Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 28: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:09, 28 November 2020

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 27	November 29 >

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 keep. Missvain (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuation of Novorossiysk (1920)

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

Completing this for IP per comment on talk page: "Nothing in this article is cited. The only links are to a random blog on Wordpress. This article needs be seriously improved, or it needs to be deleted." I have no observation on the merits of the nomination other than that another note on the talk page claims it is a translation of an article from the Russian WP. Mangoe (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is indeed a translation of the ru.wiki article which cites a number of sources. Unfortunately the creating editor didn’t bother to translate them too, but they’re there. People more familiar with the topic may want to argue that the sources are unreliable, but there’s no doubt that they’re there. Mccapra (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article creator has messages stretching back for years on their talk page asking them to source their articles properly, and they’re a New Page Patroller. Ho hum Mccapra (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm with Mccapra on this. In the Russian article the "Примечания" (Notes) section is what we would call References and "Источники" is Further reading (or maybe general sources). However, as I am utterly flummoxed with Russian I don't really feel I can add these in. I have also found this and this. The topic is unquestionably notable and, dare I say it, important. The question for me is do we wait for it to be improved or would it be better to delete it and hope to goad someone into writing it properly. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but it is in real need of someone adding valid sources form the Russian version and those mentioned above. KylieTastic (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A clearly notable event which any decent encyclopaedia should cover. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An event with significant coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KylieTastic, definitely needs to use Russian sources. BlueD954 (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kassy Dillon

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

almost everything here is her own bio on the web pages of places she write for; the only true 3rd party ref seems to be a very short item no,.2, aboutone of her postings DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a political commentator isn't an automatic notability freebie, regardless of whether the person is a liberal or a conservative. The notability test requires the ability to reference her work as a commentator to third party reliable source coverage and analysis about her work as a commentator in sources that don't sign her paycheques, and is not passed by either her staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, or sources which briefly soundbite her in the process of being primarily about Andrew Yang. There's only one source here that counts for anything at all toward the notability test, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG per the above votes. SportingFlyer T·C 16:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lacks in-depth, independent coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for a journalist. This is true of many of our article on journalist, but we deal with what we have before us and do not let other short comings keep us with the ones we currently see.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR - she's written for notable but not reliable sources, so we can't even cite what she's written. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms. Merge to whatever article. I don't know what exactly you have all settled on, but, I'll let all of you hash it out elsewhere. Missvain (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kara-Tur

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

PRODed last year by User:TTN. It was deprodded by (now blocked) User:User:Miraclepine who suggested a merge instead but without specifying the target. I reviewed the article and I concur with TTN this is mostly not salvageable (but - read on). Standard note fro me: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." Moving besides the usual, the best this has going for it are the few sentences from the 'publication history' section, but they are all based on passing mentions; no source seems to have any in-depth analysis of this fictional location. The best we have is a single sentence from Bambra that this setting was inspired by real-world Asian culture. Doh. This is not enough, but this paragraph from our article could be mergable somewhere, I am just not sure what would be a good target (suggestions welcome). That aside, 95% of the current article is WP:FANCRUFT/WP:ALLPLOT as usual. We should preserve the few useful sentences from this somewhere, and that's about the best we can be expected to do, given Wikipedia =/= fandom wikia, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oriental Adventures, which is the notable product in which the setting was introduced. It looks like most of the "real world" publication and reception information here is already present there, so I don't think there's much that needs to be merged, but the history will be intact if people have anything they'd like to carry over. I'm just not finding any real coverage in reliable, secondary sources on the fictional location itself that would justify an independent article, though. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to Oriental Adventures as Kara-Tur was originally developed as its setting for 1E D&D. The current mention on the list article of Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings is adequate and doesn't need expansion.
Redirect - Same issues remain from the time of the PROD. This does not meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oriental Adventures. The one or two useful sentences of information can be added there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Oriental Adventures, there are a couple of sentences here that could be added there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are more sources than have been discussed so far. I have added more to WP:PRESERVE, which gives us a bit of critical commentary how Kara-Tur relates to Asia. And there is The Space Gamer magazine which has a two-and-a-half page article discussing Oriental Adventures and three adventures together, which has several paragraphs specifically dedicated to Kara-Tur, mostly with non-plot information. The sections focussing on the books also contain bits related to the fictional location. Together with the sources present in the article that should fullfill both WP:GNG and WP:ALLPLOT. I ask everyone to consider this new evidence. Daranios (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those added sources have extremely minimal coverage of Kara-Tur. The "Medieval Unmoored" has less than half a sentence, in a parenthesis of a footnote, that mentions it, that simply states "its was based on Asia". The "Collaborative Worldbuilding for Writers and Gamers" is even worse as its "coverage" of the fictional continent only includes two block quotes - one from an official D&D book, and the other from a Wikipedia article. If those sources are the best coverage that can be brought up, then there is no way this passes the WP:GNG as a stand alone article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: Collaborative Worldbuilding... indeed mainly tells us where Kara-Tur appears again in 5th edition. That was not what I was refering to. For "Medieval Unmoored", however, rather than taking out the part of the sentence where the word appears, I have looked at the whole paragraph(s) on pages 11 and 8 that it refers to. And that tells us, beyond "its was based on Asia", that Kara-Tur, like three other D&D locations the author looked at, is a distorted, simplistic take on medieval non-Western cultures seen through the Western lens of the designers. Consequently I have added two sentences of critical reception. Heroic Worlds also briefly covers the subject. Most importantly, you have ignored the Space Gamer article, the longest treatment in secondary sources I have seen so far. Daranios (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention the Space Gamer article because it is a good source. However, it is the only good source - would go as far as saying it is basically the only source shown that actually rises above the level of "terrible" to being actually usable. And a single good source is not enough for an independent article. Moreover, while the article may talk about the setting beyond its initial origin in Oriental Adventures, it still does so using that product as the foundation and framework of the discussion, which just makes me think that we should do the same - an opinion that seems to be widely accepted in this AFD so far. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why I don't agree with the other sources being non-usable, see below. As for a redirect/merge being widely accepted, that's when counting four opinions which did not take The Space Gamer into account. Daranios (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: The sources are helpful, but the analysis is very short - effectively two-three sentences in each source. The Space Gamer just goes a bit deeper into which regions of Kara-Tur have been inspired by different regions of Asia (or periods of Asia history), but even that "longest treatment" is just two paragraphs in the form of "fictional region X is inspired by China, fictional region Y is inspired by Japan, etc.". Further, it is debatable whether ~what is primarily written about is the fictional land or the RPG setting of Oriental Adventures (the latter is clearly the focus of the Space Gamer review). Wouldn't the reader be best served if those references and whatever content is/can be referenced were to be merged to the OA article? On a side note, should we add IA search to {{FindSources}}? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that Kara-Tur the location spans the Oriental Adventures book and a number of adventure modules - that's what The Space Gamer covers - Realms adventures, novels, its own campaign setting and a number of appearances in further/newer publications, no, I don't think that combining that to Oriental Adventures is the best solution. If there is some duplication between what relates to the Oriental Adventures rules and Kara-Tur the location, what's the problem as Wikipedia is not paper? Of course I would prefer a merge to a deletion, but I think neither is warranted here. And, true, one part of the Space Gamer article is the more detailed analysis of what was inspired by what (and additionally that ideas about Japan were translated even into regions based on other cultures). But the section starting "will you like playing in the world of Kara-Tur?" is an evaluation of the setting beyond that, and clearly refers to the setting.

That the other sources are short leads into the usual disagreement: In my view, WP:GNG does not require sigificant coverage within any one source. It requires several sources, and it requires significant coverage overall, as the distinction the guideline makes is whether or not a non-stubby article can be created based on the sources. And again, putting the real-world inspirations, the reception I have added, the reception from Space Gamer and the publication history together with a reasonably-size description = plot-summary, fullfilling WP:WHYN should not be a problem.

Finding more sources is always good, but I did not get what "should we add IA search to {{FindSources}}" means, sorry. Could you explain? Daranios (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Another reason why I think merging to Oriental Adventures is not ideal for the reader is the fact that the 3rd edition version of the book focusses on Rokugan rather than Kara-Tur, which does not help clarity in a merge. Daranios (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms or Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings. Open minded on the target and we could try to form a consensus around that. At this point there isn't enough critical reception in reliable third party sources to write about this in the detail it has. There's a suitable merge target and maybe there's some hope of establishing the notability of this as a book and a product. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Merging with Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms (I didn't realize an article on this sourcebook actually exists) seems to be the most sensible option compared to Oriental Adventures. As far as I know, no further sourcebooks have been published that exclusively focuses on the Kara-Tur setting, save for some supplemental information published in Dragon magazine for 3.5E years ago. Haleth (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I would also be fine with the target being Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms. Rorshacma (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's a good merge choice. Readers should find information on Kara-Tur in one article, not two. There's zero benefit in having two articles on essentially the same niche concept, particularly when one fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - With Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms being the most comprehensive single source on the topic, I am okay with merging. However, if we combine the two, we should merge Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms here, not the other way round, as Kara-Tur is both the more comprehensive subject, and the far likelier search term for anyone interested. Interestingly, the corresponding DMs Guild article shows us how the presentation of Kara-Tur is controversial nowadays, and it seems like that box is covered in Designers & Dragons, though I have no access to that. Daranios (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv🍁 07:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Guard (comics)

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

This has been deleted few months ago but now restored. It seems slightly improved, but IMHO, not enough to meet WP:NFICTION/GNG. We now have a section on 'concept and creation' sourced primarily to a WP:INTERVIEW (and a low-reliablility two paragraph website here) and reception based on a single sentence (passing mention as defined by GNG). Time to discuss it here again, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on significant improvements to the article to meet the WP:GNG, or failing that merge to Shi'ar per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is based on WP:NFICTION but that is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". What's wanted is policy and most applicable is WP:ATD which states "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." The page is already quite good but improvement is still feasible as I have just done so. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Going through and attaching junk CBR links to plot material does not help satisfy GNG. This still lacks actual significant coverage. TTN (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As was the case less than a year ago when it was deleted at AFD before, there just are not enough non-plot summaries in reliable, third party sources to pass the WP:GNG. I'd almost venture to say this current iteration of the article is even worse than the one that was deleted already, as it appears to be even more filled with in-universe plot summaries than the old article. As mentioned multiple times in the previous AFD, this group is already covered in the main Shi'ar article, which is the broader topic, and is not independently notable enough that it would require a split from that. Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious my stance is still Keep. If not then merge/redirect is still a better option. Too much good info to just wipe it out completely. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 12:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — If nothing else, the article establishes that the original members of the team were a pastiche of the principal members of DC's Legion of Super-Heroes. The fact that the Imperial Guard has been featured in so many stories over the years — including their own limited series — is a testament to their notability. (As is the fact that so many CBR and Looper articles have been written about them. It is my understanding that both CBR and Looper are considered verifiable third-party sources...) In addition, they were key participants in The Dark Phoenix Saga storyline, which in many people's eyes establish the notability of the X-Men franchise. Finally, deleting and redirecting the article to Shi'ar would not solve the issue that the vast majority of the members of the Imperial Guard (Superguardians) are not Shi'ar. Maybe the best solution would be to drastically cut the offending in-universe plot summaries? -- stoshmaster (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not even taking into account that CBR is a trash website in its current form, these are not significant coverage as desired by WP:GNG. They don't even belong in the article. TTN (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reason to wipe an article info and revisions out completely. If you feel the article is deleted. Then you did your part and vote delete. I don’t think we need to see critical evaluations of sources that may not be all sources of the group.That just reeks of desperation of Wikipedia cleanup. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If 99% of the sources are primary or trash, that means the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. It seems there was a limited comic book series on the topic, so the best bet would be to see if there are any sources to establish notability for that. An article on the comic book could allow some retention of fictional details for context, though definitely not the full scope of this current article. TTN (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does Wikipedia say about "trash" sources? Or is the opinion that CBR is trash your own? Why do you preach of what Wikipedia should be is your own? That seems a bit too passionate. I am aware of guidelines and essays you normally point to half the time. Though it seems that you probably miscontrue them sometimes for your own wants. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are junk if A. They fail to provide significant coverage on the topic. B. If they are of an unreliable nature from an otherwise reliable site (opinion pieces, listicles, etc) C. They are from an unreliable source. All these sources fail A and/or B. CBR's listcles are outright unreliable, and, being a clickbait factory after their 2016 rebrand, their status is certainly suspect. TTN (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia didn’t say that. And it's just your opinion. Then agree to disagree. You are not the voice of Wikipedia. I agree they say useless in-universe info now that can’t benefit here as much. Them and Screen Rant. Pop-culture sites have died a long time ago so much so that it’s hard to prove that many major superheroes and superhero teams (such as Deadman and Animal Man) is notable until the character gets a live-action adaptation. Then the really "reliable sources" act like they weren’t notable before like bogus lines like "Who is Adam Strange from Krypton, Mister Mind from Shazam etc.) Though common sense prevails that they are indeed a major character from a major franchise anyway. I will check if a preferred sources like Newsarama (which used to exist) and IGN has something. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV and listicles being unreliable are not my singular opinion. CBR being a trashheap is my analysis of the site, but I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard. Regardless of their status as reliable or not, it is absolutely certain that almost nothing in this article provides significant coverage. TTN (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a now in-universal ok (while used to be good) pop-culture news source. But it still checks out! (Ahem! Excuse my Return of the Jedi reference). At least in my subjective mind. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listicles are the only thing fictional characters have. Practically no video game character article would be considered notable without creator interviews for creation and conception and lists of greatest X characters (with explanation) unless they had their own adaptation like I already explained. Sorry to disappoint but these people in that discussion is short and too few of a convo to considered official. Keep in mind all of the "reliable sources" are taking about COVID-19 and political stuff at the moment. Recent sources are not a way to determine notability now. Also pop-culture (the other thing you would mention) is not warranted. Not everyone is a Spider-Man or Darth Vader now. The closest example of that currently is The Child thanks to internet memes. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for sources doesn't just magically lower because a topic gets less mainstream coverage. That simply means the topic is not notable. Simply being a specialty site doesn't make a source bad. It's when it becomes a hell of clickbait with zero editorial standards. And even if the source is otherwise notable, it doesn't mean anything if the article does not provide significant coverage. Listicles are peak clickbait no matter the website, so they're never going to be useful to anything. Feel free to do another Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion for alternate opinions, but I feel it'll be nearly unanimous every time. TTN (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can promise you they surely can diminish or undiminish...because of comic book continuity....there can always be an early Blue Beetle and Hop Harrigan (who was notable in the 1940's newspapers) but not now and also be another Guardians of the Galaxy (which was not notable before MCU) which is notable now. There is a reason why we have our own guidelines on comic book characters and we are not always relying on an essay on fiction or a guideline on real life. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. As mentioned above, the recreated article has been an improvement of the one that was previously deleted. I also support the suggestions of @BOZ:, @Andrew Davidson:, @Jhenderson777:, and @Stoshmaster:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IGNORINGATD. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TTN, fails WP:GNG, sources are WP:TRIVIAL mentions._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I can’t tell you how many times I am reading Wikipedia (or even Wikimedia) guidelines and they say they should avoid deleting when you can. Instead the same editors keep voting delete because they clearly want to see it deleted. They say it’s GNG. Though it seems more like a bandwagon excuse to team up. Though not all these editors I assume are like that. I feel Rorschama wouldn’t be that way and would vote sometimes the alternative. Though it’s obvious this is a bandwagon of the same kind of vote with no plan to change their vote. I get that the keep editors that are voting is doing arguments to avoid. Especially one editor off the top of my head needs a better argument. Though like I said Wikimedia is not about material deletion cleanup. It clearly is saying you do likewise. I feel that is what Jimmy Wales wants it that way too. Also "Per X" WAS an argument to avoid (until removed) and so is still is "per guideline / essay". Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am anything but a "bandwagon" voter so please stop casting aspersions without evidence and WP:BLUDGEONing. I've voted keep on articles like Danger Room or Hill Valley (Back to the Future) because I legitimately believed they were notable and said articles were kept. There is such a thing as an eminently notable article on fictional subjects, many of which I've written myself. And then there is just plain cruft that fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and of which all sources are just WP:ALLPLOT summaries._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. You vote Keep sometimes. No hard feelings then. You used common sense on those articles. (Who in the world would AFD the danger room anyway?)And I think on Themiscyria you voted keep too. It’s just that you and TTN sure do magically agree a lot. It happens though. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 12:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - In any case, discouraging any type of voting in AfD by constantly arguing against it, is actually detrimental to Wikipedia. It lowers the odds people will participate in AfD and leads to a lower article standard in Wikipedia overall. I'd try to refrain from being argumentative unless there is something well and truly wrong with their logic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        My two opinions on that. Tell that to TTN who replies to keep voters constantly or finally realize that I (and TTN) am not really arguing but debating civilly. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It goes both ways, so I don't necessarily agree with TTN's behavior either. If a keep vote is very clearly WP:JUSTAVOTE then I leave it for the admin to throw out rather than getting into an argument. It's not like the !voter will see much success in any AfD if they continue to vote like that. I usually only reply when there is something that wouldn't be obvious unless refuted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY; the article is better than it was in the previous nomination. Complaining that a perfectly adequate published RS is an "interview" shows that the nom/delete voters really just want another notch on their belt. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article for Marvel Comics' Imperial Guard appears to be covered under WP:NList, and the standards of GNG I believe ~~do not~~ apply differently to list articles of fictional characters. Listicles from reliable sources that discuss the Imperial Guard collectively are appropriate and adequate sources to support such an article, as the entirety of such a list does not need to be documented in sources for notability. Aside from one editor who almost always favor deletionism for all articles on fictional works and topics for more then a decade, there is no established consensus within the wider Wikipedia community that Comic Book Resources is not a reliable source, and at the time of writing it is still listed as a reliable source under WP:CMC/REF. Furthermore, WP:NCOMIC proposes that a character or team is presumed to warrant a solo article if they meet one or more of the following criteria:
- Have had, at any point in time, a solo comic book series longer than a one-shot.
- Featured prominently in an animated/live-action series or movie of a comic book property (e.g. not a cameo).
- Covered in a more than trivial manner in a published secondary source (WP:GNG).
The Imperial Guard characters have starred in their own limited series, a sub-series of the War of Kings crossover event as well as the Realm of Kings comic event series eponymously titled Imperial Guard, for your reference. Reviews for their 1997 limited series as well as Realm of Kings: Imperial Guard most certainly exist and could be cited to demonstrate the reliability of the topic characters as a collective. Merging or redirecting it to Shi'ar is not appropriate in my view, because that article is also reliant on primary sources, which editors who draw a hardline on GNG standards will have a problem with and will likely not survive an AfD if majority consensus is from deletionist-inclined editors. I also support Toughpigs' argument based on WP:HEY. Also Jhenderson777, from experience, your assertion that fictional characters only have listicles as sources aren't true, though list articles that discuss a group as a whole supports the existence of a list article on Wikipedia. Haleth (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware that listicles aren’t the only thing that have reception. But they used to be a saving grace for them in the past. But there is nothing wrong with them helping when they have info reasoning based on their reasoning is all I am trying to say. I already get WhatCulture and WatchMojo aren’t considered reliable too so I know the negativity of them. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 12:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an article that has a list in it. It does not follow LISTN. "List of Imperial Guard Members" would be a list. NCOMIC is MOS with a suggestion on when an article may be notable, but it does not determine notability. It's honestly really bad criteria. Listicles are not reliable, full stop. TTN (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, it's an essay that's not even part of the MOS, so it's even more useless of a suggestion. TTN (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure you are talking to me or Haleth. But I still stand my opinion that IGN and Empire having a top whatever is notable. When it’s a major source like that at least. Obviously CBR is not that example. I never went as far as saying it was. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You just pointed to a discussion page like it was an official guideline and you are complaining about an essay? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The noticeboard is for the purpose of determining community consensus on the status of reliable/unreliable sources. TTN (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok three vague opinions. And no opinion that lists can provide useful commentary or be notable notable enough on its own. Although that isn’t the point. The point is that is an essay is just as reliable source for advice than what you pointed at. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which only received comments of opinions from exactly, two other users. The outcome of that discussion is an echo chamber that is about as useful as my little "consensus" with two other users in a discussion for a proposed merge for the Paper Mario character Vivian. It is WP:Localconsensus that is not supported by guidelines or policy, and it cannot supersede them either. There is currently no specific guideline or policy on notability for fictional characters or topics, only WP:GNG applies, full stop. I've seen you and a few other users quoting essays which propose a solution that aligns with your views during discussions, so it's only fair that I've quoted a longstanding essay which suggests a guideline on notability for comic book, and I don't expect you to agree. I suggest you or Piotr stop quoting that stalled RSN discussion in almost every single AfD debate as if it's policy or guideline that editors are compelled to follow. Your opinions are exactly that, your own. Otherwise, get a RfC organized on this issue, once and for all.
      - As for your assertion that it isn't a list article because it is not titled "List of Imperial Guard characters", that is just semantics. I've seen several other "Characters of XXX" which are classified as "list class" even though they don't start with "List of xxx characters". The current organization of the article's content is dominated by a listing of the organization's members, and is for all intents and purposes, a list. The article can be rewritten to comply with the MOS of a list article. That would be an appropriate measure as clean up, not deletion. Haleth (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Discussion on a common noticeboard in which many users from various areas browse is not the same as consensus on a singular article talk page. I also referenced three other discussions in which something was deemed unreliable due to them being listicle factories. Even if that does not inherently blacklist sites as a whole, it is clearly a consensus that listicles as a whole are not reliable. That also doesn't really help the fact that none of the CBR articles cited talk about the topic anyway. I haven't personally quoted WP:FICT or essays myself in years from what I can recall, but that's ultimately just a summarization of WP:WAF, WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:GNG in how they relate to fiction. The comic one fails to account for WP:GNG, so it's absolutely useless. This is not "Characters of X" or rated as a List-class article by the project, so it is literally not a list article. Lists can have a bit of non-list context, but the bulk of this article clearly is clearly non-list prose. TTN (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It certainly has the same consensus as that of a singular article talk page since it lacks the explicit support of the broader community, when only two editors and no one else bothered to weight in, astounding when even you acknowledged that more readers are supposed to browse that noticeboard. At least Masem's opinion was helpful, where he specifically said that "Lists that simply give lists but do not give more than a brief description of why stuff is on the list" are the useless ones. Again, only a consensus established through RfC is worth deferring to, and consensus is mutable. So, your claim that there is tacit agreement is not supported by Wikipedia policy or guideline on level of consensus. The three discussions you linked were about the reliability of specific sources which have been brought up. Like any other article or editorial, there are good listicles, and bad ones. Even professional journalist sources which are widely considered reliable like The Guardian and IGN have published listicles, and there is a noticeable gap in quality if compared to the ones published by enthusiast websites like Whatculture or Watchmojo, so if either website publish a page length editorial or 10 minute analysis video for a change instead of their daily listicles, it still won't change the fact that their reporting content and editorial oversight has been vetted to be unreliable or low quality within the same discussions you referred to. CBR I personally consider to be situational post-2016, for obvious reasons, but I have yet to see any community-wide consensus deprecating the source or vetting it as unreliable. The comic one fails to account for GNG? Read it again, it's listed as one of three suggested criteria, and I copy pasted it word for word. Haleth (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Despite all the people showing up and casting their votes, none have thus far managed to add any substantial real-world information to this WP:ALLPLOT article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - I am surprised... Deletion is not supposed a vote, and arguments are supposed to be more substantial, and more policy grounded that: "this is a bit better than before and the concept is important in the comic universe". The encyclopedia-worthy content here is no more than a few sentences, and references are relatively weak. I see that the only possibility would be to merge those few sentences somewhere, but I am not sure where... - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article and references have been vastly improved from what it was. WP:HEY. Meets WP:GNG. WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet any notability guidelines. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are mentions, plot summaries, etc, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the topic directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 23:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read through the linked secondary sources and am not seeing which ones are meant to constitute significant coverage. I'm seeing no substance with which we can build a dedicated encyclopedia article. The article is longer than it was when it was deleted in January, yes, but is length is empty if it's built from every extant passing mention of the topic and bolstered by primary sources. For those who simply want to preserve the content, Shi'ar would make a good redirect target in which the little that is actually sourced can be appropriately covered, but as was said above, that article too lacks in-depth secondary source coverage. I'd be interested in other potential redirect targets but every other instance I've seen would bring no reader benefit—all brief mentions in a long list. (Maybe List of alien races in Marvel Comics § Shi'ar?) Hence deletion, per the last AfD. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 06:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of the Imperial Guard members are Shi'ar. Some of them come from the other alien races that are in the Shi'ar Empire's jurisdiction. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SMB9 9thx my edits! 09:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP — I've heavily edited the article to reduce the size of the in-universe plot summaries, and rebalanced citations by adding secondary sources and removing as many primary sources as I could. I still contend the article is notable because it establishes their relationship with the Legion of Super-Heroes, as well as showing their involvement with any number of other major Marvel storylines that are the subjects of multiple articles. Not to mention a redirect to Shi'ar would cause more problems, since the vast majority of the Imperial Guard are NOT in themselves members of the Shi'ar race. -- stoshmaster (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reducing extraneous content can happen at any time, but sourcing issues are forever. czar 17:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol he did some add new sources apparently. I think he should have noted it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Solid improvements made, and as I have argued in other Marvel comic AfDs - this is a small piece and part of a larger puzzle and should be considered not just on its own merit, which is enough in my mind, but as a part of a larger whole.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any improvements made. The entire article is still nothing but in-universe fanwiki-esque content even more than two weeks after the first keep !vote was cast in this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Domain name#Fictitious domain name. Sandstein 16:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fictitious Internet resource

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

No evidence of notability, unsourced since 2006. Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - It looks like at some point, the actual notable, sourced portions of this article were merged into Domain name#Fictitious domain name, leaving a chunk of unsourced, seemingly WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH material that is largely comprised of trivia. As the information on fictional domain names has already been merged elsewhere, and I'm not finding any reliable sources discussing much on fictional IP addresses, there is not anything here to keep. However, as material from here has been previously already merged to another article, I think we need to keep this as a Redirect there in order to preserve that history. Rorshacma (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with leaving a redirect to keep the history. There is one article that links here,[1] and that link was added yesterday. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Domain name#Fictitious domain name: Article looks like an WP:OR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing this for numerous reasons as a keep at this point. Feel free to examine things on the talk page, proceed accordingly, with civility. You can also re-nominate, if needed, but hopefully we'll sort it out. Missvain (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Panamint Springs, California

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

Another Inyo County resort: its website is the first Ghit. Every reference I find to the name is either the resort itself or to it as a locale or dot on the map. It doesn't seem notable as a business. Mangoe (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment weak keep, It seems notable enough. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A number of sources mentioning the site's accomodations, but no evidence this is a community. Most content in article is fluff. Panamint Valley could mention the motel. Reywas92^Talk 01:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a definite community/population center, albeit small, and it did in fact have a post office [2]. Oakshade (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citation says specifically that the post office was established to serve visiting tourists. In any case we have long ago determined that a post office in the US does not imply a surrounding community. Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's unsurprising that a remote motel in a then-national monument may have postal service, but "serv[ing] the tourists" is not the same as being a community. It mentions Scotty's Castle as also having a post office but that's likewise just a ranch tourists visited and stayed at. If this article is kept it should be rewritten as about the resort itself rather than pretending to be a town because the motel's proprietors lived at the property. Places of interest in the Death Valley area may be a merge target. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's good enough for the USPO, Google Maps [3], the Inyo County official website [4] (where Panamint Springs is listed as one of the "communities" in District 5), the National Park Service (which says that Darwin Falls is "Located just west of Panamint Springs ...") [5], and Expedia [6], then it belongs on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google Maps imports its data from GNIS and also labels industrial railroad spur Susie, WA and is not determinant of being notable or a community. "Located just west of Panamint Springs" is accurate but does not mean it is a community, nor do these sites in the area preclude mention at Places of interest in the Death Valley area. Expedia's page is utter bullshit. It's a single motel and campsite owned by one family, it is not a town, and has neither "motels" nor "hotels". The operators of the resort residing there does not make a community. The resort does "not receive U.S. Mail deliveries" so it's obviously not good enough for the USPO. Reywas92^Talk 07:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you know better than the officials of Inyo County about what is and what isn't a community in their county. [7]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Yilloslime (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Update: The article is now about the resort rather than the place, but I'm not seeing that WP:GNG is met either. Yilloslime (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you are of the opinion that the officials of Inyo County don;t know what is and isn't a community in their county? [[8]

Comment I did a requested page move. Article is now at Panamint Springs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz You really shouldn't have moved the article. One of the participants here basically hijacked the article and rewrote it to be about the resort and not the community, but -- as we can see from the Inyo County official website -- it *is* a community. I assume that the request came from that editor. Your page move basically usurped the AfD discussion. I believe you should undo it and allow the AfD process to play out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Official website calls it a resort, along with TripAdvisor. News clippings [9][10][11], among others in the archives, call it a resort. Content that reflects the sources is not "hijacking": Do NOT remove this sourced content from the article again. There is absolutely nothing there besides the resort, all owned by a single company and consisting of a motel, campsites, a restaurant, and service station. Inyo County official website also lists "Panamint Springs" as a local business that received covid aid, and even the business's proprietors as the only residents would be considered a "community" of coworkers, it is not the same as a town or village that would have an article title presenting it as such. The article's subject should be about a resort per the sources, rather than pretending the owners and employees are a community or populated place and the resort just happens to be located within it. Reywas92^Talk 21:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - This AfD is now worthless and should be considered invalid. The basic argument of the "delete" voters is that Panamint Springs, California is a resort and not a community. One of those delete voters went and totally re-wrote the article so that it was about the resort and not the community -- a community which the officials of Inyo County list as existing ias one of the communities in their "District 5". By WP:HIJACKING the article in that manner, and then asking an admin to move the article to another name, that editor poisoned the well, and should be sanctioned for doing so.
This AfD should be closed as invalid, the article restored from its hijacked state to the status quo ante and a new AfD opened with the article fully protected and an admonition to participants at the new AfD not to repeat the hijacking. This is the only fair way to come to a true consensus about the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz I have to say I cannot find record of that request, and I agree that it has caused discord here. That said, the presenting problem continues to be that the only Panamint Springs is by all evidence completely encompassed by the resort. And it seems to me that too much is being made of the passage on the Inyo website, as looking at the other supervisor pages reveals different language and mostly lists places which are CDPs, as well as what appear to be subdivisions and the vast pseudo-town that is (or in reality isn't) Charleston View. It's hardly an official List of Communities. Mangoe (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a right to be accurate, whether it is at AFD or not. Nothing in the current version of the article is inaccurate. It is a resort – as the status quo ante described it with its history and features! The employees can live at the resort/accomodations/facilities and it's still a resort. Yes under a dictionary definition of the word "community", that people live on-site as a social group in a locality, it is a community, but it should not be treated as such – on the level of a town, village, CDP – in the encyclopedia, as the history and substance is about the resort, not the population. There is no basis whatsoever for sanctioning for adding citations to an article with sourced content that reflects it, though I apologize for the move request that did not need to be done during this discussion. Reywas92^Talk 06:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I recently declined a request at WP:RFPP to fully protect this article because of the changes that were being made to it during an AfD. I declined it because that isn't what page protection is for. Looking through the history of the page and reading through this AfD, I have a few comments about the process, but I'm not offering any opinion on whether or not this article should be deleted. Firstly, it's ok to edit articles during an AfD, per WP:EDITATAFD (and good-faith improvements to an article during an AfD shouldn't be reverted only because they were made during an AfD). It's even ok to move articles during an AfD. However, it's also true that heavily editing and moving articles during an AfD can disrupt the discussion and make it very difficult for the closing admin to determine consensus, because many voters are discussing totally different versions of the article throughout the course of the AfD. My suggestion to everyone here: let the AfD run its course. If people want to edit the article, let them edit the article. Definitely don't start an edit war over it. If, at the conclusion of the AfD, you believe that the result was tainted by heavy editing of the article, and you still believe that there are policy-based reasons that the current version of the article should be deleted, then start another AfD soon after this one ends and explain your reasoning in the nomination statement. While it's unusual to run AfDs back-to-back like that, I think it would be reasonable to do so if there is a good-faith argument that the first AfD was disrupted, as long as there are still valid reasons to delete the improved article. I'd also recommend that the closing admin provide their opinion on whether the discussion was disrupted to the point that a speedy renomination would be reasonable. ‑Scottywong | [babble] || 04:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Panamint Springs is a business but there are individuals residing on-site that are not employees, including and beyond families. As a business it is also notable, being one of 3 main lodging areas within Death Valley NP, the western gateway to the park, and having a long history dating back to the 1930s. It's also the only lodging, large campground, restaurant, and fuel stop within Panamint Valley. If other DV area landmarks, like Teakettle Junction; Ballarat, CA; and Skidoo, CA; all have Wikipedia pages, why shouldn't Panamint Springs?

Also-- There are other things near the resort that are still referred to as being part of "Panamint Springs" that are not owned by the company. E.g. the old, unused Caltrans station south/west of the Cassell property.

— Preceding

unsigned comment added by Rafikim (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vrable manse

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

I've been working through the unreferenced articles category for July 2007 and adding references to them. I, however, can't find anything for this article subject. Nothing of any note at all and i've tried looking through Slovakian news sources and still nothing. So, unless someone else can dig something up, this article fails WP:GNG and there's therefore no sourcing to meet WP:NBUILDING requirements. Silver seren^C 00:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vrable. I can’t find anything either. Mccapra (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG; redirect is an alternative although I'd question whether anyone would search this realistically Spiderone 09:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources can be found to support this thing's existence, so it fails WP:V and GNG. It is also not mentioned at Vrable, and with no sources available it should not be, making a redirect useless. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Advancement of Management Studies

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

Not notable organization. All but one of its sources is the organization itself. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment weak keep The organization may not be that notable but some can be found on the web like In a recession, large firms are more likely than SMEs to resort to personnel cuts, Timothy Devinney – The Conversation, even a journal. If it is improved, It can be kept. — A. Shohag (ping_me or Talk) 12:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

=> Response from the original author: Thank you for your feedback. I have added numerous links to external sources. The charity funds events and grants and supports one of the major journal in the field of management studies. It seems notable to me.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even after improvement, still fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The sources that provide significant coverage are either not independent or not reliable or both. This is a regular charity doing regular charity things and this is not a directory of all "deserving" organizations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

=> Response from the original author: Please let us know what is "significant coverage" and what sources exactly are not considered "independent" or "reliable". Without clear feedback, it is not clear how the page can be improved.

DELETE fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

=> Response from the original author: What is the SIRS test? I'm continuing to add external sources and references to the page. It is unclear what else can be done to improve the page.

Keep I have added a reference to a book on the history of UK business and management education which contains a paragraph on the notability of the establishment of this organization (please use this link to check that reference if desired). In addition, the fact that there are numerous references to this organization in the biographies of members of the trustee council appears to me to make it notable, in that the person discussed in the bio is listed as a member in the limited space often devoted to an introductory bio - in other words, membership of this organization is notable enough to the writer of the bio to mention it. Finally the association with a recognized academic journal also serves the notability argument.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is leaning towards deletion, but would appreciate an analysis of any recently-added sources before making a final decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [chatter] || 00:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are extremely lack luster and clearly fail the notability guidelines. Just to break them down, 1 and 2 are both primary and basic business listings with no real details of the charity, in-depth or otherwise. Source 3 is about "The History of UK Business and Management Education" and does not discuss the company in-depth. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are are all primary sources, not independent of the charity, and do not talk about it in-depth or really otherwise except in passing. Source 19 has absolutely nothing about it and just contains a name drop of one of it's trustees. Finally, sources 20 and 21 have absolutely nothing to do with it either. So, 17 out of 21 sources are primary. One is only a brief mention if even that and the rest have nothing to do with subject of the article. Therefore, this unequivocally fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: 19 was suggested above by one of the comments. 20 and 21 are bios that mention the charity on website of prominent universities - so they don't have "nothing to do" with the topic. I would also disagree that sources are not independent - obviously, we are talking other organisations connected with the charity in the sense that they work together (what other organisations would report on a charity out of those that directly know about its activity?), but that does not mean they are not independent. CantabSoul 28 November 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was created less than a month ago by an inexperienced editor, cites almost no sources and a page issue was put in the article almost immediately. –Cupper52^{Talk to me!} 12:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Answer21 references seem to be quite a few sources to me. The judgement on my inexperience does not seem to have anything to do with the quality of the page. Editors need to start somewhere I guess. CantabSoul 28 November 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The comment about the inexperience of the editor should be discounted - what does that have to do with the value of the article? In addition, the editor has taken these comments here to heart and has tried to improve the article - cheers to that. Source 3 very clearly and directly supports the paragraph where it is used as a reference - which is what is asked for of a reference. I support keeping this article.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relies on primary sources far too much and still fails notability guidelines even after the page was changed. BJackJS talk 18:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evacuation of Novorossiysk (1920)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kassy Dillon}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara-Tur}}
@@ Line 19: / Line 20: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vrable manse}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Advancement of Management Studies}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evacuation of Novorossiysk (1920)}}