivity similar to how religion or sexual orientation are regarded in WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:BLPCAT. As demonstrated in this AfD discussion, even agreeing on what is a reliable source for whether a person is genuinely a “recluse” would be difficult. I second User:Pontificalibus, it would be like having a List of angry people, and using sources where someone else claimed that person was angry. Inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, both for being a catalog, and for being a catalog of perceived personality traits. Cannot see how it wouldn’t be arbitrary and subjective, unless it’s kept so short it can just be a list of examples on the recluses page. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. It is not the same as List of angry people, unless those people were described as angry over the course of decades of media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it’s okay to put someone on a “list of angry people” if I can find news articles describing them as angry over an extended period of time? One might be during a contentious divorce, another after slander that led to a lawsuit, and a third not long after they’ve been fired... but hey, they’ve been described as “angry” several times by journalists over several years, so of course they belong on a list of angry people! (This is sarcasm to illustrate how horrible this entire idea is.) Shelbystripes (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. If you can find people who are well-known for being consistently angry over a long period of time, not just intermittently, AND journalists who've discussed them as a group, then maybe, just maybe you'd have an argument. But there aren't, and you don't. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously want to argue there’s no such thing as people who are well-known for being consistently angry? You really want to seem that naive? Regardless, such a list would end up populated with false positives—the intermittent examples falsely interpreted as “being angry,” which you agree would exist—just like this list would. It’s not possible to objectively create a complete list like this, not without inherently including false positives and violating WP:BLP in the process. And if it’s not meant to be a comprehensive list, it’s not objective and complete to the entry title, and therefore it’s not encyclopedic. All you’re describing there are notable examples, which already exist on the Recluse page itself. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is completeness a reason not to have a list? Also, it doesn't violate BLP; the sourcing is strong. As WP:LISTPEOPLE states, a list has to meet the following requirements (1) The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, and (2) The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources. Check, check, and checkmate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the criteria for whether to list an individual person on a list, not whether the list itself is appropriate. You seem to be missing the obvious concept just a little further up the page, which clearly applies here: “Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value.” If something is too general or broad, then it’s difficult to maintain a complete and accurate list. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

28 people and 3 fictional characters are too general? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another sign that being a recluse is a notable trait: List of people known as the Recluse, which I've just created. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you created a list page with a clearly definable criteria for people who should and should not be listed. And that specific list page makes deletion of this one even more appropriate, since the two overlap in purpose and this one has overly vague inclusion criteria. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTOVERLAP isn't a valid reason for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pontificalibus. It's too vague and thus raises WP:BLP concerns. Recluse may cover a few notable examples and comment on them. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If I alone call Donald Trump the most prolific liar in the known universe, that's a BLP violation. When the press en masse does it (Fox News excepted), it isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: listing people (and characters) that already have articles devoted to them is pointless. What might be preferable is to create a category for such articles. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. So all Category:Lists of people and Category:Lists of fictional characters should be deleted? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but article needs a proper introduction and specific rules need to defined for inclusion that don't violate WP:BLP.Igbo (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are sufficient sources linked above (and which I'm seeing in my own search) to show that this passes WP:LISTN. All of the other issues raised here can be hashed out on the talk page (if there are BLP issues, limit it to dead people, for example). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "recluses" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources

"Encounter article". Encounter. Vol. 70. 1988. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Trachtenberg, Robert (November 1989). "A Who's Who of Great American Recluses — and a Visit With the Richest, Wackiest Hermit of Them All". Spy. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Fu, Li-tsui Flora (2009). Framing Famous Mountains: Grand Tour and Mingshan Paintings in Sixteenth-century China. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-962-996-329-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Shirane, Haruo, ed. (2011). The Demon at Agi Bridge and Other Japanese Tales. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15244-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Yampolsky, Philip B., ed. (1990). Selected Writings of Nichiren. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 391. ISBN 0-231-07260-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Sadler, Arthur Lindsay (1962). A Short History of Japan. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. p. 109. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
"Journal of Japanese Studies article". Journal of Japanese Studies. 21. 1995. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Tanner, Norman (2009). The Ages of Faith: Popular Religion in Late Medieval England and Western Europe. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 124. ISBN 978-1-84511-760-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Jones, John B. (1976). Offa's Dyke Path. London: Office of Public Sector Information. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-11-700350-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Collis, Louise (1983). Memoirs of a Medieval Woman. New York: HarperCollins. p. 27. ISBN 0-06-090992-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Jackson, Samuel Macauley (1889). The Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge and Gazetteer. New York: Christian Literature Company. p. 736. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Parsons, Alice Beal (1946). I Know What I'd Do. Boston: E. P. Dutton. p. 16. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Hartmann, Sieglinde (2013). "Bridal Mysticism and the Politics of the Anchorhold: Dorothy of Montau". In Innes-Parker, Catherine; Yoshikawa, Naoë Kukita (eds.). Anchoritism in the Middle Ages: Texts and Traditions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-7083-2601-5. Retrieved 2020-01-25.

Sources with quotes

"Encounter article". Encounter. Vol. 70. 1988. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The article notes:
Of 42 leading French intellectuals listed by Lire in 1981, only 14 have never appeared on the programme, and only a very few have turned Pivot down: they include such notable recluses as Samuel Beckett, E. M. Cioran, René Char, and Henri Michaux.
Trachtenberg, Robert (November 1989). "A Who's Who of Great American Recluses — and a Visit With the Richest, Wackiest Hermit of Them All". Spy. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
The classical pianist Glenn Gould may have had the dramatic integrity to drop dead before his comeback, but other notable recluses have been less selfish with their presence. Brian Wilson resurfaced as a thinner, better-groomed nut; Marlene Dietrich narrated a movie about herself (and followed up with an autobiography); and then came the rumor that former first lady turned career girl Jacqueline Onassis was trying to sign ultra-recluse Greta Garbo to write an autobiography for Doubleday.
Fu, Li-tsui Flora (2009). Framing Famous Mountains: Grand Tour and Mingshan Paintings in Sixteenth-century China. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-962-996-329-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
At the same time as the Daoists and Buddhists were charting their sacred geography, famous mountains began to feature in mountain records (shanji) composed by resident recluses, both Buddhist and Daoist. Huiyuan, for instance, was credited with writing the first record of Mount Lu. The first two records of Mount Heng were written by the famous Daoist Xu Lingqi (?–474) and Zong Ce, a recluse who refused office toward the beginning of the Southern Qi dynasty (479–502).
Shirane, Haruo, ed. (2011). The Demon at Agi Bridge and Other Japanese Tales. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15244-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
A Companion in Solitude (Kankyo no tomo, ca. 1222) is a two-volume collection of Buddhist setsuwa written by Priest Keisei (1189–1268). The twenty-one stories in volume 1 are about noted recluses and priests such as Kūya (903–972).
Yampolsky, Philip B., ed. (1990). Selected Writings of Nichiren. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 391. ISBN 0-231-07260-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
Hui's mother, Empress Lu, persuaded four eminent recluses who lived on Mt. Shang to become his advisors. They were known as Master Tung-yuan, Scholar Lu-li, Ch'i Li- chi, and Master Hsia-huang.
Sadler, Arthur Lindsay (1962). A Short History of Japan. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. p. 109. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
To this period belong three eminent recluses: Saigyo Hoshi, author of some famous verses; Kamo Chomei, who wrote the Hojoki; and Yoshida Kenko, who penned those entertaining essays and comments on life called the Tsure-zure- gusa or
"Journal of Japanese Studies article". Journal of Japanese Studies. 21. 1995. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The article notes:
In the inscription Taihaku alludes to two famous recluses from the Chinese poetic tradition, T'ao Ch'ien and Wang Wei (701 -61).
Tanner, Norman (2009). The Ages of Faith: Popular Religion in Late Medieval England and Western Europe. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 124. ISBN 978-1-84511-760-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
Attention has concentrated on the writings of the two most famous recluses - Richard Rolle (c. 1300-1349), who lived as a hermit in various places and wrote extensive spiritual works in both Latin and English, and Julian of Norwich - and upon the three most important rules written for recluses:
Jones, John B. (1976). Offa's Dyke Path. London: Office of Public Sector Information. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-11-700350-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The article notes:
A little above the town is Plas Newydd, the black and white timbered home of Eleanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby, the Ladies of Llangollen, two famous recluses from the Irish aristocracy who settled here in 1791.
Collis, Louise (1983). Memoirs of a Medieval Woman. New York: HarperCollins. p. 27. ISBN 0-06-090992-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
She had had read to her a number of books written by famous recluses, such as Hilton's Scale of Perfection, Rolle's Stimulus Amoris and Incendium Amoris, and St Bridget of Sweden's Celestial Revelations.
Jackson, Samuel Macauley (1889). The Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge and Gazetteer. New York: Christian Literature Company. p. 736. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
Port Koyal des Champs now became known principally as the refuge of a great number of famous recluses, among whom were I'alla the physician, Fontaine the historian, Arnauld d'Audilly, the translator of the fathers, the Duke de Luynes, Pascal, etc.
Parsons, Alice Beal (1946). I Know What I'd Do. Boston: E. P. Dutton. p. 16. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
So she signed a contract for a book on America's two most famous recluses, Hawthorne and Emily Dickinson, bought a lot with her advance royalty, and took out a Building and Loan mortgage to build a house on the lot.
Hartmann, Sieglinde (2013). "Bridal Mysticism and the Politics of the Anchorhold: Dorothy of Montau". In Innes-Parker, Catherine; Yoshikawa, Naoë Kukita (eds.). Anchoritism in the Middle Ages: Texts and Traditions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-7083-2601-5. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
Dorothy of Montau belongs among the most notable recluses of medieval Europe.

General notability guideline

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

WP:BLPCAT concerns can be addressed by modifying the inclusion criteria to exclude living people

Editors have raised valid BLP concerns about labeling a living person as a "recluse". WP:BLPCAT says, "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation" and "These principles apply equally to lists ... that ... suggest that any living person has a poor reputation."

Recluse#Causes says:

There are many potential reasons for becoming a recluse, including, but are not limited to: a personal philosophy may reject consumer society; a mystical religious outlook may involve becoming a hermit or an anchorite; a survivalist may be practicing self-sufficiency; a criminal might hide away from people to avoid detection by police; or a misanthrope may be unable to tolerate human society.

The first three causes do not "suggest a person has a poor reputation". The last two causes (saying someone may be a criminal or a misanthrope) do "suggest a person has a poor reputation". So it is likely that including living people on this list violates WP:BLPCAT.

But that would not require deletion of the entire list. It would only require that we modify the inclusion criteria to exclude living people. This modification of the list's inclusion criteria is permitted by Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people, which says:

In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group. This is commonly used to control the size of lists that could otherwise run to hundreds or thousands of people, such as the List of American film actresses.

The list's inclusion criteria is a content decision that can be made through an RfC on the article's talk page.

Cunard (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But all these texts are, without exception, only sources for the use of the word 'recluse'. They don't demonstrate that the various people about whom that word has been used form a coherent group that can be the subject of a list. – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided six reliable sources that discuss recluses as a group. Bottom line There are at least five or six people who are pretty much universally labelled recluses: Garbo, Hughes, Dickinson, Salinger and Harper Lee. The Unabomber, the trio who stayed in a hotel suite for decades, and the inspiration for Miss Havisham are also solid entries. That's more than enough for a list. You could argue about the rest, but AFD is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. While we can all find sources of people describing them as a recluse (eg: Scott Walker), I can't see any evidence that there are sources about lists of notable recluses as a whole. In particular, the sources produced by Cunard seem to be passing mentions of recluses as part of other subjects as opposed to sources that document recluses directly, while the ones from Clarityfiend appear to be a bit of light humour such as "How much of the Syd Barrett factor has John Deacon got?" which isn't really suitable for a general article. Perhaps a category would be more appropriate? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep* Facially meets NList with multiple pop culture publications on it. The BLP issue is real though, and that makes it weak. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Segment (company)

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

This looks like a typical vanispamcruftisment; however I am not endorsing the WP:G11 tag as an "advert" tag was removed by BeenAroundAWhile who has done some cleanup. Nevertheless, I am sceptical we can write a detailed, neutral encyclopedia article about this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was me who started this article because I found multiple independent reliable sources that showed to me it looks quite notable. I also started several other articles about different subjects some time ago that also look notable - those include popular people, software, also open-source, cultural nonprofit project... Tried best to see notability proved in/by citations. However, I am just several-month-old as a Wikipedia editor, I do not have any connections with any of those subjects or any desire to advertise any of them or anything at all, and I want to learn to keep advancing as an editor, so it is interesting to understand why this subject is not notable and cannot be described on Wikipedia in a good way (if you and someone else think so) as personally I think it is notable and can be. The sources referenced in the article look like the article can be improved and extended and written in a neutral way, why not, and a quick search now shows me there can also be more of good sources found that could add more and help in further edits. I do not think this article needs to be deleted. I think this article may be extended and improved further. This is just my opinion however. Thank you. Avbgok (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article suggests it is an average start up looking for fame, and getting its press releases reprinted here and there. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Crochet bikini. And merge such content from the history as may be appropriate and supported by editorial consensus. Consensus seems to be that the concept and the related lawsuits are notable, and that how to present them neutrally and comprehensively is a matter for editors, not for AfD, and that an article about the broader concept rather than a specific product or brand is preferable. Sandstein 10:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiini

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

This page is entitled "Kiini" and refers to it as a design concept and clothing item, referring back to a series of articles first published in the NY Times. It also directly attributes "Kiini" (as a design concept) to a purported "original creator" named Maria Solange Ferrarini. My strong concerns with this attribution and mischaracterization are as follows:

- "Kiini" is a name of a bikini business founded in New York City by Ipek Irgit. The word "Kiini" is a trademark owned by said business.

- The term "Kiini" has only ever been used by this business, in reference to the brand itself.

- The original NY Times article purports that the concepts of the bikini designs sold by Kiini (the company) were created by an individual by the name of "Maria Solange Ferrarini"^[1]. The article asserts that Kiini (the company) stole or otherwise took these ideas from Ferrarini, and later claimed a copyright on the design.

- It is worth noting that these claims have not been proven in any court of law, and the author of the article very clearly takes a stance on the matter—not shedding much light on Kiini's take of the situation, and instead, insinuating guilt. There is no concrete evidence offered in the article, only references to hearsay from ex-associates of the company.

- Regardless of the truthfulness of these claims—the article, and every other subsequent article detailing this saga, very clearly use the term "Kiini" to refer to the company, and the brand. They do not use it to refer to a design concept for a crochet bikini—of which there are decades upon decades of other examples and originators.

- The NY Times article also indicates that Maria Solange Ferrarini distances herself from the idea that she created "The Kiini" and rather, it explains that she had her own designs for years, and signed them with her name.

- Ferrarini went on to file for a copyright on her design, under the application title of "Ferrarini Bikini" only in 2018, years after Kiini was doing international business.

- Kiini remains a trademark of Ipek Irgit/Kiini LLC.

- This wikipedia entry very clearly blurs lines between what "Kiini" refers to and what it in fact is—which is a company, and a brand, which specializes in high end resort wear, namely, crochet bikinis.

- Instead, this article in its current standing insinuates that "Kiini" itself is a design, and misattributes it to Ferrarini.

- Further down, the article goes on to reference "Kiini" as a company, describing lawsuits.

- This, overall, is extremely misleading - and in fact very damaging to both parties, which are in the middle of legal proceedings. Ferrarini does not claim any relationship or ties to the term "Kiini" and in all the legal paperwork available online, her designs are "Ferrarini Bikini" and Kiini remains a standalone brand and entity. "Kiini" is never used as a term to refer to a style of bikini.

- These blurred lines, coupled with the lack of overall transparency on the entire matter, are compounded by a lack of credible sources without an extreme bias and agenda.

- There is no clear case for renaming the page to "crochet bikini," because Ferrarini was not the first, and will not be the last, designer of a crochet bikini - there are dozens of takes on this style of fashion throughout time.

- Furthermore, the content on this page, if it were to be moved to "Crochet Bikini" would be far, far too specific and detailed for a page centered around that topic, and the concept of a crochet bikini could never be rightfully attributed to a single individual. Alexslater86 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rosman, Katherine (March 29, 2017). "The Itsy-Bitsy, Teenie-Weenie, Very Litigious Bikini". Retrieved December 20, 2019.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, emphatically: well-documented dispute, covered in depth by sources as reliable as one is likely ever to find regarding a story like this, and of significant professional/scholarly interest to intellectual property lawyers (the NYT article is likely more "reliable" by Wikistandards than law journal articles, frankly). There are certainly editorial improvements to be made to the article and retitling may be appropriate. Certainly as Wikipedia develops its garment-industry coverage (hint hint, anyone?!) this is the type of subject matter the encyclopedia should pat itself on the figurative back for addressing. It's Chrismukkah week and I don't have time to do it within the running time of this AfD but deletion would not be supported. Query whether this nomination is focused on actual deletion criteria or just WP:IDONTLIKEIT (for some undisclosed reason). - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting perspective on it. I created the page and am sympathetic to the reasons for its deletion. As per nom there's a lot that the page doesn't represent as accurately as it should. It would benefit from having an experienced editor do a rewrite - there's another "hint" for you. I think "crocheted bikini" is probably the right title.Bangabandhu (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Julietdeltalima. One can check all the other AfD's of the day (or any other day) to verify that this nomination is elaborately and extensively presented. Alexslater86 has gone far beyond the duty of a nominator to support their proposal, so no case can be made for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But to accuse the nominator of having some "undisclosed reason" (i.e. motive) is not just rude but a violation of WP:AGF. -The Gnome (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Almost all the sources are about the litigation concerning the trade mark for this bikini type. The subject itself does not appear to have much of a notable profile of its own. Perhaps, we should await the legal resolution. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As The Gnome noted above, the parties involved, particularly the eponym of this article, Kiini, do not have much notability outside of this very specific stint. The sources take a very clear position and act as judge, jury and executioner without any legal consensus on the matter—which is likely quite a way out, and may never be public if the proceedings end in a confidential settlement. In the interim though, the sheer existence of this article attributes the creation of a brand, company and trademark to an individual who the owner of said company is alleged to have taken from. This sort of misinformation harms both of the parties involved—at a minimum, the NY Times piece(s) do not make the mistake of calling Kiini a creation of Maria Solange Ferrarini, and this is not in the slightest bit unclear. Kiini remains a business, trademark and brand—which happens to be involved in unresolved legal proceedings.

There are hundreds of cases like this in the fashion world (particularly in fast fashion - e.g. Fashion Nova vs. the haute couture brands they are alleged of copying^[1]), but no one would make the leap of creating a Wikipedia article entitled Fashion Nova and refer to it as a design concept (as opposed to a business and brand), and say it was created by Gianni Versace.
To further clarify on The Gnome's latest comment, the litigation chronicled across the sources is not about trademark infringement, but rather alleged copyright infringement, pertaining to a style of bikini that has no specific name other than a general descriptor of "crochet bikinis." Ferrarini's copyright application was filed under Ferrarini Bikiini and has absolutely no claim to the term Kiini.
In light of the above, any admins reviewing this should understand that the article nominated for deletion creates more problems than it solves—it consists of more inaccuracies and unresolved claims than objective truths, particularly because the truths are yet to be proven and disclosed.
One final point worth reiterating to conclude: Kiini is a brand. Maria Solange Ferrarini is a designer of crochet bikinis from Brazil whose lawyers allege is the victim of copyright infringement for her designs (with no final conclusion yet). The article attributes Kiini directly to Ferrarini, as though she created it. This is objectively untrue with no room for misunderstanding—it simply is false. On all of these grounds, I feel the page should be removed. Alexslater86 (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Versace is Suing Fashion Nova for "Brazenly" Copying its Designs, Infringing its Trademarks". November 26, 2019. Retrieved January 3, 2020.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to new page I've created the page crochet bikini which can address all forms of the crochet bikini. The page is a bit disjointed right now as much of its content was taken from the existing kiini entry. I would make the redirect right now, but don't know what etiquette is for when there's an existing AFD discussion underway.Bangabandhu (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My staunch issue with going this route is the fact that this is such a specific case in a sea of hundreds of other players in the swimwear space (even in the crochet swimwear space). It has been an established style from well before Irgit and Ferrarini entered the space. To have the entire lead section of that page remain so specific does more damage (to both of them) than good, in light of the fact that they are embroiled in litigation. The introduction also incorporates unproven facts that are still, indisputably, allegations at the current time, no matter how cut and dry the NY Times piece seems, it's still very clear that nothing is proven. Perhaps if this page existed it would need to remain more general to remain neutral, at the very least, in the introduction. Alexslater86 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crochet bikini covers all crochet bikinis, including kiini, the Brazilian one that preceded it, and other versions of crochet bikinis before and after these. If you think there's undue weight on one version, you should discuss it on that page. The important point is that it resolves confusion over kiini as a trademark versus kiini as a type of swimwear. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangabandhu, I think it's going to need some serious editing to be neutral and accurately reflect what are indisputable facts vs. what are allegations, but it can work with some edits. We can reconvene the discussion over there. Is "moving" the page an option? Or must it be a redirect? The former seems more appropriate, if viable. Alexslater86 (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to moving the talk section on kiini, it will be retained under the kiini entry, which should have a redirect. If you're referring to moving the content of the kiini entry, I've already moved it and added additional text appropriate to crochet bikini. We can start talking about changes to that page in that talk section. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the proper method of "converting" the existing Kiini page to crochet bikini without redirecting it (i.e. 'moving' the page / renaming it). A redirect implies that the crochet bikini page is an accurate summary and result for someone looking up Kiini, which it is not intended to be—as discussed, crochet bikini is intended to cover the broader subject matter and design concept. It does mention Kiini (and other brands), which is fine. That said, I still feel the Kiini page we're currently dealing with should be deleted. My issue is one of neutrality. Otherwise, following this logic, pages for Ferrarini, PilyQ / Platinum, and all the other brands mentioned on crochet bikini should be created and then ultimately redirected to crochet bikini (...I hope you can see the point I'm making—is redirection doesn't make sense as it still perpetuates the blurring of lines between the brand name and the design concept). Alexslater86 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are common when the topic doesn't merit its own entry or can be contained in a broader entry, which can be the case for any number of reasons and is appropriate here. So yes, you're right, Ferrarini, PilyQ, etc. could all redirect to crochet bikini. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crochet bikini seems like a good solution. As noted, redirecting individual brands to an article about the type is fine and common - after all, if the reader doesn't know the term for the type (which I suspect is fairly likely with "crochet bikini") they will probably search for a specific brand. Which should then land them at the appropriate general topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Crochet bikini. This dispute is clearly notable, but the notability of the name of this one particular product is less-well-established. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in the event of further notability of any of the parties involved (e.g. Ferrarini, Kiini, PQ Swim) that warrants their own company article on Wikipedia, what happens when there's already a redirect from one of them to this crochet bikini page? Also (genuine question), why is deletion of this page, while allowing crochet bikini to exist without a redirect/merge not a viable solution? In the event of that scenario, the contents would still exist on crochet bikini chronicling the story, but there would not be undue weight on any party. The sheer creation of this page under the title Kiini was a misrepresentation from the beginning, which is what I want to cast light on, and redirecting users still gives that original misrepresentation some validity. Alexslater86 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is to make things useful for the reader. You shouldn't be required to know the abstract type term for something you want to look up, you should be able to enter a connected term you know (e.g., a specific brand of that type) and get your information. Making such searches easy is the function of redirects. Further, redirects don't have to conform to our notability criteria; e.g., we redirect non-notable actors to notable films all the time, precisely because people might look for "that film that had actor X in it" but actor X is not sufficeintly notable himself. I don't know where you get those concerns about undue representation from. Redirects do not convey anything of the kind. - As for what happens when the company becomes notable later: just replace the redirect link on the page with actual article text. E.g., here is an article that was just expanded from a redirect, by someone porting material from another language wiki. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wight. As per my usual practice in a split delete/merge sitation; this allows merging from the history if somebody wants to do that and it has editorial consensus. Sandstein 10:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow-wight

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

Non-notable fictional race. Gets some passing references in secondary literature, but not enough to prove notability. The article contains some sources, but these sources are exclusively in the etymology section. The barrow-wights have no real notability in-universe or out of universe. Also, the article has a lot of internal inconsistency. In one point, the article states that the barrow-wights are from the First Age of Middle-earth, but it also says in the infobox that these critters were created by the newly AfD'd Witch-king of Angmar, who did not exist in the First Age of Middle-earth. Possible OR? Hog Farm (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could only find one article that meaningfully discusses them. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At present, the secondary sources only describe Wight, the legendary inspiration for Tolkein's creature. They do not support the notability of the Middle-earth topic.BenKuykendall (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ended up being too minor to merit any coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a race, just an unnotable type of critter, a mere bump in the Road that Goes Ever On. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wight. No reason to lose the information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wight. Most of the information looks OK to retain. Gilgamesh4 (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wight. Goustien (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wight.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva (2008 film)

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

Unknown. Undersourced film. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything about this film. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete the subject fails general notability guidelines, as well as notability guidelines for films. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see enough notability among the involved names either. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Marshall (American football)

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally or been a head coach in an NFL game. Was an offensive line coach in the NFL for 7 years, but can only find transactional coverage like being hired by the Jets and or being hired by the Packers, not enough to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. With a coaching history of 40 years, I thought I would be able to find something on him. But I wasn't able to find anything above transactional news pieces. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Gonzo, I expected to find significant coverage for a coach with such a long history, but I came up empty too. This may be partly due to the fact that "Steve Marshall" is a common name, and sorting through the chaff is not an easy task. If others are able to find significant coverage, I'm willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete fails WP:GNG, per Gonzo and Cbl62. Much as I hate to vote delete on a guy who was an OC at two different Power 5 schools, the sources just aren't there right now. I'd be willing to change my mind if additional sources could be produced. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seeing as the arguments for notability have not been contested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Relph

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

Previously deleted on an expired prod with a notability concern; since it's been recreated, we may as well have a discussion on rather or not Relph is actually notable. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a high school distinction title is not a sign of notability, and his college career is not at a notable level either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my question: was it enough to be Mr. Basketball in a state like New York? There is much RS to meet GNG. Lightburst (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. Dammit_steve (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with enough sources in article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has enough significant coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources already in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[VentureBurn-1] Daniel Mpala [https://ventureburn.com/2019/11/xecced-ventures-4thiria-fund "Xecced Ventures to invest in African startups through $100m Industry 4.0 fund", VentureBurn, 19 November 2019

[2] Ennis, Tricia (2018-06-08). "Chosen One of the Day: The Gelatinous Cube from Dungeons and Dragons". SYFY WIRE. Retrieved 2019-12-21.

[3] Hall, Charlie (2015-09-02). "Out of the Abyss: D&D's next campaign goes deep into the Underdark". Polygon. Retrieved 2019-12-21.

[4] Hutchinson, Kate (2016-08-11). "Thee Oh Sees: A Weird Exits review – cult garage-rockers on pummelling form". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-12-21.

[nyt-5] Rosman, Katherine (March 29, 2017). "The Itsy-Bitsy, Teenie-Weenie, Very Litigious Bikini". Retrieved December 20, 2019.

[fashionnova-6] "Versace is Suing Fashion Nova for "Brazenly" Copying its Designs, Infringing its Trademarks". November 26, 2019. Retrieved January 3, 2020.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhreagh MacNeil}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemma Hickey}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insight Communications}}