Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 December	10 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osaka child abandonment case

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 17:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance demon

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

Fails WP:GNG. It's all WP:PLOT, so no information should be retained. TTN (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a great article, but Buffy is well-studied, and this is no exception. Some nice analysis in this peer-reviewed article and Sex and the Slayer, for example. There's plenty more out there, especially relating to Anya. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if this is in-depth about the demons, or just uses them in passing to discuss something else (i.e. an aspect of justice system in Buffyverse). Slayage ([1]) is peer reviewed but I doubt it is taken very seriously in the field (the about page doesn't suggest it is indexed anywhere, I'll ping User:Randykitty on his take on this, it would make for a fun DYK but GNG is an issue). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, just a response to the ping by Piotrus: The journal appears to be serious: the editors and board are all legit academics and the journal is indexed in the Modern Language Association Databaseand DOAJ, which confirms that this is not a predatory journal. So while it doesn't appear to meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, it does seem like a reliable source to me (unless somebody digs up evidence to the contrary and note that this field of study is not directly my specialty). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor plot-cruft that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note I removed the prod because shortly after it was placed, a merge discussion was started and I added to the merge discussion. The nominator should have joined the merge discussion instead of starting this one. Aspects (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the merge target as well, as I feel neither needs to be retained on Wikipedia. TTN (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article found by JM is a good start, but it is overall a low quality resource (at best, the very minimum when it comes to academic sources), and also a single source (GNG requires multiple) and finally, I am not convinced it is in-depth coverage of this topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (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. Commentary since the DRV is strongly for keeping and is supported with solid sources. RL0919 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaomi Mi Pad

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

Wikipedia isn't a hosting service. This product isn't notable and it only serves to mirror what's on phonearena, and it's best such thing remains on resources where it's a better fit. Wikipedia isn't a product catalog. Graywalls (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC) - just commenting to affirm I'm maintaining my position. A lot of added sources are things that are typical of review oriented websites that writes reviews on just about every consumer electronics out there and I still don't feel that this product is particularly notable. Graywalls (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see anything to distinguish this from a plethora of similar tablets. Existence is not notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nomination. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The tablet is actually one of the first 2 tablets that use Nvidia Tegra K1 Processor (besides the tablet from nVidia).
It is also the first tablet from Xiaomi.
Due to its good price-performance ratio, it has a large userbase (hint from xda device website views)
Also it seems to be important part of Company History (now being "purged" from Official Sources)

Above keep by 0xSkyy (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also updated the article with more relevant information. To find more information about the device, it is advisable to limit (google) search to January 2013 to January 2015 range.

Also, whereas MiPad 2,3,4 ... should (probably) not have separate Wikipedia pages, MiPad (original) should, as it is part of company history.

Andy Dingley, actually, now it may seem indistinguishable, but at the time of its release, it was quite the Apple 2, it had Hardware Spec comparable to gaming console, with super low price. Care to comment.

Also pinging CentreLeftRight and Fifthavenuebrands

0xSkyy (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PRODUCTREV says, "other (e.g. new tech gadgets, travel blogs) are newer and more prone to manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel.". Practically every phone gets reviewed, so if product pages are written entirely on reviews, that means just about every cell phone would be on here and the problem I am seeing is Wikipedia acting practically as a mirror of phonearena. And eurogamers.net has a disclaimer on the bottom "Sometimes we include links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.", so it could be seen that it's in their advantage to review favorably when possible. Could we consider it truly independent? Graywalls (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning delete, but 0xSkyy has added some references to the article, and more input would beneficial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Graywalls So you want to delete Apple 2, ipad, nexus 7, nexus 7 (2012), nexus 7 (2013) ...?

because in terms of notability, this MiPad

Was the FIRST tablet to use Nvidia Tegra K1 processor,
Was the FIRST tablet from Xiaomi in a line of tablets.
Had highly competitive pricing (240USD)(read: extremely low price) for the hardware it used. Nexus 9 ($399) & Nvidia Shield Tablet($399) (both Tegra K1 devices) (both around 8 inch tablet)

comment by 0xSkyy (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment

That's not how notability is defined here. See WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG guidelines.

1 and 2) ok? For example, suppose a product was the first of the kind to have some arbitrary attribute. For example, offering tomato flavored ice cream. This simple fact wouldn't make it notable unless there's a lot of press coverage about it.

3 companies and businesses do loss leaders and door busters all the time in order to get the branding out there for promotional, marketing and public relations purposes and it don't mean a thing. Graywalls (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually performance is a significant attribute for any computing device, for which this device DID get coverage in the "press". (Article updated with references)

3.) By your logic Graywalls So you want to delete Apple 2, ipad, nexus 7, nexus 7 (2012), nexus 7 (2013) ...?

comment by 0xSkyy (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:ST47, Kindly remove the delete notice from the main article, as (hopefully) the original reason (lack of sources) is no longer valid. Thanks. (As several 3rd party (&) news sources have been added) 0xSkyy (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@0xSkyy: No, the notice will remain until this discussion is concluded. And I am leaning towards deletion at this time, I would have deleted the article yesterday but wanted to give other users the opportunity to respond to the references which you have added. ST47 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion,

Original Reason for deletion

Find sources: "Xiaomi Mi Pad" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR

does not seem valid any longer, external sources are now cited which cover the topic, with sources including:

and others... have been added, please check the article again. 0xSkyy (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@0xSkyy: I don't understand what you think you have proven. Your work to improve the article is absolutely appreciated. This debate will remain open for another 7 days from when I relisted it, at which point the consensus will be re-evaluated either by me or by another admin. ST47 (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 1.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – (from DRV) The product meets WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT by virtue of these WP:THREE: PCMag, Time, and CNET, and there are others like Verge and Engadget. (The reviews appear to meet WP:PRODUCTREV.) Additionally, per NPRODUCT and WP:PAGEDECIDE, merging this product article with the article on the company would make the article on the company too large, and potentially create an WP:UNDUE problem. So, I think this product is best covered in a stand-alone article. Thanks to 0xSkyy for the WP:HEY. – Levivich 19:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Levivich just above. Pretty clearly meets the GNG, which I think should be sufficient. Much improved since AfD nomination, added sources look good. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (2 or again): Agree with above comments on notability satisfaction WP:GNG & on WP:NPRODUCT. Plus an optional 4th 😊 for WP:THREE : Reuters 0xSkyy (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT !Vote more than once. You already casted "keep" once. Graywalls (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Andy Dingley, Fifthavenuebrands, CentreLeftRight, Enos733, Reyk, and Cryptic: notifying Deletion Review participants who have endorsed the deletion who have not participated after this was relisted; and users who have casted !vote = delete just in case they want to make comments. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete Why are we being asked to !vote a third time, with this nonsense of "discard the old !votes we didn't like last time". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep a major product. We wouldn't keeep all variations, but this sseeems to be a suitable base article for them. DGG ( talk ) 11:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improvements in sourcing and content since the start of the AfD show this product to be covered in multiple RS and thus to be notable per WP:GNG. The article isn't perfect, but has WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that can be fixed with editing. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 13:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erkenbrand

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

Non-notable LOTR figure. Only scholarly coverage is brief mentions and plot summaries. Will get some Google results, but more for a political group in The Netherlands than for the character. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:*Comment I don't why the link to the AfD daily log is redlinked (I used Twinkle) but clicking on the redlink did work. Could an expert in this area please look into what's going on so this can get properly transcluded? Hog Farm (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC) fixed Hog Farm (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This obscure character is not even the most notable entity with this name. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not all named characters are notable. He is not even a fully developed character, and there is nothing in the secondary sources showing major impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Minor character.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wonder if anyone coined the phrase Tolkiencruft before... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've staked my claim at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manthor. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a new List of The Lord of the Rings characters. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. The reason such a list does not exist already is that all these were created as separate articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The List of Middle-earth characters has been revamped to include a short description for each figure. I don't know if there's enough about Silmarillion figures to warrant separate lists of Middle-earth in general and LOTR. Hog Farm (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tolkiencruft. Piotrus-lol. Minor character not notable. Wm335td (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2019 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elf Bowling the Movie: The Great North Pole Elf Strike

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

Apparently a low-budget movie made in some guy's basement that never seems to have attracted any coverage in reliable sources of any note. Only one source currently in the article can really be considered a source. There's passing mention here, but I don't have really much else to offer. It claims to have a number of notable people as voice actors, but I've got no real source for any of it. Claims to have a 6.5m budget, but I've got no source for that either. GMG ^talk 17:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are plenty of YouTube reviews, including from the notable Channel Awesome and I found a review from a blog here: https://tedium.co/2017/12/25/elf-bowling-movie-review/ While these are technically not reliable, they do seem serious enough. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and slightly expand at Elf Bowling#Film adaptation, where a shorter plot summary and history should go. And we need better sources for this than sites which just use it to elaborate on the thesis 'it sucks' for 10-15 minutes. Nate • (chatter) 21:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. YouTube and blog reviews are not reliable sources for gauging notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bauer family (Guiding Light)

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

This topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete un-encyclopedic. Does not pass our notability guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some decent sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better material for a fan Wiki than something here.TH1980 (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2019 (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 Harley Quinn. This AfD could also be closed in other ways, but the point is that there is already a large overlap with Harley Quinn, and the consensus leaned towards that HQ's appearances don't necessitate a separate article. I'll leave it to editorial decisions what to merge and how it should be presented in the parent article. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Quinn in other media

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

Appearances of a comic book character in film, etc. This fancruft fails WP:LISTN. I get that this is a spin-off article of Harley Quinn#In other media, but it is not a worthwhile one, and would be removed as excessive detail if it were still in the source article. For very popular comics characters with dozens or hundreds of appearances, Wikipedia should not attempt to list all appearances. Doing so verges on WP:IINFO and is of no interest to any but the most devoted of fans. Fan wikis are better suited for such purposes. Our article about the character should instead provide a broad overview of appearances and highlight the most important appearances. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Harley Quinn. Instead of deleting this content, consider condensing it into a table that simply lists works (or groups of works) by publisher and medium. It's not necessary to list detailed plot and character information from each of Quinn's appearances in video games, movies, etc. (that information, if it differs from her general bio from Batman: The Animated Series, should be captured in the articles for those separate games, movies, etc. and can be just briefly referenced here). I appreciate what the author was trying to do here but I don't think that it is necessary to maintain this level of wp:fancruft. 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just pure fancruft and the amount of detail in this article is extremely trivial in nature, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Most of these cameo appearances are not necessary to mention anywhere besides her Wikia page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Obstensive Keep~~ Merge per Masem - When characters are adapted into other media, they are usually reinterpreted, adapted, and portrayed by multiple different actors. And Sandstein, we do list every appearance except for irrelevant minor appearances (such as a cameo) and trivial non-appearances (such as a mentioning). If you can fit all of the character's relevant appearances into the main article at a reasonable length, I will change my vote to delete. If not, there is no basis for a deletion. "In other media" sections get spun off into separate articles when they reach a certain length.

What I will say is that (in general) these deletion spammings (especially those of TTN) are getting out of hand, and are beginning to border on disruption. If certain users have an issue with how the WikiProject operates, they need to open a larger discussion instead of making an excessive amount of WP:POINTy deletion nominations. In fact, there actually have been such discussions where users have claimed that there is some secret ownership cabal at WP:COMICS, so the deletion spammings are really just a way to bypass the discussion without having to worry about changing consensus. Dark Knight 2149 00:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you keep claiming people must go discuss on a project page doesn't really help against claims of ownership. TTN (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic talk between Darkknight2149 and TTN about how Wikipedia works. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You seem to have a strong misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates. Wikipedia is a community-based encyclopedia rooted in discussion and consensus. Trying to bypass discussions and assert your point of view by haphazardly spamming deletion nominations (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin (Marvel Comics) being a great example) is disruptive. You also have zero grasp of what ownership of content means, apparently. Given how long you have been on Wikipedia, I would expect you to know better. Dark Knight 2149 01:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You act as if project permission is needed to nominate vast swathes of articles that fail multiple policies and guidelines. You act as if there is some affront to not dealing with a project directly over the articles related to the project. That is a claim of ownership. I have absolutely zero faith such a project can do anything when many of these articles have been sitting for literally 14 years at this point. Any attempt at self-cleanup seems to have died right out of the gate. Look at the Marvel and DC character lists and their complete lack of any organization. Look at all the various merged characters brought back by people like Rtkat3 out of complete ignorance of how WP:N and WP:WAF work. Look at the several people who seem angry at the mere fact that I'd nominate some of these articles even before there is any discussion on Wikipedia-defined Notability. There is no working with such a mishmash of cloistered people. It's not like there aren't some reasonable voices, but they're definitely drowned out. TTN (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is content ownership. Whether or not you have faith in the community is irrelevant. If you want change, you have to propose it, raise your concerns, and discuss it like everyone else, instead of throwing consensus out the window and trying to force your point of view. And as previously mentioned, the matter of there being an "ownership" cabal at WP:COMICS has been hotly discussed multiple times in the past, so this really is you taking matters into your own hands. There have even been instances in these nominations where users have pointed you to specific guidelines/conventions that you have chosen to ignore on the basis of "I don't like that!". At the Goblin nomination, when mistakes in your nomination were pointed out to you, you tried to dance around it instead of admitting your mistake. It was also you who tried to push the onus onto me to open a discussion for you, so your ridiculous WP:GAMEing of WP:OWN is hypocritical as hell. You boldly tried to change the WikiProject through mass deletion nominations. At this point, more than one user has expressed their exasperation with this behaviour and your justifications have been ridiculous and disruptive. If this continues, action will likely be taken against you. Dark Knight 2149 01:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that TTN only has to "deletion spam", in the words of DarkKnight, because comic book fans remove PRODs offhand no matter how fancrufty and non-notable the content is, which in itself is disruptive editing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, you just aren't going to drop that you lost that argument, are you? You keep mentioning changes or gaining consensus. What exactly am I doing that differs from consensus? Is there a consensus that non-notable articles should exist? That's not a consensus a project can make. Projects can decide how to best organize content and act as a place of easy communal discussion. They don't get to override site-wide consensus on Notability. You are clearly trying to assert project dominance in a space where it doesn't exist. Thus you are claiming ownership. I in no way believe my pace is anywhere near a level of disruption, especially where these articles clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's that exact same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality you displayed earlier. I'm about to drop a message on your most recent deletion nomination informing everyone of the situation. So far, you have displayed tendencies of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, WP:POINT, WP:GAMEing, WP:ASPERSION, WP:INCIVILITY, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. What you are doing is trying to circumvent discussion by finding as many WP:COMICS articles as you can, scrolling down to the references section, and then automatically tagging them for deletion without doing any research into topic, or looking into whether or not sources exist, all to push your point of view and protest the project in a disruptive manner. Already at the Goblin nomination, two separate editors have supported a deletion on the basis of the erroneous deletion rationale that you made. And when confronted about making a false claim or a mistake, you either try to dance around it or double-down on it. When someone presents third party sources or cites a specific guideline to you (such as WP:LISTN or WP:NCOMIC), you ignore it on the basis of "I don't like it". The subject of change and potential ownership at WP:COMICS already has been discussed multiple times community-wide in the past, discussions that you are choosing to circumvent because you are afraid of opposition (as you yourself admitted). You were bold enough to spam deletion nominations. Now your behaviour has been contested by more than one editor. You need to either open a discussion at dispute resolution, WT:COMICS, or another appropriate venue. Telling you this isn't WP:OWN, it's WP:CONSENSUS. If you continue this disruption, you will be reported. Dark Knight 2149 00:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More ownership nonsense. Just make your pointless report because I have no intention on catering to your nonsense. I am one of several editors in several spaces nominating things for deletion. You so far are the only person to try to turn this into a battleground by claiming that any change has to go through the great project cabal. This is OWN to a tee. Both PROD and AfD are community tools using outside consensus to determine lack of notability on a per article basis, and you have yet to explain what consensus I'm apparently trying to change. Again, I ask is there a local consensus keeping non-notable articles or something? I am not unilaterally mass redirecting. I am not going through changing established MoS items. This has nothing to do with your project or any internal consensus. TTN (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you have previously been told, it doesn't necessarily have to be at WT:COMICS. WP:DRN is a perfectly fine place to take it. You obviously have no idea what WP:OWN is, nor do you know what WP:CONSENSUS is. You do not get to circumvent discussion just because you are afraid that the community won't rule in your favour. That's not how Wikipedia works, and you also may want to take a good hard look at Wikipedia:There is no cabal and WP:STEWARDSHIP. If you think your mentality is remotely acceptable, I would suggest you ask around. Any administrator will tell you the exact same thing I am. Dark Knight 2149 01:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can shout that to the high heavens, but you're still demanding the involvement of the project in something irrelevant to the project. If you want to have an internal discussion on how to deal with your low quality, non-notable articles, feel free. I don't need to be involved. You still have yet to point out what apparent consensus I'm even breaking. AfDing non-notable articles is pretty standard. You have an extreme bias issue in this discussion, especially claiming that I'm somehow making people !vote a certain way when they can use their own eyes to judge the content. You are not going to change my mind, so you can either make your RFC/ANI/discussion with an admin or just go about your business. TTN (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At no point have I expressed bias in this discussion. Without reaching, I dare you to substantiate this bias in a way that doesn't boil down to "He asked me to stop blindly and haphazardly spamming deletion nominations, and engage in dispute resolution! The BRD/consensus process is content ownership, because if I try to change how the topic of comics is handled on Wikipedia through discussion, a cabal of editors will DISAGREE with me!!" Something that actually has been discussed community-wide multiple times and that you are deliberately choosing to ignore, I might add. When you continue on, don't be surprised when you get hit with an ANI report. That's all there really is to say at this point. Dark Knight 2149 01:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, word it in a way that completely ignores the repeated, explicit demands of project involvement. You take the time to slap me with two generic warnings like I'm a toddler, but you're not going to go through with it? You have been deeply biased in both discussions we've had, going for a fight right out of the gate and vaguely hand-waving at some supposed consensus I've breached but refuse to disclose. You purposefully pinged me to this unrelated discussion just to continue a prior argument. At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure my started AfDs since I've returned this year are likely at 90%+ in favor of my position, so I'm quite confident that nothing I'm doing can be considered disruptive outside of my supposed invasion of "your" article space. TTN (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a battleground to host arguments. I initially informed you of an objectively false claim that you used as a basis for nominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin (Marvel Comics) and expressed my concern after looking through the vast number of articles you were nominating. You repeatedly doubled down on it and downplayed it instead of admitting your mistake. It's the way that you have behaved and justified yourself since then that has led to this moment. You have selectively ignored what I have been telling you to try and "win" some imaginary argument. You need to listen to other editors. Given how long you have been on Wikipedia, it amazes me that you don't see any problems with what you are saying, or the way you are acting. You have also haven't provided any evidence of "bias" on my part, and it seems as though you desperately need to read through WP:TINC, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:Dispute Resolution, WP:OWN, WP:GAME, WP:LAWYER, WP:WIN, and WP:BRD. You seem completely unable to accept when you are wrong, or that Wikipedia isn't your way or the highway. Dark Knight 2149 02:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Says the person who pinged me in a completely unrelated AfD by another user for the purpose of continuing an argument. You're the only one preaching, so it's not "listen to other editors." It's "listen to you." This is your particular biased point of view because you're upset that I'm doing something of which you disapprove in "your" space. That you keep bringing up my "mistake" (which again, you're the only one parroting it) like it's the biggest golden gun in the world is quite telling. TTN (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact juvenile WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour I was referring to. And still, you provide zero evidence of bias. I hope you understand that the incivility and WP:Casting aspersions alone is enough reason for me to file a report, let alone everything else. There is no "argument" to "win". The sooner you figure this out, the better.

"You're the only one preaching, so it's not 'listen to other editors.' It's 'listen to you.'" And this would fall under "selectively ignoring what I have been telling you", not to mention WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Dark Knight 2149 03:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then file it. Stop acting like you have me over a pit and just do it if you really believe your position is so strong. It's going to be a whole lot of nothing. TTN (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Summary style is king. Rather than a proper fork article, this is pure, unchecked bloat. There should be sections that discuss the most important roles and the character's impact in those roles. I could certainly see comic characters possibly having scholarly articles built entirely on their depictions in various media through proper sourcing, but this is not currently in such a state. TTN (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More comic book fancruft. Cjhard (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - After Gonnym's vote below and doing some major clean up of the article, I'm still a little in two minds about the article. I don't think Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Comics#Alternate_versions_of_characters applies as strongly as Gonnym does, as the guideline is about alternate versions of a character, whereas this refers to every appearance of the character in non-comic book media. However, I think the article types are similar enough that the guideline is helpful in this case. I think there's a likelihood that cleanup to the point required could lead to it needing to be merged into the main article, but that remains to be seen. Cjhard (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Harley Quinn per Masem. Cjhard (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a valid list that has a set criteria for inclusion and has enough sources for a start level list article. This list could be merged to the parent article, but it would just pointlessly make that article larger and put undue weight to this section, over the general article. Also, to all the deletionists here, please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Comics#Alternate_versions_of_characters which is a guideline which this list follows. Seems like what we got here is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS posse going for the backdoor way, instead of trying to get the larger community consensus to actually change the guideline. Just a note to any admin closing this. --Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly in reference to a full character offshoot that meets the proper standards of a Wikipedia article, not an unending list of plot summaries. There's even a sentence that seems against this kind of thing: "Such appearance lists or indexes fall under Wikipedia's concept of a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information." While that is directly talking about an extensive comic publication history, these other media appearances are no different. TTN (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Harley Quinn is notable, there's no need to list every time she appeared somewhere. JIP | Talk 11:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Harley Quinn. I feel 50% of this list is already documented in that article, and it is a matter of just organizing the rest for more minor/one-off appearances (which must be sourced for this types of appearances, where it is not obvious to a regular viewer/reader/player). --Masem (t) 02:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valid spin off article for valid content that wouldn't fit in the main article. Dream Focus 05:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Main Harley Quinn page is 33k of readable prose. At best, this list is 30k - but as I pointed out, about 50% of it duplicates what's in Appearances already. Combined is well under the SIZE issue. --Masem (t) 06:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If all of the relevant appearances (excluding trivial non-appearances and non-notable cameos) can be fit into the main article, I don't see any issue with a merge. Dark Knight 2149 07:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After a rough start, it looks like there might be a path forward... I propose keeping with a Merge tag for now while someone Sandboxes the merge for discussion without forcing the merge to be carried out if said sandbox doesn't truly seem like it fits. Not sure what to put in bold there as my !vote, but I'm not sure who will actually do it, either. -2pou (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Shabaz (Musician)

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

The notability of this person is dubious at best. As per the original prod, the sources are crufty and unreliable and for someone who has such a high claim as the "Voice of the UAE" I would expect actual meaningful independent coverage of bother Shabaz and the award, which is also not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't see anything here that meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Sources given are dubious (i.e. identical text with different bylines) or otherwise basically a couple of paragraphs of anonymous promotional copy. ... discospinster _talk 17:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi You guys have put tag twice and adminstrator has removed it and said it that its not promotional kindly references are not promotional please check twice.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They declined a speedy, you can't decline an AFD. It's still all PR nonsense. None of the sources are independent, reliable coverage. They are from dubious publishers. Winning an award isn't notable. Winning a notable award would help establish that. Voice of UAE is not notable, nor is the other award. Praxidicae (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying the same that article is based on promotional and i'm asking why ? i am getting references from Google and the artist is notable as i have seen him in newspaper too , few indians notable newspaper has mentioned him. i will add and also note i don't know the artist neither i am taking money from anyone. i am occasionally write on Pakistani celebrities as well as indian.

ThanksMemon KutianaWala (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I literally explained why above. Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the existing sources are a couple of different press releases, each of which is reprinted two or three times (sometimes minimally rewritten but unmistakably PRs) and some sources that don't even mention Shabaz. I can't find any reliable independent sources anywyere. Appears to be WP:UPANDCOMING but there is no sign of him meeting any applicable notability criteria yet. --bonadea contributions talk 19:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Subject doesnt have significant coverage. All I could find were a few obvious PR/press releases, thus failing general notability criteria. Subject also fails notability criteria for singers. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:12, 15 December 2019 (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. All arguments in favor of keep were variations of WP:ITSUSEFUL. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of henchmen of James Bond villains

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

List of mostly extremely trivial characters, including the famous "Warehouse Guard" and "Thug with Yo Yo." Any important characters actually worth covering would be in the movie cast lists and novel plot summaries already. There is no justification that this is needed for general encyclopedia benefit, so it's not a proper fork. TTN (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is a collection of minor plot details. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Unsourced listcruft. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. This is a list which is useful to our readers. We keep such lists. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What possible role does this fulfill? It's not a standard character list, and there is no editorial need for an expanded character list for such trivial characters. Even if you reduced it to actual characters, the film/book articles handle all character plot summary. Nobody is going to end up here outside of links from some redirected articles that should either be retargeted to their film/book of origin or outright deleted. Wikipedia has no need to list literally every character in literally every series. This is definitely a cutoff point. TTN (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

informational, navigation, or development purposes Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need a justification to back up that reasoning. Without an actual reason, that can be used for literally anything. Its current incarnation fails all three of those points. TTN (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion. My opinion is that the list serves an informational and navigation purpose. We keep these lists. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<crazed laughter> Hahahaha! <crazed laughter/> I've been expecting you, Mr Burst! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I'm having is "List of shoes by color worn by James Bond characters" could be a valid list if we're using such basic reasoning. There needs to be some kind of reasoned out threshold of information we list, even should I ultimately disagree with you on that cutoff point. TTN (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Other than the odd one, Bondian redshirts interest only the most fanatical of fans. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. This list serves no recognised informational purpose.Cjhard (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this might serve our core readership - students. The Bond "universe" has gone on for so long that many younger scholars who need thus information in one place can only find it here, with us. Over 10,000 people viewed this page in the past 30 days. I think this is a valid purpose. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many people need to know about "Thug with Yo Yo?" Any actual core character is covered on the films' cast lists, so it'd be best to let people interested go to a fan wiki where they can see detailed information about these characters. Though I'm sure even the Fandom threshold of inclusion would discount half this list. Even if revamped into a more formal character list, we'd need to thoroughly gut half the entire list and duplicate information present in each film, which would fail WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there's really no non-idiotic reason not to. The list has a clear focus, concerns characters in a long-running book, film, and video game franchise, and its contents are easily verifiable in published sources. Surely what is worthy of published print encyclopedias is worthy of inclusion on the ultimate online encyclopedia by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Seriously, what is the pressing need to remove this content that has been worked on since 2006 and to instead keep viewable for public consumption this discussion? Yeah, I know someone will link to "it's useful" or "its harmless" or whatever, but those are actually valid arguments in this case, because what we have here is something that a handful of accounts don't like and so would rather we have a discussion about the article for anyone to read than an actual article that a half dozen odd people think is not interesting for whatever anti-logical "reason." --199.123.13.2 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
Delete: an unsourced list of fancruft which largely duplicates material from articles about the movies.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this was just a list of the film henchman then it duplicates material and wouldn't be needed but it also includes characters from the books including by other Bond authors such as Amiss and Gardener and Bond videogames so I do believe it is useful to have this information in one place and considering there are 10,000 views a month the reason for deleting is not strong enough. This is essentially a split from The James Bond franchise article (or however its titled) so it does not have to be independently notable as the parent topic is very notable, and all the info is easily checked from the primary sources, so keeping the characters descriptions short also helps verifiability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and Atlantic306 on if this being just a list of minor characters, it's not needed. Per Atlantic306, though, if this list has useful information, one alternative might be to Draftify this list to excerpt and selectively merge out the useful information into related articles. Friendly pinging MJL here, who is known for his or her creative solutions and alternatives to break a logjam of a fairly even split. Doug Mehus T·C 14:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Now you're giving me a reputation to uphold!
If you ask me, the delete side is right to point out that a lot of the list is trivial ("Thug with Yo-Yo" now personally being my favorite Bond villain- 100% deserves a backstory lol). However, Draftify does sound particularly useful in this situation. My suggestion would be to cut the list down to only henchmen played by notable actors or which have a stand-alone article (like Vesper Lynd).
I'd offer to help clean it up, but I currently seem to have my hands full with Lists of Xeon microprocessors. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Lugnuts - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per reasons of those who want to keep this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neweurasia

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

Defunct website without working references. Worthy, but not very notable. Rathfelder (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:34, 1 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) 16:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject does not show and has not shown signs of life. This is a website that's at best defunct, having raised not a ripple online. -The Gnome (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2019 (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 seems to be that this concept has been insufficiently described in reliable sources apart from the works by one author, C. J. M. Drake, which means that we have not enough sources to base an article on. Sandstein 12:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative terrorism

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

Clear and present bias in name and content. More easily accounted for in Right-wing terrorism. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could merge, but recently "right-wing" and "conservative" have drifted apart. Modern "right-wing" is more likely big-government interventionist surveillance state, antithetical to conservatism. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup The sources do seem to make a decent distinction between Nationalist terrorism, Right-wing terrorism, and Conservative Terrorism... But I’m not sure that the article as currently written accurately reflects those sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/cleanup - The article definitely needs a lot of rework, but it does seem to have reliable sources that use this term (which admittedly I had never heard of before this). 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, since conservatism is the underlying political current in Domestic terrorism in the United States, Anti-abortion violence, and the far-right Militia organizations in the United States. Dimadick (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dimadick, there's already an article on right-wing terrorism, which covers those types of groups. TFD (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to appropriate sections. i.e. KKK or Domestic terrorism in the United States and Command of Communist Hunting. This looks too much like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We do not keep such articles. Lightburst (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup The article looks woefully anemic and lacking any direction but the sources are there. Trillfendi (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Smacks of someone trying to acore poltical points or right great wrongs. Michepman (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. This appear to be a valid encyclopedic subject based on these references in academic books and other publications [2],[3],[4],[5]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They are mostly passing references to Drake's article. "The Phenomenon of Conservative Terrorism" (1996). Can you point to any other article or book about the subject? TFD (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. For example, the book Terrorism: A Critical Introduction By Richard Jackson, Lee Jarvis, Jeroen Gunning, Marie Breen-Smyth (first link) describes this as a distinct and separate sub-category. That alone justifies creating such page here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. It briefly mentions the concept in passing on page 157. Passing mentions do not create notability. Can you point to any other article or book about the subject? TFD (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Checking Google Scholar [6] shows a number of additional academicsources, such as

this ("Within the framework of conservative terrorism lie the actions of colonial states (colonial terrorism) to maintain their domination"),
this ("There might also be an increase in what Drake (2007) called 'conservative terrorism.' This term arose in a debate related to loyalist terrorism in Northern Ireland."),
this ("Conservative terrorism can be considered as terrorism carried out in order to defend the existing social, economic or political order or to gain a reversion of an earlier arrangement."), and so on.

My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But none of that goes beyond a definition. You can't just provide a definition, say that some writers say it describes Loyalist terrorism, then cut and paste stuff about loyalist terrorism into the article. You would need to explain why some terrorism fits within the concept. TFD (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. I do not have access to other sources, but the second one [7] tells:

There might also be an increase in what Drake (2007) called ‘conservative terrorism.’ This term arose in a debate related to loyalist terrorism in Northern Ireland. Drake (2007) argued that ‘pro-state’ terrorism, whereby terrorists carry out attacks in order to eliminate threats, which they believe should have been eliminated by the state's security forces, is more properly seen in the wider context of conservative terrorism. Some signs of it may already be on the horizon since the executive vice president and CEO of the USA National Rifle Association has recently stated that academic and media elites are “America's greatest domestic threats.”

...

It is conceivable that conservative terrorism along the lines of Drake's (2007) writings may increase as a reaction to what may be seen as “over-the-top” political correctness and tolerance of views seen as contrary to those of the “ordinary people”. In other words, political correctness may be interpreted as the implementation of morally rotten policies in our social lives. As a consequence, social institutions - including universities, which are perceived to promote or tolerate such “dissenting views” - might become targets of terrorist attacks.

This is significant discussion. And the Scholar shows a lot more similar sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that none of the sources tells this is a variety of Right-wing terrorism. Therefore, the suggestion to merge (or an argument about content fork) would be not justified here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Conservative terrorism is a concept developed by CJM Drake in his 1996 essay "The phenomenon of conservative terrorism." The concept is briefly mentioned in The Oxford Handbook of Terrorism,[8] The Northern Ireland loyalists Drake mentioned are normally described as ethnic nationalist terrorists. That is they are motivated by supporting their ethnic community rather than the status quo, although the status quo supported their ethnic privilege. There are insufficient secondary sources for an article. TFD (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term "conservative terrorism" contains the same level of political name-calling as does a term such as "liberal terrorism." By definition (one could look up all the relevant Wikipedia entries), liberals are not extreme left wingers, while conservatives are not extreme right wingers. Terrorism is an extreme practice and a practice of extremist ideologies. Non-extremists do not engage in political terrorism as that would make them extremists. Q.E.D.

The term "conservative terrorism" can be and has been used in the sense of "terrorism by people who aim to protect the status quo" but for each context there is a diferent, specific notation, e.g. in Northern Ireland those who engage in terrorism in order to protect the status quo are denoted as loyalist terrorists (Ulster Volunteer Force, etc). It should be evident, and to your humble, non-conservative servant it is, that having an article on "conservative terrorism" amounts to violating, for starters, WP:NPOV for politicking and WP:PEACOCK for loaded language. Everything worth keeping in the contested text should find a place in the respective articles about the variants of right-wing terorrism. -The Gnome (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome Yeah... So the is opposite of conservative terrorism is progressive terrorism not “liberal terrorism.” Nor is progressive terrorist a synonym for “extreme left wingers,” groups such as Al-Quida are progressive but certainly not liberal or leftist. You also incorrectly conflate conservative terrorism and right-wing terrorism, those have never and will never be the same thing. Maybe learn the basics before casting such ridiculous aspersions at your fellow editors? Not only do you look like a fool but its just rude. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye Jack, when you change your ways and follow a civilized method of discourse, you could perhaps provide us with evidence for your assertion that Al Qaeda is a "progressive" organization. In the meantime, please refrain from personal attacks -The Gnome (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the content in this article appears to be based on Drake's definition, the rest seems to be describing different views on what the term could mean but does not specifically speak to "state-loyal" terrorism (which is what Drake defined it as). With such contradiction, and very little coverage in reliable sources beyond passing mentions, I cannot see a true policy backed reason for us to retain this article. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Right-wing terrorism. Too much overlap and the case has not been made that anything here can't go there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Coffee and TFD. None of the other sources appear to be using Drake's 1996 definition of Conservative Terrorism, not even the 1998 Drake ref. A quote from Claessen is a major part of the introduction, but it has been taken way out of context; he described the ETA and IRA as "conservative nationalist movements" as opposed to "extreme leftist organizations like the German RAF... or Italian Red Brigades". Can't imagine anything further from Drake's definition of "state-loyal terrorism". All the other sources seem to be using conservative as a synonymy for right wing. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 23:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Coffee With Market's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But if the cruft is not pruned I can see the next discussion going a different way. There may be a need to discuss why we have 3 Buffy character articles. that seems at least 1 too many. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buffyverse villains and supernatural beings

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

This is just a bare bones list of every minor creature or character in the series. It is not needed for a general encyclopedia, so it is not a proper content fork. Buffyverse seems to cover a couple more substantial ones. The topic does not establish its own notability. TTN (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough blue links have their own articles to make this a valid list article. Dream Focus 18:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a huge amount of scholarship on Buffy, including on it villains and the various supernatural beings. And Dream Focus's point is a good one. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure fancruft and Wikia material. So far, the two keep votes have not elucidated on what sources would make this list pass WP:LISTN. A list of minor villains and creatures is not notable and the blue links just point to episodes, of which this is not a list of._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/merge We also have a merge proposed with Vengeance demon and related current AFDs for Witch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Big Bad, and Vengeance demon. While I agree that each of these individually are generally non-notable with only in-universe content and sourcing, but I don't think it all needs to go outright. A managed merge of these and others into this list page as well as Buffyverse could touch on each topic without so many separate fandom pages. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - would like to hear more how this is a "content fork" if "it is not needed for a general encyclopedia". It either is ok for the encyclopedia and is a fork of some other article, or not needed and it isn't a fork. You can't argue both ways. Also, just as a heads up. If you keep on AfD every list of x article just because you hate these articles, I'll start blanket opposing them all. --Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Forks and splits are justified as being necessary companion articles for the main article. This is used for things like character lists and episode lists, regardless if they can establish notability or not. There needs to be some kind of utility present to bypass notability guidelines. This list has no utility. It has no use to the general reader. It’s a list for fans and fans alone. That disqualifies it from being a split. TTN (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not satisfied this goes beyond WP:TRIVIA, fails WP:LISTN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or keep&revise per WP:TNT. The one-time villains (~90% of the list) don't need to be mentioned at all and can go. But most villains with currently PLOT-ty stand-alone articles should probably be merged somewhere, and this page could be turned into a merge target for them and the AfDed "races". On the other hand, there already is List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters and List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, which can also serve as merge targets. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For my last edit of the year, I will note that this topic is the subject of published print encyclopedias and is surely worthwhile for inclusion here. There is no legitimate benefit to this site to delete this content and keep this discussion. What actual purpose does that serve? The contents of this article are from a major TV and comic book franchise beloved by millions. It brings viewers to this site (possible donors...) as well. It can be sourced through reliable published sources, including secondary sources. Okay, so to some who are not fans or are ignorant of it, it may seem trivial, but so what? Keeping this improvable content is to the benefit of at least some sizable segment of this site's readership. Deleting it doesn't do any good for anyone. So, instead of having the article, we'd what rather have a bunch of discussions of a handful of editors debating about it over a week? This is just baffling and bizarre. As for the nomination of "it is not needed for a general encyclopedia", well what is "needed"? Wikipedia is not limited in the way that traditional print encyclopedias were. Are you also going to clear out everything from here, for example? I suspect this fictional stuff means a lot more to a lot more people than every asteroid or minor planet out there. For the record, neither should be deleted because isn't the point of this project to collect all the information scattered on earth and make it accessible to the masses, whether we as individuals personally are invested in any individual content or not? I hope the nominator either finds a useful hobby or at least starts creating and adding to articles himself, because no reasonable person can take an honest look at his edit history and see anything other than boilerplate prods and afds without being suspicious that the nominator is either a bot or has some crusade going here. It is not about assuming good faith here, either, it is apparent that the nominator's account single-purpose has always been rapid fire indiscriminate nominations of articles for deletion with no sign of actually wanting to build anything. This ant-fiction crusade that has been going for over a decade borders on unhealthy and I actually wish that the nominator can find something worthwhile and joyous to do with his life. With that, I genuinely wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Good bye for this year, though. --199.123.13.2 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:LISTN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fulfills informational/navigation purposes WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Lightburst (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Dream Focus, but only after pruning all of the one-shot beings. That still leaves sufficient bluelinked articles for the list to work as a navigational aid. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Keep comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2019 (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 Knighton, Leicester. Merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St Thomas More's Catholic Church, Leicester

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

Cannot see any reason why this building is notable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to highlight the significance that this building has locally. The building is one of just a small number in the Knighton area of Leicester which still operates as a community venue. It is a significant parish within the Diocese of Nottingham and is considerable in both size and wealth, as well as being a significant leading church within the deanery. The west tower is considered a local landmark due to its unique broad character. The 'Taking Stock' project set up by the Conference of Bishops in England and Wales also notes its architectural significance - it is one of a limited number of churches built in a stripped basilican style during the 1950s. The mosaics on the floor and a number of artistic pieces are also of note, and these include distinctive pieces above the altar, statues of the patronal saint and the Virgin Mary as well as a number of mosaics on the sanctuary floor.SJM2106 (User talk:SJM2106) 11:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have any national protection status such as listed building status as those buildings articles are usually kept ? Atlantic306 (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- My recollection is that the church occupies a prominent position, but otherwise it is a probably an undistinguished local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge with Knighton, Leicester, this doesn't appear to be listed but given its coverage it might be notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge would be an acceptable option as major churches are included in settlement articles as per WP:MOS, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards weak keep - the article does have seven references - but, failing that, a merge with Knighton, Leicester might be the best option. Vorbee (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability guidelines. Barkeep^Chat 18:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Knighton Leicester as not independently notable but main churches are included in settlement articles as per WP:MOS, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Not a historic building or notable on its own. Reywas92^Talk 08:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards: it's barely 70 years old, has undistinguished architecture, has never had pilgrimages or other major liturgies, and 400 congregants is not that big. Please ping me if you can find anything substantial. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2019 (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 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oromo migrations

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

It is a preach that depends directly or indirectly on Bahrey's book "The history of Galla (Oromo" as the article itself claim. Though several authorities, Abyssinians and Oromo oral history indicated that the Oromo were in fact in the North-eastern part of the continent even before the arrival of the Habasha, the book continued to be used to lay claim Oromo migrated to Abyssinia(Ethiopia).Read the story by non oromo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotohelp (talk • contribs) 14:02, November 7, 2019 (UTC)

Oppose deletion: The article is not just based on Bahrey, but on at least four reputable secondary sources mentioned in the article. They make use of Bahrey's book, being the only contemporary source of the subject matter, but they treat it in an indisputably scholarly way. Therefore the article is not propagating a hoax, but a subject matter that is seriously discussed in the literature on Ethiopian history. By all means the article can use improvement, but a deletion is not justified. Landroving Linguist (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Landroving Linguist: Word by word what article say is "a 16th-century an ethnic Gamo monk named Bahrey is the foremost source on the migrations". Glad you mentioned the other sources also use his book. The book which starts by saying "I have begun to write the history of the Oromo in order to make known the number of their tribes, their readiness to kill people, and the brutality of their manners.", questioning his point of view. Unlike you said it cannot be improved for several reasons.

There are no many source especially which did not depend on the book.
Oromia Culture and Tourism Bureau published the "Oromo history before 16th century" book to stop the "hoax".
No one believe this due to its contradictory to the oral history.
It was mentioned in Oromo people. So it did not need to be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotohelp (talk • contribs) 07:32, November 8, 2019 (UTC)

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Dotohelp: If you wish to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 15:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable. There are many citations to be found online via Google and JSTOR. It seems the OP did not do a WP:BEFORE. Netherzone (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Using Bahrey as a source, Many citations were created. There is no more book written at the time or no evidence in oral tradition. User:dotohelp (talk)

Keep Nomination is essentially an argument against a point of view the nominator disagrees with. This is not a valid reason for nominating for deletion. The documented existence of academic debate on the subject is clear evidence of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not convinced yet about the notability of this article. If this migration was notable enough like the Bantu expansion, I would have expected several sources disccussing it. Why are there only 3 sources one of which questionable? Most of the content in this article relies on Pankhurst, and as we all know, a single source does not help with notability. I will vote keep if there are more RS especially for the size of this article. Senegambianamestudy (talk)
Keep. The original homeland of the Oromo is a matter of dispute, but the migrations of the 16th century are not. See Mohammed Hassen The Oromo and the Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia: 1300–1700. He avoids the word "migration", preferring "movement". Same thing. Srnec (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: Oromo movement is not the dispute as Adal Sultanate and Christian Kingdom fight but the migration is. According to Mohammed Hassen, Oromo moved to south(Hadiya, dawaro ... are south relative to mada walabu) not from south. The migration we are talking is the claim Oromo migrated from southern Ethiopia Borana and Guji zones into more northerly regions of Ethiopia, which is with less and conflicting evidence. As Somali account show, Oromo moved to somalia from the northern areas of Hargeisa to its southern portions such as Lower Juba in 16th century.The proceedings of the First International Congress of Somali Studies The Guji tradition also claims that the Guji were forced to move southward to the present day because of the attack by the Christian army. User:dotohelp (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mountain

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NFOOTY, and WP:ENT: of the sources currently in the article, only #1 constitutes significant coverage. #2 is a database entry and #3, 4, and 5 are award rosters. (I recently removed an additional ref which did not mention Mr. Mountain at all). Mr. Mountain's industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. Under NFOOTY, youth footballers aren't automatically presumed notable. (Coincidentally, another non-notable youth footballer who played in 2018-2019 shares the same name.) I looked for additional sources and found only tabloid coverage, PR/promo, interviews and passing mentions. Cheers, gnu 57 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:GNG 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 19:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amras

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

Non-notable fictional character. Lacks real world notability and is not covered to a meaningful degree in reliable analysis. Hog Farm (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is another minor character who shares his name with more prominent entities. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable character in the background works on J. R. R. Tolkien.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tolkien fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

High Guard

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

Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2nd nom for this pile of fancruft? Ok... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's a High Guard Traveller expansion and a rebel unit mentioned in Between Planets, all equally unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2019 (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 A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Ygritte. This goes mostly in line with the reasoning that the article is entirely plot summary. For a stand-alone article, more is needed. Tone 10:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ygritte

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

Another Game of Thrones article that fails GNG/NFICTION. Pure plot summary, not a shred of analysis. BEFORE doesn't find much, sure there is a lot of articles out there on GoT minute but they don't go beyond plot summaries like [9]: "this character died, which will of course affect some other characters". That's not an analysis, that's plot summary and nothing but. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:31, 9 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} 14:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "You know nothing..." Another nomination that fails WP:BEFORE and utterly ignores our policies including WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, I greatly respect thee and thine quest to remove fan cruft. However, as Ygritte would say "You know nothing, Jon Snow....". Was no BEFORE done? There are many references available, for instance: [10], [11]. There is even a book on what Jon knows penned by "Ygritte" [12]. I am gravely disappointed, Piotrus. Kacper IV (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kacper IV: The third source is WP:SPS, the first one only attests that a saying of hers has become popular. The third one is more in-depth but does it really go beyond a plot summary? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Ygritte. PLOT-only articles do not make for a legitimate spinoff per WP:WAF#Summary style approach. Either add real-world material to the article (hasn't happened since it was notability-tagged 2.5 years ago), or get rid of the stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Ygritte. IMHO, standalone articles for fictional characters should be limited to major characters with a lot of out-of-universe coverage in reliable sources (consider Darth Vader as a good example). Articles about fictional characters that are primarily plot summaries belong on Wikia, not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character from one of the most notable series of the past eight years. We keep such articles. "You know nothing John Snow!" For reference see Night King AfD. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Currently fails WP:GNG. The above sourcing seems rather minor. TTN (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly notable character that received considerable commentary in the reviews of the show -- could be recovered, shouldn't be deleted wholesale, Sadads (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as what's good for print encyclopedias is good for Wikipedia. --199.123.13.2 (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)blocked sock[reply]
Redirect Minor character who appeared in several episodes of seasons 2 and 3, then kinda-sorta in season 4 before being killed by another minor character. I do think we need to address these articles in a more comprehensive manner, though; maybe auto-redirect all the articles that were created by the sockpuppeting troll AffeL? Anyway, User:IvanVector, would I be right in guessing that the block-evasion block you placed on the above IP was CU-related and so you can't disclose whose block was being evaded? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a minor character, but a major, top-billed character in one of the most successful TV series ever made and the source of what is probably its most notable quote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is she not a minor character? In the books she is not a viewpoint character, and in the TV show she (according to this) "appeared in" a total of 17 out of 73 episodes. "top-billed" seems like a dubious rationale for a standalone article on a character: Danai Gurira got top billing in Avengers: Endgame, but her character spoke, I believe, all of three lines throughout the film, and we already have an article of Rose Leslie. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in GoT hardly include those who were billed during the opening credits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to concede that a character can be a major or mid-level character in several episodes of seasons 2 and 3 but a minor character in the show as a whole? The performer is also certainly better-known for her non-/pre-Thrones achievements than almost any of the others who appeared in the show. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not. Sorry. And I don't agree with your last point either. She's still far better known for GoT than for anything else. But we're not talking about Rose Leslie here in any case. If you're trying to suggest that she only got top billing because she was already well-known, I would point out that Max von Sydow, a big-name international film star, was in it and did not get top billing! As were other well-known actors like Donald Sumpter, Peter Vaughan and Julian Glover, all of whom had substantial roles. That doesn't wash at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't agree with your last point either. She's still far better known for GoT than for anything else. That's not what I said. I said she was better-known before getting on GoT than most of the other GoT actors were before getting on the show. She was on Downton Abbey a full year (or at least a TV season) before GoT started, and was not cast in GoT until a full year after that. I agree with you that she is now better known for GoT, but unlike, say, Kit Harrington, Emilia Clarke, and even Peter Dinklage (all of whom, I would argue, are still also best-known for GoT), she actually had well-known television roles before GoT. (And no, the existence of Sean Bean, Lena Headey and Charles Dance does not disprove my point, any more than Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing having been in Star Wars meant that film's cast wasn't filled primarily with unknowns.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I still disagree with you. Despite being a big fan of Downton, I don't remember her from that at all and didn't when she arrived in GoT. Peter Dinklage was also a very well-known actor before he was on GoT. I notice you don't address my other point that much bigger stars did not receive top billing. Even Charles Dance didn't until the second season he was in. Neither did Jerome Flynn, already exceptionally well-known in the UK for Soldier, Soldier and his musical career. Nor Jonathan Pryce, an internationally-known star of films and musicals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Ygritte, not enough real world notability for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Ygritte.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be improved and it doesn't include enough reliable sources at the moment, but a very quick search finds that there are more than enough out there to show that this subject passes WP:N and WP:GNG. — Hunter Kahn 03:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunter Kahn: Could you give some examples of at least the kind of content found in those sources that could be included in our article? The existence of a large number of reliable secondary sources have summarized the plot of each episode of this show and the roles of various characters therein is not in dispute. Moreover, any discussion of Leslie's performance of the character and the reception thereof more properly belongs in our article on her, per previous discussions with the article's creator here and here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here are a couple examples of notable sources that discuss the character outside the context of simply plot summary: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. This is not based on an in-depth search for sources, incidentally, but rather a quick cursory glance at the top Google News search results; deeper dives in books and news articles, databases like NewsBank or Lexis Nexis, and material like GoT DVD commentary tracks would produce much more. That being said, the small sampling includes content that could be used for such sections as characterization, character conception/creation, portrayal, cultural impact, critical reception, etc. (Incidentally, it's not correct to say information about the actor's performance should be limited solely to that actor's page; it's very common practice for information about a character's portrayal to be included in an article about a fictional character, and indeed it would be a glaring omission if it were not included. Look at any number of quality content for articles in this area and you'll see it included.) — Hunter Kahn 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is indisputably more about the actor than the character; what it says about the character can be summed up in a single sentence, hence not enough to hang a standalone article on.
This is an unreliable source. The paragraph beginning "thankfully" is filled with speculation based on the books (from which the show had already diverged significantly, and Stahler had no reason to believe this trend was going to be reversed), which all turned out to be spectacularly wrong.
This and this are again more about the actor (and to a lesser extent the episode The Watchers on the Wall) than the character, about whom they say almost nothing.
This I will admit is largely about the character, but it doesn't say much beyond WP:SPECULATION. The sentence Leslie said in an interview with Entertainment Weekly that she thought that in the episode "Mhysa", Ygritte was not intent on killing Jon or stopping him, but rather "to hurt him". could easily be incorporated into List of Game of Thrones characters, but it certainly isn't enough to hang a standalone article on.
This is shameless clickbait based on a redditor's tinfoil fan theory. I can only assume you have not actually read it, because it literally makes no sense.
This ... have you even read it? It's clearly about the actor, not the character. The fact that reliable sources (?) are now verifying some dubious BLP content that this article's creator had previously edit-warred into a separate article does not make this topic notable, any more than it retroactively exonerates said creator's behaviour.
This is speculation on what a character who died in season 4 would think of a character who until the end of season 6 was on the other side of the world. It is essentially a stretching out to article length of this short paragraph; I can only guess MentalFloss was desperate for clicks in the leadup to the season 8 premier.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I don't agree with all of your points above, and in some cases I think you are overemphasizing and magnifying perceived issues with the sources while ignoring other aspects of the articles that would be useful in expanding the page. (Your continued insistance that all aspects of the actor's performance of the character are only relevant to the article of the actor, and not the character, is particularly misguided.) By regardless, I have no interest in going through a point-by-point discussion with you about individual sources; that it not the purpose of an AFD discussion. My only point was that a very brief cursory search for sources turned up several, and that there are many others, all of which point to the notability of this subject. — Hunter Kahn 03:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued insistance that all aspects of the actor's performance of the character are only relevant to the article of the actor, and not the character, is particularly misguided. If you could either (a) point to where I "insisted continuously" on that or (b) retract your groundless allegation, that would be helpful. What I said was that such sources are not useful for demonstrating notability of the character. If Ygritte was like, say, Elsa (Frozen) and had been subject to a large volume of easily verifiable critical analysis, then we could also include Leslie's commentary on the character in the article on the character, as the Elsa article quotes Adele Dazeem, but lacking enough material to build a proper article on the character out of material that would be more fitting to such an article than any other one article, there's no reason that that content shouldn't be included in the article on Leslie.

And again, this article's existence has been the subject of controversy ever since AffeL violated existing consensus by un-redirecting it almost four years ago, and in that time no one has actually managed to introduce non-ALLPLOT to the article; I highly doubt that if this AFD is closed as either "keep" or "no consensus; default to keep" you or any of the other keep !voters will bother to put your money where your mouth is and ameliorate that situation. You are happy to say that you have sources that provide us with verifiable, encyclopedic information, but none of you are apparently willing to show that such an article can be built.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've reviewed the sources presented here and I stand by my rationale, concurring with H88's analysis that they are mostly PLOT summaries/in passing/unreliable/etc. Thee is nothing to be said about this character that's not plot-based speculation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 17 December 2019 (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 A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Hodor. This goes in line with the reasoning that, apart from one sentence at the end, the article is only a plot summary. For a stand-alone article, more is needed. Tone 10:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hodor

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

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

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

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

I know Game of Thrones is all the rage nowadays, but what makes this minor character notable (WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION, etc.)? The real world analysis of this character is limited to the fact that the actor playing it has "developed 70 ways of saying his name". Which is amusing but really, this one sentence of analysis is hardly sufficient to warrant a stand alone article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:16, 9 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} 14:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT: To List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Hodor since the article isn't substantial enough. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Hodor. PLOT-only articles do not make for a legitimate spinoff per WP:WAF#Summary style approach. Either add real-world material to the article (best at its point of creation), or get rid of the stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Hodor. IMHO, standalone articles for fictional characters should be limited to major characters with a lot of out-of-universe coverage in reliable sources (consider Darth Vader as a good example). Articles about fictional characters that are primarily plot summaries belong on Wikia, not Wikipedia. 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know that disruptive deletionism is all the rage but what makes this article justify yet another nomination when the topic so clearly passes WP:GNG. It takes all of 10 seconds to find a substantial source which is specifically about the topic – The Ethics of Hodor: Disability in Game of Thrones – and there seem to be plenty more which explore this aspect – Cripples, bastards and broken things: Disability in Game of Thrones; Fantastic Medievalistic Bodies:(Re) presenting Disability in Game of Thrones. So, WP:BEFORE clearly has not been followed nor are our policies addressed: WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE. On a personal note, I was recently tempted to buy a door wedge labelled "Hodor" so next time, I'm definitely going for it. And now let's leave you with an amusing parody of our bureaucratic discussions here: A Novel Approach.... Andrew🐉(talk) 17:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Would you mind explaining why you put the titles of the above-cited papers/chapters in italics? It looks very much like you either (a) did a Google Scholar search for "Hodor" "Game of Thrones" and copy-pasted the titles without confirming what type of sources they are (let alone reading them to determine whether they provide significant coverage) or (b) found the sources by whatever means and made the decision to bring them to this AFD and misrepresent them as book-length works discussing the character. "Cripples, bastards and broken things: Disability in Game of Thrones" for example is a very short article that name-drops Hodor all of two times[21], a fact not disclosed by you either deliberately or through careless failure to actually read the sources you cite in AFDs; "The Ethics of Hodor: Disability in Game of Thrones" similarly has its name cited in italics as though to imply it is a full-length scholarly book about the character, but it is a short interview that uses the name "Hodor" in its title as a segway to discuss disability in the show (and in fantasy fiction) in general[22] (it also somewhat carelessly conflates book and show, but there's no reason to go into that). It does make the claim that in 2014 a "war" took place between medical bloggers regarding what kind of disability Hodor had, but the fact that some medical professionals with an online presence also watch and care about the show enough to blog about it really doesn't make this one fictional character worthy of an entry in our encyclopedia -- if it's the only piece of real-world information that can be said about him, then it merits a sentence or two in a list entry.

Additionally, WP:BITE is a complete non-sequitur (the present article's creator has been editing for three years and has made more than 32,000 edits) and citing WP:BEFORE as you do here is an off-topic personal attack against the nominator. I have had my own beef with Piotrus in the past, but in this case he would have been well within his rights (with both WP:ONUS -- a policy -- and WP:BRD -- a widely-observed practice with the effective power of a policy -- on his side) to simply redirect the page without discussion or any search for sources that might theoretically allow the building of an article; taking the page to AFD to get community input rather than acting unilaterally was a polite, cautious, and entirely appropriate move, and attempting to prevent editors from doing so and from engaging in good-faith, civil discussion is extremely disruptive to the project.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The great thing about Hodor is that he doesn't make long speeches. Let's try to keep this brief.

The use of Google for AfD is not just accepted; it is recommended. Each AfD discussion has Google search links in its header and we are expected to use them, starting with the nominator per WP:BEFORE, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search...". It doesn't appear that the nominator has done this.
When I go back and make such a search again, the top of the list is The Ethics of Hodor. This appeared in The Atlantic, which is a respectable magazine. The topic is clearly about the subject because his name appears in the title and his picture leads the article. It reports a variety of facts about the character such as the name Wylis; the debate about whether his condition was aphasia or not; and more. There's an extensive discussion about this with a professor of English – a respectable scholar. So, it's abundantly clear that there are good, detailed sources about the character and so the subject is notable per WP:NEXIST.
WP:BITE may be an issue here. Note that the creator of the article hasn't edited since notice of the nomination was posted on their talk page. Perhaps they are busy or perhaps they are shocked by the action? And what about the readers? This and many other similar pages get a substantial readership. It's not a good idea to have such deletion notices underneath the appeals for funding which appear at this time. WP:BITE says emphatically that "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. ... Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder...".

In conclusion, the nomination has no merit, its claims are false, nobody is !voting delete and so we're in the speedy keep / snow zone. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're just going to ignore the substance of what I said and attack a strawman? That's not helpful.
Again, please answer the question. You italicized the title of a magazine article (indeed you have now done it twice) in a manner that implied it was a book-length work with "Hodor" in the title.
If they are shocked by the action, then they really have no place editing a collaborative encyclopedia. They went out of their way to violate a standing consensus that Hodor and other minor ASOIAF characters do not get standalone articles, and now they are "shocked" that a community discussion is being held to address how to deal with their violation of prior consensus? Again, apologies to TOO if this is not the case and thoughts/actions that are not their own are being applied to them by Andrew Davidson. (BTW, that Atlantic interview's thesis, in case you haven't read it, could be summed up in a paragraph, if not a single sentence, in List of Game of Thrones characters, because it is not actually about Hodor but about how the show handles characters with disabilities and the way they interact with each other. Hodor's name appears 36 times on the page, but 10 of them are contained in a single short paragraph of 121 words. It also probably would have had significantly less relative emphasis on this minor character if it weren't for the fact that the character had been killed off five days earlier. If you or any other editor wants to create a Themes of Game of Thrones or Disability in Game of Thrones article using these sources, fire ahead, but hanging an article on a loosely-related topic on such sources is not a good idea.)

In conclusion, you appear to be uninterested in engaging in civil discussion or in actually answering the questions that are posed to you, so I would ask the closer to dismiss your strawman ad-hominem arguments for what they are.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If my answers frighten you Vincent then you should cease asking scary questions". My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So ... you're just trolling and unwilling to answer legitimate questions about your honestly bizarre strawman !vote that argues against page deletion that no one actually suggested? Good -- I hope the closer takes this into account and dismisses your !vote, and any of the other "keep" !votes that are based on your "GNG" and "sources" argument, accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the trolling sarcasm in your opening sentence, which several users have called you out on the recent past, is very unhelpful. If you are not careful, you may wind up getting sanctioned for this clearly disruptive and inflammatory behaviour in the near future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character from a major series ...for which references WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hodor –Hodor ‐Hodor‐^☖ 18:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I did find some articles on the character,^[23][24][25] but I don't feel like putting in a formal vote/!vote. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Weak article, but, as above, this is a character who has received a fair amount of decent coverage. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Revising to neutral per Hijiri's comments. I'd be happy ignoring that local consensus if this was an article that did a good job of incorporating the various secondary sources identified in this AfD, but it isn't. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ALLPLOT. To give a little background, there is a longstanding implied consensus among ASOIAF editors that these minor characters (and even most major ones) should not have their own articles, and the status quo was disrupted in 2017 by the sockpuppeteer AffeL (talk · contribs); the issue was not resolved appropriately (AffeL was blocked around the time season 7 ended, and little was done to follow up on undoing his disruption), and so now the redirects should probably all be restored and new articles should require consensus to be created. I note that a number of the keep !voters insist that the topic is "notable" as it has been mentioned in sources (I'm not sure I would call it "coverage" per my response to Andrew above). Game of Thrones is a popular show -- that's to be expected of even characters about whom nothing encyclopedic can be written. If secondary sources can't be used to create a decent article that isn't ALLPLOT, those secondary sources don't provide the kind of in-depth coverage needed to meet GNG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Current shown sources seem like rather trivial pop-culture pieces. It seems like it'd be easy enough to summarize the entire character and any minor pop culture impact within a paragraph. TTN (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Hijiri and TTN. Notable enough to be mentioned in a list, but not with their own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- I think Hijiri's arguments are sound. A list, rather than a smattering of stand-alone plot summary articles, is the way to go here. Reyk _YO! 08:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Generally I am not good enough to comment about fictional characters as I do not have technical sound knowledge about them. I do not have issues with the article but it seems to narrowly miss out on WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The sources found such as [26] show the general notability guidelines have clearly been met. Dream Focus 01:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not bad, actually, but WP:INTERVIEW is worth keeping in mind. Can you find the medical papers that are mentioned? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus would be familiar with the sources already if he had searched for them, per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Here's some examples of coverage of this aspect:

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, this is now the third time that I've had to tell you that BEFORE doesn't apply here because Piotrus would have been well within his rights to redirect pending consensus to create an article, but choose to take it here for community discussion first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination proposes that we delete the article and doesn't say anything about redirection. WP:BEFORE states "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:..." It then lists many actions but they don't seem to have been done. And because Twinkle is used to crank out numerous nominations, the process is being flooded. And deletion can certainly be the result as we see many other pages being deleted right now despite our clear policies of WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. It's sad and silly to replace well-read pages like the one in question with pages like this discussion which will just stand as a monument to Wikipedia's waste of everyone's time. Game of Thrones frustrated and angered millions of people by leading them on and then cutting them off abruptly. WP:BEFORE is full of sensible advice to limit the damage this can do. If it is flouted then we all suffer. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were in the very small minority of editors in this discussion who thought AFD was not for redirects. There was clear consensus that you are wrong on this point. Because you were unable to change the policy to reflect your personal opinion, you are now trying to force that opinion on individual AFDs, but it isn't going to work. The existence of dozens of possible redirect targets means it goes without saying that the nominator doesn't think the page needs to be deleted with no redirect left in its place; he would be effectively arguing for both [27] and the Hodor paragraph of [28] to be removed, so the fact that he didn't explicitly say "this nomination is intended to discuss redirecting the page, not deleting it" needs to be weighed against the fact that he also didn't say anything about removing the discussion of Hodor from those two lists, something you clearly didn't do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep as published encyclopedias cover the characters in this notable franchise. --199.123.13.2 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

That source is "published" by a print-on-demand service apparently not dissimilar to Lulu.[29] What's more, 150 pages is pretty damn short for a "published encyclopedia" -- would it be safe to assume its article on Hodor is less than a page long and includes no real-world, non-plot information whatsoever? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant and iconic character in one of the most successful TV series ever made and the source of one of its most notable quotes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Hodor. Hijiri88's rationale is sound. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' I agree with the keep votes above that the character ultimate meets WP:N and WP:GNG, so shouldn't be deleted even if the article itself could use some work as it stands right now. There is no deadline for such improvements. — Hunter Kahn 03:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunter Kahn: See my response to you here. The same basic points apply. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here are a couple examples of notable sources that discuss the character outside the context of plot summary: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. Again, this is not based on an in-depth search, but rather is a sample from a cursory search through Google News; there are other sources out there and a deeper search would turn up much more. (The other points I make at the other AFD you link to apply here as well.) — Hunter Kahn 15:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of garbage you forced me to wade through here, I see no reason why I should waste time going through all those links you just dropped. I find it unlikely you actually read all those sources and assessed their value for making the character (not the actor or this or that episode he appeared in) notable. I will just say that you seem to be awfully reliant on the websites of various British daily tabloids of dubious reliability. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully suggest you read WP:CIVIL and attempt to take a more civil tone in your remarks in future discussions. — Hunter Kahn 03:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you. It is entirely uncivil to link-bomb an AFD with a bunch of GoogleNews hits that mention this article's title in their titles, without actually reading them, and insist that anyone who disagree with you waste the time that you weren't willing to put in and actually go through and read each one. You wasted a half-hour of my life on the Ygritte AFD, and now you are insisting that it is "uncivil" for me to tell you I don't appreciate your trying to do the same thing to me here?

Also, it seems pretty weird that you would bring up WP:CIVIL when you have an unstricken personal attack against me at that other AFD.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 17 December 2019 (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 Buffyverse#Magic. (can be changed to Witch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode) if so desired). There was overwhelming consensus that this shouldn't have a stand-alone article, but there were also reasonable arguments that the topic itself does have room for encyclopedic growth. Redirection allows interested to editors to cull material from the page history, if useful. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Buffy-verse concept of witch is not notable in itself, all we can do is to list the few witches and write fancrufty OR analysis / in-universe bios, since no source I can find discusses their significance/etc. in real life (as far as I can tell scholarly analysis of Buffyverse witches is non-existent, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 9 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} 14:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or redirect to Witch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode). "A Witch in the Buffyverse was a person who was learned in witchcraft." [Snark alert] Wow! That's a novel definition that nobody else has ever thought of before. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of scholarly analysis available. Some examples:
- From Slayage: "'I am the Law', 'I am the Magics': Speech, Power and the Split Identity of Willow in Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Teen Witches, Wiccans, and 'Wanna-Blessed-Be's': Pop-Culture Magic in Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
- O'Reilly, Julie Dianne. (2013) Bewitched Again: Supernaturally Powerful Women on Television, 1996-2011. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
- Richardson, J. Michael and J. Douglas Rabb. (2007) "Willow and Tara: Love, Witchcraft and Vengeance." In: The Existential Joss Whedon: Evil and Human Freedom in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly and Serenity. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. pp. 90-105.
- Vetere, Lisa M. "The Rage of Willow: Malefic Witchcraft Fantasy in Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Buffy Conquers the Academy: Conference Papers from the 2009/2010 Popular Culture/American Culture Associations. Eds. U. Melissa Anyiwo and Karoline Szatek-Tudor. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013. 76-88.
- Wilson, Dominique Beth. "Willow and Which Craft?: The Portrayal of Witchcraft in Joss Whedon's Buffy: The Vampire Slayer." The Buddha of Suburbia: Proceedings of the Eighth Australian and International Religion, Literature and the Arts Conference 2004. Eds. Carole M. Cusack, Frances Di Lauro, and Christopher Hartney. Sydney: RLA Press, 2005. 146-158
- Winslade, Jason Lawton. "'Oh...My...Goddess': Witchcraft, Magick, and Thealogy in Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Joss Whedon and Religion: Essays on an Angry Atheist's Explorations of the Sacred. Eds. Anthony R. Mills, John W. Morehead, and J. Ryan Parker. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2013. 51-66.
- A whole chapter in this doctoral thesis.

And there's lots more. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor plot-cruft that fails GNG. A witch in the Buffy universe is hardly different than a witch in general. Do not oppose the creation of a new fully referenced article based on the aforementioned sources, perhaps Witchcraft in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but this article has clearly reached the TNT tipping point._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak (TNT) delete or redirect per J Milburn. Assuming good faith, I'm going to guess J Milburn has actually read at least one of the sources cited above and believes, in good faith, that the topic is notable enough that a proper encyclopedia article could be built around it. I respect his opinion and believe that if he thinks he or another good Wikipedian could build an article about it then he is probably right, but the present article is WP:INUNIVERSE WP:ALLPLOT. If Milburn or any other can improve it to the point of being a worthwhile encyclopedia article in the short-term, then I would support keeping it per WP:HEY. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also listed the article at ARS to see if any of the editors there would be willing to help improve it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I think if the article is improved per the above a good start (or end) would be changing the title to Witchcraft in Buffy the Vampire Slayer per Zxcvbnm. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that an article on witchcraft in Buffy would probably be better than this. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if there is merit in the above provided sourcing, the topic really should be explored in a parent article and then split out if there is too much weight. It seems like the best place for this kind of material is an article talking about the broad universe of the show from a real world perspective. TTN (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Seems pretty CRUFTy to me. If we're proposing to snow delete a list of Star Trek Starfleet starships and starship classes per WP:LISTCRUFT, this certainly is. Doug Mehus T·C 14:46, 16 December 2019 (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 Closer characters#Main characters. Merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Raydor

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

Fails WP:GNG, no evidence of real world significance (reception, etc.). A few mentions in passing on the web, not seeing anything that goes beyond a fictional bio summary. Her death did generate a bit coverage ([40], [41]) but it is rather ONEEVENTish, through better than I expected (so I am skipping PROD and taking it straight here, deserves a discussion). As usual, no content would be lost since this is already covered at https://majorcrimesdivision.fandom.com/wiki/Sharon_Raydor _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:53, 9 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} 13:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All primary sources, fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Asked to relist to get more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search of Newspapers.com shows several articles about this character, including this from the Edmonton Journal in 2012 [42] and the Boston Globe the same year [43]; this from the Los Angeles Times in 2013 [44]; this from the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 2014 [45]; this from 2017 [46], in a newspaper from Virginia, sourced from Variety - and no doubt there's more, but that is certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. I will try to add these to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - While the character is discussed, it is in reference to the show. There is no real world notability established. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, do you mean discussed in the sources in the article, or in the newspaper articles I linked to? Also, could you point me to the requirement in notability guidelines to establish "real world notability" of fictional characters? Is that in addition to meeting WP:GNG? RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, RebeccaGreen. There is no hard and fast rule regarding "real world notability", but when all the discussion about a character is "in-universe", other guidelines, such as WP:NOTPLOT apply. WP:GNG is a guideline, not a policy, although it's a very powerful guideline (imho). I like to think of WP as an encyclopedia, and tend to look at articles on fictional subjects in that light: is this an article or is this a piece of fan fluff. If there is no real world notability then my feeling is that it is fancruft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_The_Closer_characters#Main_characters is consensus is against keeping. ミラ P 19:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Closer characters. It's WP:ALLPLOT, but deletion is too harsh for a main TV character. Sources can and should be be added there. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must admit I am disappointed that it seems that no editors have engaged with the sources I referred to. Perhaps no one who has !voted since has access to them, and I know I should WP:AGF, but it does seem as if the responses are to the existing article, rather than to the secondary sources which WP:NEXIST. I do agree that, as written, the current article is totally in-universe. The secondary sources I found from 2012, when the series was about to start, discuss the series creator's decisions in choosing to start a new, spin-off series, rather than have this character be promoted within the old series; the difference between the lead characters in the two series; that the old series was regarded by fans as a one-woman show whereas, before it launched, the creator saw the new series as more of a group view of the justice system with a captain who insists on her detectives following the rules, unlike in the old series, and so on. One of the 2012 articles makes the point that the new captain is good at making deals with suspects, avoiding the cost of trials. This article goes into quite a bit of details about her making deals, but doesn't mention critics' perception that this was to save money. As I said above, in my opinion, there is enough secondary coverage of this character (from subsequent years too) for her to meet WP:GNG, but if no one else agrees, I don't want to waste time editing a fictional character's article when there are so many articles about real people that need improving. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SPINOUT have existed for way longer than 2012. Per WP:WAF and MOS:TV, the logical order for article creation on TV characters is or should be: (1) cover the characters in the show's main article, and if that gets too large, (2) create a list of characters, and if that gets too large, (3) create a stand-alone article for specific characters. Findings sources at AfD is all nice (really!), but it doesn't fix the article. In its current state, nothing would be lost to wikipedia if this article was deleted, because plot is unimportant in itself; it's only there to give context for the present conception/design/reception real-world info (of which there is 0% in this article). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I am commenting at cross purposes to everyone else here, and we are completely misunderstanding each other. I am completely bamboozled by the comment that "WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SPINOUT have existed for way longer than 2012." - what does that have to do with establishing the notability of this character? However, as I have already said, though it would certainly be possible to improve the article, I don't want to waste any more time on a not-very-important fictional character, and I am striking my vote above, as I can't see the point. I apologise to Tone for asking them to relist when they closed the discussion while I was commenting - it would have been simpler just to forget about it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: In answer to your legitimate question: Most people would argue that there is no use in a character article that passes WP:GNG but is only three lines long (which this one would be if the unnecessary PLOT was removed). It makes more sense to WP:TNT-delete it or cover the character in a parent article until it passes as a WP:SPINOUT without violating PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curufin

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

Yet another Tolkien's minor character with nothing but PRIMARY sources. Fails WP:GNG. Kept 3 years ago b/c back then the argument that "It's Tolkien!" (so has GOOGLEHITS) was enough. Recent trend at AfD suggests that this won't be enough to day... PS. And yes, WP:BEFORE was followed, this character does not have an entry in Tolkien Encyclopedia nor any in-depth analysis, yadda yadda, seriously, it's as minor as it gets. And of course nothing is lost, Tolkien finds are cordially invited to contribute to https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Curufin where such content belongs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 9 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} 13:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most academic and journalistic discussions of Curufin have been little more than brief mentions of the character. The few that are more substantial are merely plot summaries. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am saddened that this article was kept as recently as 3 years ago. Name dropping is not enough to keep the article. Not every named character in the Similrilion is notable. If the story of Luthien and Beren had ever beenfully developed on the level of LotR, Crufin may have had enough sourcing to be notable. However, what we have no is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks sources and real world analysis. TTN (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2019 (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 Sled dog. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan husky

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

Sled dog already exists and has a sub section titled Alaskan husky. Perhaps some of the information can be merged if cited to RS but most of the information in this article is unsourced, or based on anecdotal information. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All content is largely unsourced OR and is covered at sled dog and husky. Reywas92^Talk 20:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge However, there are two studies included in this article referring to this "mix", but not developed well. Post-merge, I will develop them. William Harristalk 07:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up This clearly passes WP:GNG, because ""Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" 30 seconds on google books turns up [47] [48] [49] [50] [51], another 30 seconds on google news turns up significant coverage, "more than a trivial mention", in news sources large [52] [53] and small [54] [55]and 30 seconds on google scholar finds numerous scientific [56] [57] [58] [59] sources, not to mention the ridiculous numbers of popular mentions on just the first two pages of the main google search [60] [61][62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]. In total this took me all of about two minutes if someone had two hours and conducted searches of public library catalogues I'm sure this could be multiplied tenfold or more.

The article is poorly sourced, but WP:NEXIST applies here. The key thing is that information be Verifiable (emphasis mine). The available evidence shows the topic has gained significant independent coverage and recognition, nor is this a mere short-term phenomena/promotion by a single breeding entity. There are recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, and reputable media sources that cover this as a separate variety of dog.

Yes I am aware that Brittanica chose to redirect/merge this content [72], but if we limited ourselves to only having articles if Brittanica does as well this would be a much smaller encyclopedia. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now so someone can rewrite with sources (NB not just slap some citations on the current article) and relaunch. Cavalryman (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to sled dog. Others have mentioned the article is mostly WP:OR, and if someone finds something worthwhile to add at the target, they'll either find sources to pull new info from, or find something in the redirect's history. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2019 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parcel2Go

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

I was the author of this article but in 2 years it has failed to be expanded beyond a stub. The references that it contains admittedly largely revolve around crowdfunding, and the sale of a stake to a private equity firm, in addition to routine coverage in industry publications. In conclusion therefore I am no longer convinced this passes WP:NCORP. Uhooep (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the person who tagged the article for notability, I concur. Outside of the stories about the company's funding and sale, the coverage popping up on the news is a couple entries in The Guardian's consumer complaint column. Such entries say little about notability, as the criteria is apt to be more "interesting complaint" than "vital company worth discussing". --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article creator/Afd nom please confirm they have no Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with Parcel2go. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I confirm I do not have a COI with this company and never have done. Uhooep (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uhooep Thankyou. While there was a couple of small indicators that made me feel I should ask the question they could far more probably triggered randomly. Thankyou for your answer which I totally accept and hope I did not offend. THankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I can usually spot people with a COI trying to promote certain businesses or other articles a mile off on here, and if the article is clearly non-notable I promptly nominate them for AFD also. Uhooep (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based in the UK the name triggered a 'click' ... I know that name. I probably have used their website for parcel comparisons and may or may not have booked parcel courier through them with more chance that I have done. The article has been improved towards start class with an attempt to show this sustained company/website progression. One of the founders may also qualify for a spin off article as it happens. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not a single reference that meets the WP:NCORP standard. Moneyweek is the only comprehensive article, and it's an interview with the founder where he says whatever he cares to. That doesn';t make an independent article. Everything else is a mere notice. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Robinson, Winifred (2017-09-04). "Parcel2Go: Why some You and Yours listeners feel let down by the parcel delivery service". You and Yours. Discussion about Parcel2Go happens from 28:10 to 33:55. BBC. BBC Radio 4. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Brignall, Miles (2015-11-28). "How dare Parcel2Go sell insurance cover for 'no compensation' items?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Hayes, Cathy (2014). The Easy eBay Business Guide: The story of one person's success and a step-by-step guide to doing it yourself. London: Constable & Robinson. ISBN 978-1-84528-524-1. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Matthews, Dan; Collier, Marsha (2006). Starting a Business on eBay.co.uk For Dummies. West Sussex: Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-99763-4. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Moules, Jonathan (2010). The Rebel Entrepreneur: Rewriting the Business Rulebook. London: Kogan Page. pp. 98–99. ISBN 978-0-7494-6482-0. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Sutherland, Mark (2011-12-10). "Special delivery: making a packet from Parcel2Go". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Mahamad, Saipunidzam; Sulaiman, Suziah; Leng, Wong Yi (2018). "An Integrated Courier Services Application: A New User Experience". 2018 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ic3e.2018.8632652. Retrieved 2019-12-14 – via IEEE Xplore.

Sources with quotes

Robinson, Winifred (2017-09-04). "Parcel2Go: Why some You and Yours listeners feel let down by the parcel delivery service". You and Yours. Discussion about Parcel2Go happens from 28:10 to 33:55. BBC. BBC Radio 4. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
A partial transcript of the BBC episode:
Winifred Robinson: "We've had complaints about a parcel-delivery service called Parcel2Go. It's an online site that gives you price comparison for couriers. You choose one from the site but you don't book it directly. Parcel2Go does that, promising to take the stress off your shoulders by communicating with your chosen courier. Parcel2Go also describes itself as a cheap alternative to the post office. But big problems seem to arise when things get lost. That's what Sean Levin found when he used Parcel2Go to send some clothes and stationary from his old home in London to his new address in Madrid.
[commentary from Sean Levin]
Winifred Robinson: "Well, we checked, and as Sean says, there are scores of complaints online about things that have been lost using Parcel2Go."
...
Winifred Robinson: "Stewart Higgins is an online retail expert at LCP Consulting. Stewart, scores of complaints about Parcel2Go. But is that any different from any other courier site?"
Stewart Higgins: "Well, I think we have to recognize that these couriers are shipping millions of parcels a day, often from one of the country to the other. And typically to do that, they need to go through a series of sortation centers, trunking vehicles, local service centers, and delivery vans. And it is inevitable that in some instances there will be some damage. And it is also inevitable that there will be a degree of loss. In the case of Parcel2Go, as in the other carriers, barcodes are used to track the product as it goes through the courier's network. And if a barcode gets lost or damaged, then actually the courier completely loses track of what that product is or what that parcel is."
Winifred Robinson: "Now Parcel2Go is advertising itself as a cheap alternative to the post office. How cheap is it?"
Stewart Higgins: [answer]
Winifred Robinson:" Is that part of the deal then, that you might not get such a great service and you'll pay a lot less for it?"
Stewart Higgins: "... The majority of their pricing is without any liability for the product. ... Other carriers tend to factor in a level of product insurance into their pricing and that tends to raise their pricing slightly compared to Parcel2Go."
[More discussion]
Brignall, Miles (2015-11-28). "How dare Parcel2Go sell insurance cover for 'no compensation' items?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
The article notes:
Parcel2Go claims to “take the work out of bulk parcel delivery” and acts as a middleman between customers like you and the standard courier firms it subcontracts the work to. It has built its business around the need for eBay purchasers/sellers to move items around the country. However, it is also a company that is almost impossible to contact by phone – it relies entirely on live chats – and one that features a very long list of exclusions in its terms and conditions.
The “no compensation” list goes on and on, and includes such items as concrete, hampers, pewter figures, posters – and virtually anything else that you might want to receive after shopping on eBay. In fact, the list is so long that we have come to the conclusion that one of the few items it will actually cover is a book – and only then if it’s not an antique.
Perhaps more worryingly, the company is collecting insurance premiums to cover items in carriage, even though it knows that its T&Cs mean it will not pay out for any damage, only if the item does not turn up.
We made a dummy booking this week and it was quite happy to accept an insurance payment for a “no compensation” item. This, in our opinion, is misleading.
Hayes, Cathy (2014). The Easy eBay Business Guide: The story of one person's success and a step-by-step guide to doing it yourself. London: Constable & Robinson. ISBN 978-1-84528-524-1. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
The book notes:
Parcel2Go

This is a one-stop shop for door-to-door courier services. Parcel2Go will be able to provide you with the service you require to deliver items ranging from small packages up to full pallets, in the UK and worldwide, at a competitive price. It offers a selection of service levels, using a variety of suppliers: [list]
Parcel2Go offers a wide range of services to cater for all your requirements. All services obtain a proof of delivery, and are fully insured and tracked. A 'Live Help' service is availale for any queries or questions relating to your consignment. Terms and conditions vary from carrier to carrier.
The book notes:
Parcel2Go is probably the cheapest and most reliable way to employ the services of a courier currently available. With several different carriers and service levels to choose from, they will have an option to suit your requirements.
Matthews, Dan; Collier, Marsha (2006). Starting a Business on eBay.co.uk For Dummies. West Sussex: Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-99763-4. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
The book notes:
Specifically designed with eBay.co.uk in mind, Parcel2go features a small, manageable range of key services. Unlike Royal Mail, which has features coming out of its cars, Parcel2go offers just four options: Next Day Delivery, 2- to 3-day Delivery, Jiffy Bag packages, and International Deliveries. These services are designed to keep costs down, but you can add insurance to next day deliveries.
Prices range from £6.99 for standard Jiffy Bag delivery to £18.99 for high value goods that have to be there tomorrow morning. Remember to add on VAT when ordering.
[more details]
Moules, Jonathan (2010). The Rebel Entrepreneur: Rewriting the Business Rulebook. London: Kogan Page. pp. 98–99. ISBN 978-0-7494-6482-0. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
The book notes:
Richard Adams-Mercer has proved himself in the world of commerce, and he thinks that price and value go hand in hand for a business owner. His company, Parcel2Go, provides door-to-door delivery using seven of the world's biggest courier groups — and aims to provide clear, simple pricing information to customers. ...
Richard felt he could do better, especially since Parcel2Go, like other delivery companies, uses its own reserves to cover loss and damage. So he got his IT team to set up a system on the company's website that could offer a bespoke insurance quote to customers, based on a description of the item being delivered. Not everything can be insured. For instance, Parcel2Go's system will recognize a phrase such as 'computer monitor' and say that it can insure such a delicate item for loss but not for damage. However, such openness and clever use of price has won over customers, according to Richard. In the first six weeks of the service being offered, take-up of insurance cover increased 25 per cent. The business, based in the northern cover increased 25 per cent. The business, based in the northern English town of Bloton, in 2010 turned over £50m a year, handling in excess of 100,00 transactions a month.
Sutherland, Mark (2011-12-10). "Special delivery: making a packet from Parcel2Go". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
The article notse:
And getting things from A to B has been the cornerstone of his Bolton-based business empire, which employs about 140 people across its many divisions. The phenomenal success of parcel2go.com, Britain’s largest online parcel delivery service, means it now moves more than two million parcels a year and attracts 18,000 new customers every month. Partnered with most major couriers, it is the first port of call for many small businesses and eBay traders, meaning the chances are that at least one of your Christmas presents will arrive under its auspices, contributing to a turnover that hit £17.5 million in the year to April (up from £12 million the year before), and is forecast to top £22 million next year.
Mahamad, Saipunidzam; Sulaiman, Suziah; Leng, Wong Yi (2018). "An Integrated Courier Services Application: A New User Experience". 2018 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ic3e.2018.8632652. Retrieved 2019-12-14 – via IEEE Xplore.
The abstract notes:
With Parcel2Go Mobile Application, the problem of inconveniency of the customer and the inflexibility of services that have in the current courier services will be solved as this application will ease the people who wants to deliver their parcels.
The article has a "System Architecture for Parcel2Go Mobile Application" diagram and a few paragraphs discussing the architecture. The article notes:
The respondents gave positive responses towards the application. Generally, the user interface of Parcel2Go Mobile Application is user friendly and it helps the user to get the estimated quotation of their items that needed to be delivered from different courier services in addition helping those who wants to earn while travelling. The analysis was done gathering the customer’s feedback and personnel’s feed-back respectively with Likert Scale of five-point scale where used which is 1 signifies strongly disagree by the users and 5 signifies strongly agree by the users.
The article notes:
Courier services applications are widely used in the era of rapid technology advancement. The developed applications, Parcel2Go has become important for people who frequently want their items to be delivered, especially for people who are conducting online businesses. The application be able to generate the quotes of selected courier services in one application and enable a price comparison services. The conducted usability study analyse of respondents’ feedbacks shows positive interest. The integrated courier service application implements the concept of service innovation to solve inconvenience of courier service users of getting quotation and the need to travel to post office to drop their items. With the Parcel2Go Mobile Application, the system generate the quotation from different courier services whilst matching up people who needs parcels to deliver from their doorstep to another and people willing to help them and earn while travelling.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Parcel2Go to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for consideration of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 16 December 2019 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KWANPEN

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

Small Singaporean company, coverage is routine for a corporate entity and non-substantial (a couple of passing mentions on google news in 2019). I do not believe this passes WP:COMPANY. Potential self-promotion issues too. Ashleyuwc595 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 22:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons outlined above. Notability is not established by the sources and article focuses heavily on product and store history Uhooep (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There do seem to be sources proving it is a high-profile luxury brand founded in 1938 with a niche focus. That said, corporations to show notability also need some critical coverage, and I'm on the fence if these articles apply. I imagine there may be sources that aren't in English that could push opinions one way or the other, but didn't look. I had assumed there would be content critical of alligator farming at large to add to that, but did not find any myself. An article on the farm where Kwanpen sources from contains only positive information, so hardly critical. I wonder if mentioning the brand on the page for alligator farming would be a better choice, with a redirect maybe.

70.240.207.189 (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2019 (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⁺⁺ 13:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Döwletjan Ýagşymyradow

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO as subject has not fought in a tier one MMA promoter. Fight info are routine sort coverage which fails WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and thus fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He defended his title yesterday. The current champion. The ONLY MMA fighter from Turkmenistan in the world. He is a national hero in the country! --89.145.167.252 (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The title from the promotion is not a tier one thus fails WP:MMABIO and could not find him in Sherdog or Tapology mma databases (I try a few different spellings) even the champion of ONE championship (the biggest Asia promotion) fails MMABIO. Many countries have fighters fight in lower level promotion and and some of them is the only fighter from their country and won lower level promotion titles and this is same for other sports as well for this is not the the criteria to be accepted in mainspace and the reports are routine sport reports than thus fails WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per nom.-Nahal^(T) 22:37, 16 December 2019 (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.

Please restore the article. He took part in GRAN PRIX of Bellator 257

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Sum

AfDs for this article:

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

seems WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Idolmm (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 13:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hold on! he is currently in the top 4 finalist. He could be third-runner up. Thanks 103.200.134.150 (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's clear WP:TOOSOON, nothing won fails WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 22:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MUSICBIO #9 "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.". 103.200.134.150 (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Syndicate (business group)

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

This page is of dubious notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Yoodaba (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 22:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references exist including several linked in the article that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - change !vote. I went back and double checked the sources that I originally believed meet the criteria. They don't. For example, I missed that The Verge article relies extensively on an interview with Jenkins, fails WP:ORGIND, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright this promotional text, created by a couple of kamikaze accounts about a get-rich-quick-corporation, if it even exists. The sources cited are pathetic: An article in the South Utah St George News about a fraud case against Jeremy Johnson, containing not a pip about the subject; a pompous link to a Time report that turns out to be on "the myth of the millionaire college dropout", again without a single mention of the subject; some article that appeared on The Verge about Mitt Romney going to Scamworld and a similar one in PC World about the FTC cracking cown on internet scams, both unadulterated by mentions of our subject; then, some post by a blogger that's trivially dismissable; and so on. The reference to The Telegraph is about pick-up artists, online seduction and dating tips, with but a single mention of a person that's supposedly a co-creator of the syndicate, again without any mention of the syndicate itself. The article's subject is not notable. -The Gnome (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 22:26, 16 December 2019 (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) 22:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Thanga

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

How to pass WP:NMUSICIAN? Idolmm (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 22:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no pass WP:MUSICBIO.103.200.134.150 (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL. Besides the fact that much of the page's script isn't in Latin text, there's no evidence this person is anything more than an ordinary working musician; the reality shows don't count unless it's a win that can be documented in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 13:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. Most of the references in the article are from YouTube and not acceptable. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete , not even sure how the article was moved to the mainspace ,it fails WP:BASIC WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV WP:MUSICBIO Georgiamarlins (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2019 (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. Kind of split opinion, but I find the delete arguments more convincing since the sources are not strong. Tone 13:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Shen

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

Model and supposed businessperson with a few appearances, including a Playboy cover, but lacking the significant coverage required by WP:GNG, and no evidence of the large fanbase or innovative contributions required by WP:NMODEL. Full disclosure: there were several more sources before I stripped most of them out of the article, so I encourage you to assess the article as I found it. I think you will find, as I did, that these additional sources are largely interviews (not independent), mostly in questionable and/or self-published sources, or a photo gallery that adds nothing as a source. Hug^syrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Miter128 (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A model featured on the cover of Playboy and FHM magazine, with a feature in Maximm is notable. She is an International Playboy model Additional covers. Bsquared Magazine Passes WP:NMODEL Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.. In addition, I consider it poor form to fillet the article by deleting 5 of the 7 sources and then say it does not pass WP:GNG. The purpose of an AfD is for the participants to decide. We already know what the AfD nominator thinks and diminishing the content is poor form. I can add reliable sources to the article if the nominator can agree not to strip them out based on their preference for deletion. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm awfully sorry that you consider it 'poor form'. However, I started working on removing the clearly non-reliable sources before eventually accepting that the article was better off going to AFD. Reverting all of my changes first seemed a little unnecessary. I knew someone would object, which is why I explicitly called it out in my nomination statement, included a link to a version of the article before I had touched it, and added a brief explanation of what I objected to in those sources. Knowing Wikipedia, I should have known that someone would still manage to get upset, but I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep over it. Hug^syrup 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Medium.com is used as a reference in 862 Wikipedia articles. [73] They gave her significant coverage [74] and said she had a notable following of 400,000 followers on Instagram. Is there high for famous people? Does it count as a large cult following? She had ample coverage in FHM [75] She meets WP:NMODEL. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Magazine covers would be considered "other production". She did have a significant role in these notable publications. Askmen is used in 174 Wikipedia articles.[76] That seems like a reliable source giving her significant coverage as well. [77] So the WP:GNG seem to have been met as well. Dream Focus 21:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dream Focus: While I endorse the WP:NMODEL argument, WP:RSP states that Medium is a self-published source [and] should never be used as a secondary source for living persons. ミラ P 00:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me to be stretching the definition of WP:NMODEL almost to breaking point to suggest that a magazine cover is equivalent to a film, tv show or stage performance, or that it is what is meant by 'other productions'. The other examples in this criteria are all the subject of reviews, criticism and sometimes books or academic study, much of which is sustained long after the work is complete. Magazine covers are essentially throwaway items that are very rarely the subject of any secondary coverage at all, and using them to establish notability simply because they fit a technical definition of 'productions' is, honestly, absurd. Hug^syrup 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, you link to Medium and say "They" give her significant coverage. Who are "they"? Not Medium.com, surely. And are "they" a reliable source that confers notability? Anyone could log into Medium dot com and give their cat "significant coverage". ApLundell (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. Also see my comment above. ミラ P 00:58, 14 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) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three sources are added to the article, magzter.com, brobible.com and voyagela.com. These sources are used in many Wikipedia articles. Sambroanna (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being used in many articles does not make them reliable/independant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't meet GNG; even with the new sources recently added to the article, none meet GNG. Brobible is not in-depth. Magzter, FHM, Askmen, and VoyageLA are all interview transcriptions, and thus not independent. Medium.com is not an RS; it's red on WP:RSP. – Levivich 21:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 00:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ She has been featured for Playboy Romania in March 2016.(Redacted) Playboy it's green on WP:RSP Sambroanna (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sambroanna: That's for the articles and interviews, says nothing about modeling. Also, ever read WP:LINKVIO? ミラ P 00:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 20:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The only logical choice here; simply redirect to the month she represented in Playboy. Other than that she is not expressly notable—be honest. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the keep arguments are mostly bullshit and should be ignored.Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Medium is a blog site, not a publication with editorial control, and is patently unreliable. As Levivich mentions above, the remaining sources are not indepth/are interviews and thus not independant (not that brobible for one seems particularly reliable regardless). Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 2 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. Seems like the consensus is that WP:SIGCOV and other notability criteria are not satisfied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canam Consultants

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

Promotional company article. No significant in-depth coverage in independent sources. Speedy and PROD removed without significant improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Stuartyeates, hope you are doing good. if you need any proof about the membership. Then i have photo or certificates i can share with you..

Hi please clear me about the links which is not good according to you ? I can remove my links if you suggest me which links is not as per your guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuraj Sandhu (talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per the WP:GNG, what is needed is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)\[reply]

I have updated some links about google books in references . And that search by your links., — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuraj Sandhu (talk • contribs) 07:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poorly formatted article, no significant coverage (fails WG:GNG, as explained by Stuartyeates). Also some COI issues and advertisment. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 08:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , hope you are well,

I have added new links mentioning Canam. These links have the company's mention in Google books of verified authors, and verified journalists report links showing the media coverage of Canam. Please consider the changes for approving the Canam Consultants Wikipedia page. If you check the Wikipedia reference links of IDP and Edwise International, they are similar to the ones we have given. Therefore I request you to consider the changes that I have made by going through the links, and I hope they are good enough to make the Canam Consultants page live without any issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuraj_Sandhu (talk • contribs)

Anuraj_Sandhu, please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sustainable argument here. Also note that WP:ORGCRIT describes what is considered substantial coverage. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The WP:SPA author of this article has a clear WP:COI (e.g. [78]) but, despite repeated promptings, has not complied with the WP:DISCLOSE requirements. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA WP:COI article about a company, describing its services and affiliations but with no claim to encyclopaedic notability. The references provided may verify that it is a firm going about its business, but WP:CORPDEPTH requires more. Those references appended since the AfD began are no better: a mix of primary sources and routine listings. My searches found mention in a news item about a legal case but neither that nor anything else is sufficient to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete AllyD said what I was going to say. The subject doesnt pass WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:NCORP, nor WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:15, 14 December 2019 (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. Tone 10:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Dirk Nijkamp

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

Non-notable sprint canoer that does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG nor does the article have any references or sources with the exception of a brief sporting profile on a fringe website, let alone any significant coverage to note. Dr42 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use some additional citations, but they competed in the 1992 Olympics and meet WP:NOLYMPICS. -- SamCordes^talk 08:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not near enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want this to be construed as a WP:WAX argument, but wouldn't WP:DEFACTO (which I admit is not a WP:PG) apply here, where I believe it's been accepted that all Olympic athletes are notable? Here are the events that Nijkamp participated in, and each athlete listed currently has at least a stub similar to this one: K-2 500 and K-2 1000 -- SamCordes^talk 21:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- JPL's opinion is in clear violation of WP:NEXIST. He attches these "votes" at a speed of 2 per minute, making them meaningless. For example, he claimed that Germany's most decorated actress should be deleted after he saw no references in the article. This is not how AfDs should work. gidonb (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't agree with the suggestion that meeting WP:NOLYMPICS automatically qualifies the subject for GNG. The Olympics are only an event, just as a league or cup football match is an event. Merely taking part is not enough for GNG. There must be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This man does not have that. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear from this opinion that a thorough search for sources was conducted. gidonb (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SPORTBASIC says that "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." Coverage of Olympic athletes from the Netherlands in 1992 is likely to be offline (although some is online, such as this in Trouw [79] and this in Het Parool [80], and there may well be more) so we can't say that sources don't WP:NEXIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NOLYMPICS having competed in the 1992 Olympics, and also has at least some online sources and probably many more offline. Smartyllama (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG as well as the professional standard, WP:NOLYMPICS. I have added just a few of more than 150 press sources that I could find. gidonb (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article's coverage is not overly impressive, I suspect that there's more out there if one has access to Dutch newspaper archives. Meanwhile, I'll defer to WP:NOLYMPICS. Papaursa (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2019 (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 November 2016 Jakarta protests. Any content worth merging is still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Maida 51 case

AfDs for this article:

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

Unneutral POV by creator which is still original from him. Redundant since it is related to November 2016 Jakarta protests. Flix11 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user is not open minded for the second time since he using the same reason for AfD report as the previous one which rejected. Thus, should the report be proceeded with weak arguments of "dislike opinion of POV" that superseded by the limitation of official rules of Wikipedia concerning article deletion policy? Qzxv5 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Flix11, Do not file an improper report here When you complained about NPOV of an article, Wikipedia has NPOV Noticeboard for appropriate place for NPOV discussion followed with adequate discourse on the article's talk page. So your report on Articles for deletion is not suitable here. The content of my edits rely on POV of properly reliable sources, not POV of mine:

WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Also read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete and This discussion carefully and rethinking your decision when complaining here. Qzxv5 (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from strong (N)POV concerns, the topic of this article is redundant to November 2016 Jakarta protests.--Darwinek (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Clear violation of WP:POVFORK and a blatant attempt to evade the neutrality policy. All of the same information is present in November 2016 Jakarta protests, where the topic is covered without the clear personal biases of this article's creator. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs (a lot of) cleaning up but it is not a the same as November 2016 Jakarta protests. Al Maida 51 case also covers the blasphemy trial in 2017 while N2Jp stops with the events of Dec 2016. The blasphemy trial does not fit under the heading of Nov 2016 protest any more than Trump's presidency fits under covfefe. I'm also uncomfortable with the way Flix is trying to advance his case through SPI. Cabayi (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...which now extends to haranguing the Checkusers Bbb23, & ST47. Cabayi (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: unrelated, I did not even know if that light request is considered harassing. What you should know with cool head that this user is already made several completely bias pro-Muhammad Rizieq Shihab view such as in Indonesia–Saudi Arabia relations (1, 2). Rizieq's foul-mouth might not known outside Indonesia but he is known here in Indonesia to have called for non-Muslim persecutions. Flix11 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response I think you should keep your words civil and do not attack other user personally by labeling or you must be banned from Wikipedia. Besides, I included the Indonesia–Saudi Arabia relations because of my content edit depended by various Indonesian news portals and other reliable sources and not my personal bias, actually. Think objectively, not subjectively nor attacking personal. Qzxv5 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to November 2016 Jakarta protests. Extensive duplication of content, and this one is poorly written, so be careful when copying text. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No merge nor redirect I don't think it is 'Extensive duplication of content' or redundancy because I also included various events or cases related to it, such as December_2016_Jakarta_protests, Ahmad Dhani case, response from Ma'ruf Amin and Interior Minister, result of court, etc. that are not covered in November 2016 Jakarta protests. Moreover, November 2016 Jakarta protests is only about one of several protests while Al-Maida 51 case is separate event focused on the long criminal case process with aftermath and the a lot of events surrounding it. Qzxv5 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to November 2016 Jakarta protests, per the above. If the proposed target article doesn't cover this content, it will after the merge. BD2412 T 04:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment, if merged then a new title will be needed. November 2016 Jakarta protests does not adequately encompass all the events from the Sept 2016 speech through to the end of the trial in May 2017. Cabayi (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles on events can have content on their aftermath or extended effects without needing a title that specifies that. BD2412 T 04:50, 21 December 2019 (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. czar 07:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Focșa

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

Non-notable footballer that does not meet WP:FOOTY, WP:N or WP:GNG nor does it have many references or sources, let alone any significant coverage to note. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - international player for Moldova per this, clearly notable. Did nominator follow WP:BEFORE? Giant Snowman 12:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am going with keep also, although only one game for Moldova, he has played European club football and if you go deep enough with the web searches there looks like sources out there that can help pass WP:GNG if ones bothers. Govvy (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a lot of work but the guy is a current full international so the coverage must be out there for him to meet GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets both of the either/or criteria at WP:NFOOTY, in that (1) he has played in a senior international match: he started and played the whole of his country's most recent competitive fixture; and (2) he has played for multiple seasons in a league listed as fully professional, the Moldovan National Division, and was a regular starter for the runners-up in the recently completed league season. It seems improbable that insufficient sources exist to satisfy GNG for a player with such a career. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes both criteria of WP:NFOOTY as several others have pointed out. Completely ridiculous nomination. Smartyllama (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2019 (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) 07:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Johnson (publisher)

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

Publisher of a non-notable, out of print magazine that does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG nor does it have any references or sources, let alone any significant coverage to note with the exception of an obituary. Dr42 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable publisher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability failure. Graywalls (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and the related magazine is not a suitable redirect target, since it will likely be deleted or redirected soon. czar 03:06, 16 December 2019 (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 Ragtime#Revivals. Tone 10:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mississippi Rag

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

Non-notable magazine that does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG nor does it have any references or sources, let alone any significant coverage to note. Dr42 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note that another editor has added some sources since the Afd was created. A search of Google Books finds that articles from this magazine are often used to verify research on the history of ragtime and its performers. I submit that this qualifies for notability for an old publication under WP:DEFUNCTNEWS, which says "a more common sense approach which considers whether the periodical has been widely cited or written about." The article does need to be cleaned up however. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ragtime#Revivals_2. Based on the book source, a mention and a redirect in the main article on the magazine's role in ragtime revival would be appropriate. Otherwise, delete. As for standalone notability, the book does not go into any depth, The Syncopated Times is unreliable (no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy), and if all that can be found on the paper is some details in a local obituary of the publisher, that's not significant coverage. The publisher's article could be a redirect target too but that's going to end up deleted. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ragtime#Revivals_2. Czar's suggestion is useful as the relevance of this newspaper is on the research field which it documented; I have added a paragraph with the discussed references into that page. (Some mention at Trad_jazz#Later_revivals might also be useful, not least to reduce the anglo-centrism of that article, but that would need specific refs.) AllyD (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, see the discussion which another editor has opened at Talk:Ragtime#Periodicals_/_Newspapers_/_Magazines:_Revival regarding this proposal. AllyD (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ragtime#Revivals_2 is the most appropriate alternative to deletion at this point in time. A quick check of the sources verifies Czar in-depth findings. ~riley (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2019 (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) 06:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Tangents Interview

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

Sources found on web are only about Gospel Tangents Interview: Books and nothing more - Fails WP:GNG CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article makes no claim of significance. Mentions online appear to consist of self-published material and a couple of blogs. Skeletor3000 (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article currently has no references, and I'm not seeing anything independent and reliable. Ym2X (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2019 (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) 07:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Poet Society

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

No significant coverage. All sources relate to their music only, none of which have made a notable chart. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly non-notable. (And redirect to Dead Poets Society as a likely typo). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2019 (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. The final two comments in this debate have pretty much hit the nail on the head. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Triangle, Denver

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

This is an unofficial neighborhood of Denver. It even states in the article that it lines up with Civic Center, Denver. The map on the page even highlights Civic Center, not something called Golden Triangle. The page should be redirected to Civic Center instead, with perhaps some of its info offloaded onto that page. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I support this deletion proposal and never really thought this article was needed in the first place. I think the article may have been an effort on the part of the real estate community to re-brand the area and avoid the stigma of the 'Civic Center' name. Certainly any content worth retaining can be incorporated into the Civic Center article. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- I just copied over the only bit of info from Golden Triangle that I thought was worth it. The rest of it is already covered, unsourced, or irrelevant. Bluedude588 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Colorado. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search shows that Golden Triangle and Civic Center are generally not the same but just have some overlap. I think both articles need to be corrected. This show that Civic Center is a basically rectangular shaped area containing government buildings and plazas. This shows that Golden Triangle is a much larger triangular shaped area with multiple uses and called " pretty much Denver's equivalent of New York City's Upper West Side." While there is some confusion because there are not formal boundaries for either, there are enough sources to support distinctive articles on both. MB 19:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry you are interpreting the sources you linked incorrectly. The thing that you linked for Civic Center is the Civic Center historic district, which is a completely separate thing. It corresponds roughly to the park that is there. If you think that there should be an article on the historic district, then that's fine, but that is not what the current Civic Center article is about. The article you linked about the Golden Triangle uses the exact same boundaries as what the city uses for the Civic Center neighborhood. When we are talking about neighborhoods, there is no difference between Civic Center and Golden Triangle. So do you wanna change your keep vote? Bluedude588 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not want to change my !vote. If you read the Civic Center, Denver article (at least before you started your merge ahead of the conclusion of this AFD) carefully, you will see it is written almost entirely about the "historic district", not the larger "neighborhood" that the city used the name on. The lead starts out with "the center of civic life" and the history section covers the development of the park and the civic buildings. The article is/was really about the core civic center area only. Perhaps the title should be changed, but I haven't determined the common name for the park and immediate area - it may be correct as is. This article, Golden Triangle, Denver, is about the greater neighborhood, which the city may call Civic Center (note that some sources say Golden Triangle excludes Civic Center Park). It talks about the architectural style of homes within the triangle shaped area, major streets, etc. It has almost no overlap with Civic Center, Denver. I see that the two are sufficiently different and both notable. It doesn't matter that the city calls the neighborhood Civic Center; if Golden Triangle is more commonly used than that should be the article title. But this is another discussion unrelated to deletion. MB 05:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are still wrong. No, the article was not "almost entirely about the 'historic district'". If you actually read the two articles (Before I started fixing them) then you'd see that they are pretty much carbon copies. The Civic Center article focused a lot on the history of the park as well, but did it better anyways. You mention that it talks about the architectural style, but it was literally for a single sentence. A sentence that was rightfully just copied over to the correct article. You see them as sufficiently different only because you don't actually understand what they are. Civic Center and the Golden Triangle and the same thing, or at least so similar that they don't need two articles. They have the same borders, the same history, the same buildings, the same everything. As a last thing, the city actually doesn't even call the historic district Golden Triangle. It still calls it Civic Center. Golden Triangle is the colloquial name for Civic Center. Nothing else. If you want to assert something else, you are going to have to come up with evidence. Bluedude588 (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point. The Civic Center park and district around the park has lots of history and is obviously notable. It should have an article. We already have an article,, Civic Center that is mostly about that should be kept (and possibly renamed, defined better, etc). This article, Golden Triangle is about a large neighborhood with different borders. It should be kept also as it is independently notable. Just because in some instances Golden Triangle and Civic Center both refer to the same neighborhood doesn't negate the fact that we can/should have one article about the neighborhood and one article about the civic area (the park and government buildings), regardless of what either is titled. MB 02:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems to me that this should be framed as a merger proposal, and I am not sure if this should be done at AFD instead of by the usual merger proposal tagging and discussion process. However from past experience it seems hard to stop an AFD once started, so maybe the merger proposal should be discussed here. But no one is really arguing for outright deletion, are they? At most a merger with redirect(s) left behind from one or both. Would the better merged name be "Civic Center" or "Golden Triangle" or "Golden Triangle--Civic Center" or "Civic Center--Golden Triangle"? Is there any source out there which refers to them/this in a way reflecting both names?

Some are saying the two are different names for more or less the same area. In which case both names should appear as alternatives in bold in the first sentence of a merged article. Right? Could a merged article be written which has a paragraph or section about each name, and where it came from and what it emphasizes, even though some say their areas largely overlap? I would assume that the "Civic Center" label is more emphasizing the presence of various important government buildings, while "Golden Triangle" may emphasize business or whatever else might be golden, and/or maybe triangular shape? Even though some definitions of area might be exactly the same, I am sure that there must be others which do not exactly overlap, and which emphasize different blocks/buildings/aspects. I may comment more later. --Doncram (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of merge makes sense. I've already merged the info as much as possible, so I assumed a redirect could work. I can't find any source that clearly lays out the difference. From what I understand, Civic Center is both the official name of the neighborhood, the name of the park there, and the name of a historic district that encompasses the park. Golden Triangle is a local name for the neighborhood of Civic Center. Thus, Golden Triangle should just redirect to Civic Center. If we wanted two articles then there should be Civic Center (Neighborhood) and Civic Center (Park) or something like that. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda like how the Five Points article incorporates RiNo into its name on the template for the neighborhoods of Denver. If Five Points and RiNo can work as one article, Civic Center and Golden Triangle absolutely can. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the term "Civic Center" has a generally understood meaning. A "civic center" is on the size level of what is apparently the Civic Center Historic District in Denver, i.e. 2 to 5 blocks in size, consisting of government department buildings and other public buildings and plazas/parks in between, especially plazas/parks holding statues/memorials serving government purposes. A "civic center" is not merely a park or plaza with no government buildings, nor is it a large neighborhood of several dozen or more blocks that contains any commercial or residential areas. I happen to be aware of fact that in some cities, the term Civic Center is used for just one building which combines multiple government depts/functions and an auditorium/concert hall.

See Civic Center, San Francisco, which is about original plans and later actual developments for a small area including concentration of very governmental buildings plus plazas. One version was a diamond- or plus-sign-shaped five block area of governmental and art museum buildings around a plaza/park.

The "Five Points" example is a good one. There is a general understanding of what a "five points" is, with the one in NYC being the most famous I am sure. It is literally a five-way intersection itself or a small area centered on that, going at most, say, 1/2 block down each of the streets. On a literal level, I simply do not believe the lede in the Five Points, Denver article, which asserts that "Five Points is..." a neighborhood or large district. No, literally a "five points" is one intersection, and sure, then there can also be a Five Points District or a Five Points Neighborhood which is a large neighborhood. However I am sure that it is okay to say that in Denver "Five Points" alone is also used as a shorter term for the large neighborhood as a whole, and even to say that in Denver "Five Points" nowadays rarely refers to the original area of the intersection of X, Y, and Z streets alone.

About "Civic Center" usage for Denver, it would help a lot if there was clear discussion up front that the actual/real "civic center" is a small area, probably pretty much the area that is included in the Civic Center Historic District. While the usage by the city of "Civic Center" to refer to a large district is pretty much a misnomer, a misapplication of the term, to refer to the large district also commonly known as the Golden Triangle because it is mostly a commercial area (if that is true) and/or includes most of the original commercial core of Denver (if that is true) and is triangular in shape. Is that about right? --Doncram (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if Civic Center is a misnomer, that is the name of the neighborhood as decided by the city. We at Wikipedia do not get to decide what neighborhoods are called. I'm all for clearing up confusing in the opener of the article. Golden Triangle is the name of a neighborhood organization. There are hundreds of these in Denver and certainly they don't deserve their own article. Bluedude588 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't decide what neighborhoods are called, but we do decide on the titles of WP articles about them. The official name is one consideration, but the WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence. If the neighborhood is more commonly called Golden Triangle, then that should be the WP article name also. MB 17:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have shown that it is more commonly called Civic Center though. I listed out the reasons pretty clearly down at the bottom of the page in my last edit. If anything we should have two articles named Civic Center, one for the neighborhood and one for the park/historic district. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the current Civic Center, Denver is about proposals for, and development of, a City Beautiful-era real civic center: a park/boulevard area surrounded by government buildings. Then bizarrely there are confused other usages, like a claim about average house prices, which must be a claim about the much larger Civic Center District / Golden Triangle large neighborhood. Obviously there are no houses in a civic center. I believe that the photo at right is a picture of a real civic center (except it excludes showing the Colorado State Capitol itself), and I tend now to believe that "Civic Center" in Denver commonly means the actual civic center. I tend now to believe there needs to be one article about the actual civic center, and one about the big neighborhood. There has been mention of a park named Civic Center. Is that literally true? If so, that needs to be described as another misnomer, because a park cannot be a civic center. Or is it actually officially named "Civic Center Park" or something like that? --Doncram (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)*[reply]

I could agree that one article for the Civic Center historic district and one for the neighborhood, though I still feel like they could probably be in one article. And yes it is officially named "Civic Center Park". I live right next to it. Bluedude588 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, please look at the version of Civic Center, Denver from before the recent changes by Bluedude. That was more focused on the smaller district around the civic buildings. There certainly is a Civic Center Park, the green space around the state capitol and some other buildings. I think that can be covered within the article on the Civic Center since it is so closely related. But I think we agree that there should definitely be one article on the triangular shaped neighborhood and another on the civic buildings & park. MB 17:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you keep attacking my edits. I didn't remove anything, and I actually even improved the parts on the civic buildings by adding sources. What was covered in that article needed to be expanded because Civic Center is a whole neighborhood, not just a district. Create one about the smaller district if you want, but that's not what this article is really about. Maybe the current article needs to be renamed Civic Center, Denver (Neighborhood) and then the other one Civic Center, Denver (District or Park). Bluedude588 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I have said was that you concluded before the AFD was over that Golden Triangle should be merged into Civic Center and started make those changes. You just stated that the article needs to be expanded because Civic Center is a whole neighborhood. That conclusion has not gained consensus. Civic Center may be the official city name for the Golden Triangle neighborhood, but that does not necessarily drive WP. MB 17:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I should have stated that MB invited to take a look at this AFD (which I would probably have gotten to soon, anyhow, as I generally review AFDs about places and this is the kind that I would comment in). MB and I have cooperated in the past about a lot of houses and historic districts listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places; we are both active members of wp:NRHP.

Hey i think you both are partly right. This version from November 5, before Bluedude588's edits was clearly already about the big neighborhood / district, and did include what i am calling "confusion" already. Also much of it was clearly about the original civic center idea. The first sentence is absolutely stating the article is about the neighborhood. The rest of the first paragraph only goes on about stuff in the actual civic center though. The first paragraph was:

Civic Center is a neighborhood in Denver, Colorado. The area is known as the center of the civic life in the city, with numerous institutions of arts, government, and culture as well as numerous festivals, parades, and protests throughout the year. The park bearing the same name is home to a fountain, several statues, and formal gardens, and includes a Greek amphitheater, a war memorial, and the Voorhies Memorial Seal Pond. It is well known for its symmetrical Neoclassical design.

Bluedude588 must have added the average house price mention (which is okay in an article about a neighborhood), and is obviously going with the neighborhood/district concept, and wants to develop about the neighborhood. I take it that MB might want to go with the civic center concept and might want to develop about the historic district.

There is currently no article about the historic district; Civic Center Historic District (Denver, Colorado) shows currently as a redlink in National Register of Historic Places listings in downtown Denver. "Denver City Center" appears in List of NHLs in CO but links to the Civic Center, Denver article, which i think does not mention the National Historic Landmark status at all. The list of NHLS includes this document with multiple maps which describes the National Historic Landmark District, and the highly overlapping NRHP district and the highly overlapping local historic district.

To move forward now, I and/or MB should develop a proper article about the actual civic center and the overlapping historic districts and National Historic Landmark. That might be done in a new article, rather than converting/refocusing the Civic Center, Denver article, though that should be cannibalized to copy/move the City Beautiful stuff to the new article. Maybe that should go at Denver Civic Center (currently just a redirect), which I think is the legal name for the National Historic Landmark. Or, we could convert/refocus the Civic Center, Denver article, and Bluedude588 could "take over" the current Golden Triangle article and make it properly convey about the big district / official neighborhood?

How about this: let's all pause on wrestling about the current Civic Center, Denver article. While I and/or MB create a draft new article about the civic center proper and the historic districts only, at Talk:Civic Center, Denver/Draft about civic center proper (a redlink subpage of a Talk page). And then later revisit this all. I have to go away now for at least several hours. --Doncram (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of creating an article on the historic districts. We still need to decide on what the name of the neighborhood article should be. I still believe that Golden Triangle should be redirected to the current Civic Center article, and with the current civic center article be renamed Civic Center (Neighborhood). As to which name should encompass the neighborhood (Civic Center or Golden Triangle) I want to link two pages. Denver Post crimes by neighborhood. Denver Gov website that lists it as Civic Center. Also want to point out that on Google Maps the area is only listed as Civic Center. The highlighted part of the map on the Golden Triangle article itself calls it civic center. And anecdotally, I live in Denver. People call it Civic Center. I've suspected that the whole Golden Triangle thing is to lure tourists to the area, but that's just speculation. If our goal in naming articles is to not confuse people, I think we should use the name that appears in most other spots, with a clarification in the article that it is sometimes called "Golden Triangle" Bluedude588 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might go to the library today and see if I can find anything on the history of the names of this neighborhood. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

here's Denver's official neighborhoods map. Again, I think 'Golden Triangle' is an invention of real estate agents. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I think there is agreement that there needs to be two articles. By the way some attention should be paid to Wikipedia's Civic center article, which defines the term for covering real civic centers. (Despite it having a stray sentence asserting otherwise with negative notes attached to it, which should be deleted.) This article has not been edited recently. Also there should be acknowledgement that many cities define a set of "pseudo-neighborhoods" for convenience in their planning and delivery of services, with names unfortunately chosen that sort of overlap with common names for real neighborhoods, IMHO.

But which article should become what?

Both articles were created back in 2005, very early in Wikipedia's history, and were complementary, one covering the real city center and one covering the Golden Triangle neighborhood, which is a real thing. Both mentioned, but differentiated themselves from, the Denver-defined neighborhood named "Civic Center".

See this first version of "Civic Center, Denver", by editor Vertigo700, on 15 July 2005. Although it starts off saying it is a neighborhood, it is pretty clearly about the actual city center, and mentions the larger Denver-defined neighborhood "Civic Center" as a different thing, in my reading. YMMV. It includes the material about City Beautiful that remains in the article.
See this first version of "Golden Triangle, Denver", by editor User:Klestrob44 on 19 September 2005. It is clearly about a big neighborhood, and notes that it largely overlaps with the Denver-defined neighborhood but is specifically different in its boundaries, going one block further one way, for example. It included good material which should probably be restored.

I guess with some reluctance that we probably do not want two separate articles about the mostly-overlapping big neighborhoods; one article should cover them both (and respect that there are some differences).

Since 2005, evidently, editors have been arriving at the Civic Center, Denver article with varying expectations. Some have taken steps towards coopting it to be about the neighborhood, so it became "confusing" (my term). Now I see that Bluedude588 is making edits as if they assume this discussion is over, as they proceed in developing the Civic Center article to be about the neighborhood. Bluedude588, could you pause please? And the Golden Triangle article has been edited poorly and has also gone downhill and no longer differentiates itself properly from the city services-defined neighborhood.

I happen to take Wikipedia's attribution of contributions pretty seriously, and think it matters that the articles should have their edit history showing the major contributions, especially early ones, that developed the articles. From this point of view then, I would like to take the Civic Center, Denver article and refocus it to be about the real civic center. And I would like for the Golden Triangle article to be developed as the neighborhood one. Bluedude can easily copy in the text they have recently been developing at the other article and get full credit for their wording, while it would be a pain or impossible to fix the edit history by administrative tools. It would seem bizarre to me, and would screw the historic contributors to both articles attribution-wise, if the AFD proposal on the table here (delete or redirect Golden Triangle) went through. Right now, I would rather not create a brand new article about the historic district area; I would like to develop the original article about that, so that old and new contributions in the same vein are together. Bluedude, can you agree to pause your working in the opposite direction? I think you could possibly agree to this overall proposal instead.

About the names for the two articles: how about the one covering the real civic center being moved to, say, "Denver Civic Center", which has some provenance(?) as the actual national-level name for the district as a U.S. National Historic Landmark. This would be replacing the redirect there (which has no meaningful edit history). And for the article now at Golden Triangle, Denver, being moved to "Civic Center, Denver", which seems consistent with naming of Denver's other operations/service areas.

About how the neighborhood article is to be developed: It should show both terms in bold in the first sentence. It needs to give proper prominence to the Golden Triangle term, which is a real thing, and which has some differences with the Denver government-defined neighborhood. There are Wikipedians good at producing maps; a request should be made for a map showing the boundary outlines of both the city-defined neighborhood and the Golden Triangle merchants association definition of their area. --Doncram (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I suggest this AFD should be closed with "Keep" decision, consistent with the original two complementary articles and with consensus again now that there should be two complementary articles. For clarity in next steps, the closer should state that the article at "Golden Triangle, Denver" is again to be the one about the neighborhood, and the "Civic Center, Denver" article is again to be the one about the real civic center. If the participants here can quickly agree on names for the two articles, that would be great. Otherwise a formal wp:RM should be opened to consider renaming both articles. IMO, the wp:RM process is a good one attracting regular participants who are better at renamings than are the regulars at AFD. --Doncram (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Thanks for all the effort here. You dug into the article history more than I did, going back to their creation. You have provided more reasons that I did why Civic Center, Denver should be about the real civic center (which I think it mostly was except for a few stray things about the neighborhood) and Golden Triangle, Denver should be about the neighborhood. I looked at the nom form for the HD and the formal name is "Civic Center Historic District" and the given common name in that document is "Civic Center". It goes from Delaware St on the west to Grant St on the east (beyond the eastern boundary of the neighborhood). The NHL uses "Denver Civic Center", but it has a smaller boundary than the NRHP HD. Searching for "Civic Center Denver" brings lots of hits to Civic Center Park, this quote "Civic Center is a 12-acre urban oasis anchoring one of the grandest architectural campuses in America." from [81], some very close places like the Civic Center Station (bus station) just north of Colfax Ave, the building at 1560 Broadway is also called One Civic Center Plaza. I find very few things that refer to the neighborhood (even though it is officially called Civic Center by the city). So I still think the best name for the article is its current name, Civic Center, Denver.

As far as the name for the neighborhood article, if I search on "Golden Triangle", I find all kinds of hits using that name, various news sources including Denver Post, hotels.com, zillow.com, nextdoor.com, zagat.com, grubhub.com, yelp.com, and so on. On top of all that, I found the city of Denver planning department using the "unofficial name" [82] !!!! It seems to be more than just a few realtors trying to promote the area with a better name. Even in google maps, if I search for "Civic Center Denver", it highlights the triangle and labels it "Golden Triangle" at the top and also "Civic Center" [83]. So I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the current name, Golden Triangle, Denver is the most common name for the neighborhood. I agree with you that if there is no consensus here on this, then a RM discussion should be opened. MB 03:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything that has been said except the naming of the articles. The neighborhood's official and most common name is Civic Center. I don't know why everything that I have pointed out in regards to the naming has been ignored. Civic Center is also mentioned as the name on the Denver Post, nextdoor, ect. And I don't see what you mean by your Google Maps link. I see nothing there that says Golden Triangle. The neighborhood's name is not Golden Triangle. More sources call it Civic Center. Here's a simple test. Google "Map of Denver Neighborhoods" and look at the results. The VAST majority of maps depict it as "Civic Center". Why are so many people suggesting to name it by its less common, and less official, name? Make a Civic Center (Neighborhood) and a Civic Center (Park). I'm messaging a history professor at Metro about this for some input too. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the professor I messaged. And he backs up what I said. To quote: "As far as I know, it's basically a marketing ploy. In the 90s, LoDo became the first Denver neighborhood marketed as the next great thing, essentially a way to package gentrification and remaking a crumbling area. Golden Triangle is a lot like LoHi, RiNo, and other invented identities to market an up and coming area to potential buyers.". Using Google's search by date function I could confirm that there isn't any references to Golden Triangle until around 1998. He also recommended looking at a book called "Denver Landmarks and Historic Districts ", so hopefully I can find that at the library or something. But I was right. It seems more like a relevantly recent rebranding. The neighborhood article on Wikipedia should be called Civic Center. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information Update So I ended up going to the library. Apparently all the city-defined Denver neighborhoods came about in the early 70s. Here is an article about it. Then I found a book called "DIA and Other Scams" by Phil Goodstein. It states that the term Golden Triangle came about in the late 1970s, around the time that the area started be invested more in. Interestingly, I guess the area's original common name was "Evans Addition". Bluedude588 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I threw the naming question to the people of the Denver subreddit. Here's what they said. Overwhelming majority said that they call it Civic Center. Civic Center is both the common and the legal name for the neighborhood. Bluedude588 (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. This is an AFD not the wp:RM that can follow later. It would help others not have to read all this, Bluedude588, if you would agree that the consensus is that both articles need to be kept. Then we could move on to the renaming issue, which is not settled here because there is not agreement here and this is not the forum to handle that. --Doncram (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i think Bluedude588 did agree further above that 2 articles are needed. No one disagrees about that. This AFD is ready to be closed with "Keep" outcome, and perhaps with direction to proceed to wp:RM next, if the closer feels it is necessary to say that. --Doncram (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you set up the RM? I'm not sure how to proceed with that. Bluedude588 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the consensus is that both articles should be kept. I don't think Golden Triangle is really a thing. Wikipedia has been successfully used to 'legitimize' the Golden Triangle name to promote the interests of a few. There's no article called "The Sunflower State" because the article for Kansas covers this. One entity, one article. Encyclopedias don't have multiple articles for the same thing. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that there could be two articles, with one for the park/historic district and one for the neighborhood. The current two articles could serve as a base to that, but just with the Golden Triangle one being renamed. Do you agree with that? Bluedude588 (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of the original proposal — to delete the Golden Triangle article. --Jeffrey Beall 16:41, 14 December 2019

I think all are participating here in good faith, but I think there is a procedural misunderstanding in effect. It remains the fact that all participating want for there to be an article about the big triangular-shaped neighborhood, and I am pretty sure that no one objects to there being a separate article about the actual civic center which is clearly notable on its own (being the subject of 3 separate historic district listings, and there being plenty to say about it). I suppose someone could potentially argue for keeping two separate big neighborhood articles, but no one has argued for that. Jeffrey Beale, we are agreeing about that; we don't want one Kansas article and one "Sunflower State" article, we just want one article that presents/explains both names which apply to the same thing.

As I have said above, then it seems right and good to me for the 2005 article about the actual civic center (the article currently named "Civic Center, Denver") to be designated for use in making the historic district article, and for the 2005 article about the big triangular neighborhood (the article currently named "Golden Triangle, Denver") to be designated for use in making the big triangular neighborhood article.

I hear what Jeffrey Beall (JB) is saying, that they want the article currently named "Golden Triangle" article deleted, but I understand that to be, well, like a political or negotiating stance, because they really really dislike the "Golden Triangle" term and they want it abolished. JB, I think you can/should express/explain your dislike for that name in the wp:RM which should happen, and also on the Talk page of the big neighborhood article going forward. I happen to think both names for the big neighborhood should be given in the article about the big neighborhood, but I am open to discussion about what sources actually say, which is what should "win" consensus in the Talk discussions going forward. (Frankly some sources above where the City of Denver calls it the Golden Triangle neighborhood are pretty convincing to me that it is a name which should at least be mentioned, but this is a side debate IMHO.) I suppose that JB could think this is important in terms of tactics towards "winning" the naming question, because the default in a disputed, equally divided RM would be to keep the original name. To JB, perhaps this helps: I myself don't think the big neighborhood article's name matters; I am willing to go along with it reflecting "Civic Center" somehow and not showing "Golden Triangle" in the article name itself (though I do currently think the latter term has to be mentioned and there has to be a redirect from it). Honestly I think a proper wp:RM will work fine.

Anyhow, given JB's position, there is not unanimous consensus here, so this AFD cannot be settled "Speedy Keep"; an admin or non-admin closer has make a decision in the presence of disagreement. IMO, the only reasonable decision is "Keep", plus perhaps direction to the participants to use the wp:RM process about the articles' naming going forward plus use the Talk page of the big neighborhood article to debate whether it should mention "Golden Triangle" or not. I don't think the closer should try to make a decision about what the final names of articles should be, because AFD is not the right forum for that and we haven't been trying to properly discuss/decide that.

The only alternative possible, and what I think JB wants, is to decide a) to delete the 2005 article about big neighborhood, b) allow creation of a new separate article about the actual city center, and c) usurp/transform (or continue the usurption/transformation that has already started) the 2005 article about the actual civic center to be about the big neighborhood instead. However, if that were done, IMHO it would be necessary for administrators to do edit history merges to put the 2005-and-on history of the civic center into the new article, and to move the edit history from 2005-and-on of the neighborhood to put that into the transformed article. This is unreasonable. Actually I think (am not sure) that admin tools have limits and might not be able to achieve what is necessary to make the history show properly, i.e. to put in place exactly what is directly accomplished by taking what I call the "reasonable" decision. I think it is far better to simply acknowledge here that JB and Bluedude588 do indeed have strong opinions about what the big neighborhood article is named going forward, and about whether it mentions the "Golden Triangle" name or not. Fine. I cannot imagine they really care about what the past edit history shows, as long as they get their way in the naming and content going forward. (However, IMHO the edit history from 2005 on does matter, meeting our commitment to editors that they should get reasonable credit in the edit history for what they contributed.)

I'm sorry this has gotten so long, and I will try not to comment any much further. I think everything needed to be said has been said, and I do think this is ready to be closed (with "Keep" decision). --Doncram (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say that I agree with what you wrote here. And personally I am fine with the name Golden Triangle being mentioned in the article about the neighborhood. I just don't think it should be the title. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having read the above, this AfD is probably heading for a "no consensus" close but with a comment that there is a "weak, but not unanimous, consensus" that there should be two articles, but disagreement over the names/titles of those articles (a concern that "Golden Triangle" is not the appropriate name), and thus an RM is needed to resolve. Have I got that right?. Britishfinance (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say it should be "keep" based on the weight of the arguments (but I am involved). Since "no consensus" gives the same result, either way there will need to be a follow-up RM to resolve the names/titles. MB 14:56, 17 December 2019 (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. Despite Barkeep49's relist, no further arguments to demonstrate notability have occurred, and consensus has moved further towards deletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Joli

AfDs for this article:

Justine Joli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} –(ViewAfD · [84]):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Does not meet WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per two previous AfDs and the numerous covers of major publications she has been on, which easily meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Ifnord (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Things change over time, past discussions are not relevant, and the "numerous covers of major publications" is not truthful. Zaathras (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She appeared on the cover of the March 2002 issue of Hustler and High Society (USA) Holiday 2001, Vol. 26, Iss. 13. Perhaps I should have clarified "adult" publications, but major nonetheless. Ifnord (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a titty mag covergirl isn't a criteria that is usable here, wp:porn bio was deprecated, and people like this now go by plain WP:ENTERTAINER as well as the general notability policy. Notability is not temporary, but when the criteria that an article was once judged on is no longer applicable, then we have to reevaluate this person under the present standards. Zaathras (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Being "a titty mag covergirl isn't a criteria". Being on the cover of a major international publication is though. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When that major international publication is a titty mag, it actually isn't. I have perused Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion and more than a few of those red linked pages tried, and failed, to get by on a cover girl, Pet of the Month, criteria. Zaathras (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see we're trotting out logical fallacies now. This is fun! —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the cover of a phonographic magazine is not an inherently notable thing. One does not need fallacies to note that your assertion is unsupported by policy. Zaathras (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete citations given are primary sources (interviews, data/fact sheets), fleeting mentions (Village Voice (archive), where she is just "girlfriend of..."), or exaggerated ("a supporting role in the softcore television series" when she is listed 13th in sequence of importance on the imdb page). Zaathras (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is not temporary. "Things change over time" does not apply. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I agree with *some* of the “pruning” seen here, I think she meets GNG. I would be surprised if there wasn’t more available about her marijuana business. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note After the nominator of the last deletion discussion failed to get the article deleted, they went on a massive trimming spree, removing entire sections of the article. I intend to undo most of their removals, but to see a prior version before the trimming, see here. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would revert your edits as uncalled-for. The editor in question appears to have rightfully removed meaningless fluff about the subjuct's mother driving her to auditions, purported threeways, and her boy/girl preferences. You should also lay off calling others disgruntled editors, as well as casting aspersions on their motivations for editing an article. Zaathras (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would never cast aspersions. I'm flat out saying they were angry their proposed deletion did not succeed and effectively vandalized the article days after the AfD notice was removed. As to the rest, well, I'm not saying the article is perfect, but trimming entire sections doesn't work either. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If doubling-down on your personal attacks is what you feel is a persuasive argument to make, then Godspeed. Zaathras (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. In re "Things change over time" does not apply: the previous two closes occurred while PORNBIO was still in effect. With PORNBIO deprecated, there's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it meets those two, and PORNBIO is irrelevant as prior to those other closes she would have met the basic requirements. PORNBIO is a red herring here. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough coverage compiled from several reliable sources to satisfy the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources. [85][86][87][88] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability not being temporary is not applicable in this circumstance. In fact WP:NTEMP specifically says While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion." Those who are suggesting that there is notability would benefit from pointing to specific sourcing that points to notability per GNG or a SNG, otherwise as this is not a vote appropriate weight will mean this is closed as delete. Relisting to give those suggesting notability more time to demonstrate notability given previous AfDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The arguments about "past notability" are misplaced. What matters today is whether or not a subject meets the notability criteria of today, and these criteria do, of course, include past notability. In other words, if the subject per today's criteria has been notable in the past, it's worth an entry in Wikipedia, generally speaking.^{[note 1]}

The criteria for porn stars have changed and now people under this category are supposed to meet the WP:NACTOR criteria. Our subject clearly does not. The sources offered as evidence of her notability amount to a New York article about someone else entirely and where subject is name-dropped once; an article in "industry" magazine AVN about her appearance in an Off-Broadway theatrical piece; two pieces, one in the French Vice and one in CNBC about legal pot-selling that mention our subject; and so on. We do not even have WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guidelines and the fail of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Wm335td (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not gonna lie, but I really don't see how she doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or specifically WP:NACTOR. She's been covered repeatedly in print publications as the primary topic of the publication, and there are numerous sources to back that up. Her coverage in mainstream sources is also there. If she weren't a pornographer, I feel like this discussion wouldn't be going the way it has. So with that said: WP:NOTCENSORED applies here, and I'll say it again: notability is not temporary. Deprecating WP:PORNBIO is irrelevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Locke Cole. Care to support the claim about her being "covered repeatedly in print publications as the primary topic of the publication" with some sources? I've dealt above with the previous attempt at presenting sources but there might be something out there still. And, as far as I'm concerned, I reject the allegation that her being a former porn star affects the way my suggestion went. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

References

^ Per WP:N, [the fact that a topic] meets either the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific [notability] guideline is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.

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. The keep arguments are surprisingly weak, but the participation in favor of delete is too small to call it the other way. RL0919 (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz (arcade game)

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

Not a notable topic. The game's creator (Elaut Belgium) is not notable for a Wikipedia article, making an article about its games having less possible notability. Also, Elaut has other variations of a very similar coin pusher type game. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 04:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has plenty of sources. Miter128 (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see this as not having very many sources. Other than the article from The Press of Atlantic City, all the other sources are from the manufacturer’s websites. —𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 02:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. AeroSpy7 (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sourced coverage by The Press of Atlantic City. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sock-created but updated by others, this article features only GNG-qualifying source at the moment, the good Press of Atlantic City article. All other sources are from the manufacturer's website which is a bit of a backdoor WP:PROMO issue as well and is most decidedly not "plenty of sources." SportingFlyer T·C 06:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. 63.116.111.186 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article does have sources, as people above have said, and a Google search for "Wizard of Oz (Arcade game)" does throw up entries. Vorbee (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reliable sources. GNG Lightburst (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep arguments say there are sources, so could someone give an independent reliable source other than the one local newspaper mentioned?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my delete !vote stands. I just did a thorough before search and the only article that I would !vote keep on is already in the article. The fact all but one of the sources are primary and sourced to the manufacturer continue to make this article promotional. Frustrated none of the keep !votes have demonstrated any further coverage apart from a single article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to point out again that the only source in the article is the Press of Atlantic City article, others are from the manufacturer’s website. I think a lot of people in this discussion are missing this point as many people voting keep are mentioning plenty of sources. —𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 18:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Visit Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to restore the article. czar 07:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Girl: The Peg Entwistle Story

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The two sources in the article are regurgitated press releases, and I can't find any independent reviews or other sources that would establish notability. I notice that the article creator is heavily involved with Draft:Laura Liguori; this article was likely created as a means of getting the draft accepted at AfC. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2019 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Émile Bilodeau

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

WP:BLP of a musician, with no properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must accomplish something that counts as a valid notability claim (e.g. charting hits, notable music awards, etc.) and receive reliable source coverage about that -- but as written, this literally just states that he exists, and then jumps directly to listing his discography without even attempting to say anything about him that's even measurable against NMUSIC at all, and then sources 75 per cent to YouTube copies of his own videos and 25 per cent to a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a media blurb whose core subject is other people, which means it's referenced exactly zero per cent to reliable source coverage about him. This is not how you demonstrate that a musician is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First of all, per WP:NEXIST the quality of the sources presently in the article are not evidence of notability or lack thereof, so it is irrelevant what percentage of the current references are to YouTube and other junk. They can be easily removed. Otherwise, this musician does have a fairly reliable media profile at: [89], which is already cited in the article, and there is also a valid source already in the article verifying that he won a cash prize at the songwriter's conference. Alas, activities of that nature don't add up to enough notability, and otherwise it is true that other media coverage of the musician consists of brief mentions of him being present at some event. Perhaps it's simply too soon for this kid. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the creator, I do agree that the article certainly did not start out strong (in fact, for the first citation I used the wrong link, hence why that page was not about the subject). It did not help that the French article, which I used as a starting point, focused more on various music festivals he had entered than his work. However, I do think that he fits muliple criteria specified by WP:NMUSIC. He has a gold album (see [90], enter "Émile Bilodeau" into the search field), won major awards ([91][92]), and has been covered in articles by multiple independent sources([93][94][95]). In my opinion, the solution is further research and editing, not deletion.
(PS: I have never commented on a AfD page for an article that I have created before, so this is all a bit new to me.) MSG17 (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Either the musician is notable, or his album Rites de passage is [96], and as there is not yet an article about the album, this article should be kept. If/when an article about the album is created, a discussion about whether to merge/redirect the musician to the album could occur. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 22:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per sources listed above by MSG17, some of which are SIGCOV in reasonable RS; notability is also underlined by RebeccaGreen's point re his album. Britishfinance (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2019 (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) 06:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of spacecraft in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)

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

List of in-universe minutia. This neither establishes notability for the whole or proves itself to be a necessary content fork. The ships can easily be described in the context of the plot without needing trivial details presented on this page. This just plot information for the sake of plot information. TTN (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The purging of fictional elements lists continues ... Clarityfiend (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As complete fancruft, per WP:TNT. However, I do think it's possible for someone to make a smaller, referenced list. There are decent mentions out there, like this one about the Battlestar Galactica from the 2004 series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2019 (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 WP:SNOW deleted. BD2412 T 04:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randy White (actor)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the references currently in the article are a directory listing and an award roster. Mr. White's industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only a few mentions in the biography of a different pornographic performer[97]. The article was kept at AfD in 2006, when having appeared in a large number of pornographic films was taken as an indication of notability. Cheers, gnu 57 02:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, no significant coverage anywhere in RS. b uidhe 02:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per above. Miter128 (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per depreciated WP:PORNBIO Lightburst (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--NL19931993 (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This actor's awards would not have even satisfied PORNBIO when it was in effect. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2019 (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) 13:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karolina (painter)

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

This biographical puff piece about an unremarkable Greece-based artist qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD X2, but speedy deletion was declined on the rather curious basis that it's been cleaned up by two editors, although not, as of the time of nomination, into comprehensible English. I don't see what's notable about this person and I don't see what's reliable about the sources. —S Marshall T/C 01:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 01:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage seems to be in Mykonos guidebooks and various blogs. It does not amount to anything even approaching WP:ARTIST. From what I read, she hangs out in the harbour in Mykonos painting landscapes and selling them to tourists, so none of the traditional artist notability indicators apply (major exhibitions, critical commentary, awards, etc). I could not actually find one exhibition or independent review of her work, so using our usual artist notability criteria is pointless.

GNG-wise, it is very weak. The coverage is mostly trivial or in unimportant publications.

Example coverage from the cited source greecetraveller.com (a blog) reads: At the top of Matoyianni Street, in front of the Kessaris jewelry store, on summer evenings you may find naïf painter Carolina Wells (though she’s often down on the harbor when it’s not windy). Her paintings, which have got international acclaim of late, but have been dear to locals for decades, sell like hotcakes for around 100 Euros apiece.

Overall, I think she is mostly a sort of local celebrity. I don't think we need to cover local celebrities in the absence of good independent in-depth coverage; the guidebooks have that sort of thing covered.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reading the story about her, it explains that Karolina sells four types of paintings: the Blue and White Painting, the Red Painting, the Restaurant Painting, and the Red Boat Painting. The Blue and White Painting sells the best, but painting all that blue is a lot of work. It's a story, so you have to allow some leeway for artistic license, but I think it's indicative of what we're discussing here. Curiocurio (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just a fact: The artist is not Greek as the proposer wrote, she is an American. As for notability: She has coverage in Greek national press (Downtown magazine) and main TV channel (Skai TV, "one of the largest media groups in the country" according to the relevant article). She has been an inspiration for a short story by Peter Selgin as well as for a poem from artists which are not local to Mykonos, she is mentioned in travel guides. As far as I am concerned these are enough for a person to be considered notable. --FocalPoint (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Downtown Magazine piece is quoted in the article as "did you see the Karolines' which were hung by the entrance? And, of course, I have now learned to recognize the masterpieces of the great painter of the island..." It is trivial coverage. Being the subject of fiction or a poem is not particularly important either. What counts is in-depth SIGCOV, which is missing here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I should have written "Greece-based" rather than "Greek".—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We cannot be entertaining the idea that we can uses sources like karolinasmykonos.com, which is operated by the subject's daughter , who writes "Carol Wells was unique from the beginning of her life. Born on Christmas day in 1939 into the highest strata of Boston society, she was blessed was(sic!) talent, intellect, beauty, and independence." No. Additional comments: [98] isn't used as a source for anything except her name and education and is written by her daughter. Not an independent, reliable source [99] is a travel guide, not accessible online, the nearest library with a copy is more than 6000 kilometers away. [100] is the website of a travel agent, not an independent, reliable source [101] is a dead link [102] lists a number of local shopkeepers (none of whom appear to be notable BTW)and makes the claim that her paintings have got international acclaim of late, but provides no evidence of such acclaim or even an indication of what form it takes: exhibitions, awards? [103] is a video on the website of Skai Group which is cited to support the claim that "The life of Karolina has been presented on Greek television". I couldn't get it to run. It seems a bit odd to mention that she's the subject of a documentary, but not use that documentary as a source for the content of the article, and instead highlight the fact that a source exists,even though we don't get to find out what it says. [104] is fiction, and definitely not a reliable source[105] is a poem by Zen Cowboy Poet & Freelance Philosopher Neil Meili, whose relevance to me is unclear. In summary, the sources are so poor that it is no possible to verify anything. This is not just a failure to meet the requirements of WP:GNG, it fails WP:V Vexations (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage:

Exhibition in Mykonos 21 - 31 October 2019
Same exhibition in Athens, so moving out of local to national level

--FocalPoint (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link one (koinignomi.gr) is a list of artists in a show: "Under the title "Contemporary Mykonos Painters", they present their works, along with the work to be printed in the diary, by Armacola Georgina, Lydia Venieris, Veronis Petros, Galatis Giannis, Karolina Woellipi..."

Link two is a derivative of the first article, with her name listed but no commentary. So both sources are trivial coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject of article does not meet notability criteria, nor are there reliable sources in the article or online after a search. Netherzone (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable, and much written about, as local personality/artist, although missing the grade for notability as an artist as such. Potential to expand from the Greek wiki article (I don't read Greek, but have linked with an "expand" tag). PamD 12:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: could you point to two or three reliable sources that have more than a paragraph on her? I checked the Greek article and it has no RS that can be verified-- just blogs and the like. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:PamD has expressed it better than I did. Indeed, the notability of Karolina is as local personality/artist, not for notability as an artist as such. I have selected both for the Greek and the English articles easily accessible material. I have more references to add, however, they are not on line and I will add them during the next 6-7 days. --FocalPoint (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is the point: she might be locally notable via trivial coverage in travel magazines for selling paintings at the wharf.... but we are a global encyclopedia.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing time for User:FocalPoint to add the offline sources they found to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Refs: 1. primary source (artists website) does not contribute to notability; 2. Unverifiable; 3. Non-reliable source, blurb in "Hideaways Aficiando Club" travel blog; 4. Unverifiable; 5. Unverifiable; 6. Non-reliable source - blurb in travel blog "Elizabeth Boleman-Herring's Greece"; 7. Unverifiable; 8. Travel Blog entry - human interest story; 8. Non-reliable source - mention in a poem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 December 2019 (UCD) (UTC) Netherzone (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in-depth coverage. She may be a local celebrity (a hint for notability), but this not supported by third-party reliable sources. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (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. Will restore to draftify on request if sources are available. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florent Pereira

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor. Played supporting roles starting in 2017. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be much evidence of notability in the references. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more participation. As this the second AFD nomination soft delete is not available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify: In my opinion, this failed WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR in the first nomination and still fails in this nomination. Since the first nomination, I am not able to find further evidence of notability. Supporting draftify as this is an active actor with recent works; actor may become more notable with time. ~riley (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Andromeda races

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

Bare-bones, non-notable list of in-universe minutia from a decade ago. TTN (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note: The only two linked entries, Magog (Andromeda) and Paradine, have also been nominated for deletion, while Spirit of the Abyss is not a race, but rather the leader of the Magog (but still up for eradication too). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a comment: a list of x does not mean that x needs to be linked entries. List of x are commonly done when each individual entry isn't notable for an article by itself, but the group is important to cover as the parent article (in this case, the show) is notable. --Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic, fails WP:LISTN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Per WP:N, [the fact that a topic] meets either the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific [notability] guideline is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.

[note 1]