Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs) at 13:38, 16 December 2019 (Moving to Dec 16 - nomination completed the following day). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 14 December 16 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 03:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of births, marriages, and deaths in Coronation Street

List of births, marriages, and deaths in Coronation Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of in-universe minutia unneeded for a general encyclopedia. This is specialty information for fans of the show. Keeps in the previous AfD tried to put forth that the topic itself is notable, but it seems there's just the usual soap opera-related sites speculating and reporting on the inner workings of the show. To establish notability on the topic itself, you'd need to be able to discuss the broad topic to give make this list contextually relevant. Without that, it's just something for Fandom or another wiki. TTN (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you ask me, delete the whole lot. JIP | Talk 08:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated my vote to delete, this is definitely fandom material. Ajf773 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and kill the others as well. This type of lists takes soap operas more seriously than their own creators do. It is clearly not justiried.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with the sound nomination and discussion points above. -2pou (talk) 18:16, 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 keep.  JGHowes  talk 03:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshore Community Hospital

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

Not notable at all. Fails WP:ORG. The sources that are provided are very primary. Wikipedia wont benefit from inclusion of this poorly sourced stub.--Biografer (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now: I find coverage in secondary sources and so WP:NHOSPITALS guides us, Two River Times, NJ.com Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources identified above satisfy WP:NHOSPITALS. Alansohn (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the shape of article is inadequate that is not a reason for deletion, nor will Wikipedia suffer from its inclusion. Satisfies WP:NHOSPITALS, though a redirect to group which owns it may be better if/when that article comes along.Djflem (talk) 18:32, 18 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. I don't see any reason we should encourage COI abuse of our project by preserving this in draft. If it ever becomes viable as an article someone unconnected can create it. Spartaz Humbug! 08:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WOWCube

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

A promotional article for a not yet available device. It has won some minor awards and had some minor press. The top two sources in Google News are Forbes special contributor articles, meaning likely paid. The only decent source I found was this Russian Popular Mechanics article, but given the fact that the device is not for sale, I have to assume that it's basically promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Popular with a high circulation of a national-level magazine - Popular Mechanics, on paper in the June issue of 2019, and in an article on the website, published a detailed 2-page article about wowcube. This is an independent and respected media. The article was written by the Chief Editor of the publication - Alexander Grek. Apristen (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Apristen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment two three votes have been removed from this discussion as a result of sockpuppet investigations.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft pending content on reception if and when the device actually enters the market. BD2412 T 14:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and salt with requirement to go via AfC. before entering mainspace. I have received an email alert/canvas from ‪Iexeru ... "Iexeru‬ sent you an email. "Dear Djm-leighpark, Please take a look at the article and the disc..." upon whose talk page I placed a Template:Uw-coi notice. While per BD2412 there may be a viable article here eventually the balance of probabilities indicates that rather than compliance with requirements for COI editors, (and I will respect COI created articles and request edits if due respect is paid for Wikipedia guidelines for CPOI editors) desperate attempts seem to be being made via COI accounts and will likely continue. On the downside for me in this discussion sockpuppet contributions have been removed rather than struck, if that had not been the case I would likely have ignored the discussion entirely. I was not known as grumpy XXX for nothing and for the record canvasing emails are always likely to produce a less than favourable result. In all events I recommended not to remain in mainspace and to salt. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:06, 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.

p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.112.214 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. WP:REFUND applies.  JGHowes  talk 03:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canvey Island Monster

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

Non-notable cryptid. A critter "seen" once when an ambiguous carcass washed up on shore. Has received basically no coverage outside of fringe sources (both of the citations, the Fortean Times and the Edwards book are both fringe science sources). Fails WP:GNG and you can't pass it in as a species, either. Hog Farm (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sources needed to support it as notable just don't seem to be there. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and confirmed to not be an actual species. ~riley (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this blog post shames Wikipedia a bit for perpetuating the story of this cryptid.—eric 13:51, 22 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.  JGHowes  talk 03:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fiskerton Phantom

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage beyond fringe sources. Sole source appears to be attributed to the Daily Star which is described as "less reliable than the Daily Mail" at Perennial Sources. –dlthewave ☎ 22:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:15, 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 speedy Deleted. Deleted by Fastily per author request - G7. (non-admin closure) ~riley (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain M Elius

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

Non notable business man whose only claim to notability is being on the Forbes list. Subject of article doesn’t have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 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 draftify. After the lengthy discussion, it is decided to work on the article at draft:Buru (legendary creature). The nomination has been withdrawn by nominator in favour of move to draft-space, and move performed by User:EricR. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buru (legendary creature)

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

Not discussed in reliable scientific sources. The article is unsourced, and any attention it gets is mostly from fringe sources. There's not enough reliable coverage about this subject to create an article without giving extremely undue weight to fringe material. Hog Farm (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a classic example of cryptozoologists taking a local legend seriously and promoting it as a real creature. Unfortunately neither the legend (if it existed at all) nor the purported species have received significant coverage outside of fringe sources. –dlthewave ☎ 23:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - I'm willing to give folks a chance to rewrite this, based on recently suggested sources. –dlthewave ☎ 13:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. Can see significant coverage in reliable sources such as journal by IOSR and IOSR has been used as a source in many articles on Wikipedia.[1] Then there is a whole book dedicated to this subject called "The Hunt for the Buru: The True Story of the Search for a Prehistoric Reptile in North India"[2] by Ralph Izzard. Significant coverage is also found in other sources like [3]. UNESCO also made a mention[4]. These are all reliable sources.  MehrajMir (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN IOSR-JHSS appears to be a reliable journal that devotes a few sentences to the legend. See Arjayay's analysis below.
Red XN Izzard appears to be a primary source about an unsuccessful 1948 expedition in search of Buru. These expedition reports, especially historical ones, usually requiry secondary analysis. Unclear to what extent or how reliably it covers the legend. Mehrajmir13, have you read it?
Red XN Monster Dot-To-Dot is a children's coloring book.
Green tickY UNESCO appears reliable and has a few sentences on the Buru legend.
We have two solid sources, however they don't have anywhere near enough content to meet WP:SIGCOV or write an article. I'm not convinced that a trip report from 1948 is going to have anything useful beyond a few quotes. –dlthewave ☎ 14:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: IOSR Journals is a predatory publisher, not a reliable source. As for the claim that "IOSR has been used as a source in many articles on Wikipedia" this totally untrue - the current uses of IOSR on Wikipedia can be seen here [0,4,100} - 55 spam reports and this AFD discussion - not one article whatsoever. - Arjayay (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch Arjayay. FWIW Mehrajmir13's list shows 40 or so uses that slipped under the radar because they don't have a URL, however this does not speak to its reliability. –dlthewave ☎ 14:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The article had some sources but in the previous versions.[5] Subject meets WP:GNG. Tessaracter (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources present in the previous version were removed because they're written by fringe authors:
Red XN Bernard Heuvelmans is a prominent figure in the pseudoscience of cryptozoology.
Red XN Karl Shuker is another cryptozoologist.
Red XN The Cryptid Zoo (in External Links) is a run-of-the-mill online "cryptid compendium" with no indication of fact-checking, accuracy or expertise. Besides citing fringe writers Coleman and Shuker, it also cites Wikipedia, making it completely unuseable. –dlthewave ☎ 14:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per analysis above, sources are in passing and / or fringe. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can I just point out what a nonsense it is to argue that a legendary creature is not notable because it isn't covered by scientific sources. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its just stoopid. There are sources, UN sorces, and this article isnt advert or promotional, and doesnt spread any rumours or misunderstandings. Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy, and WP:IAR? This is a legend from history so the sources are obviously going to be scarce. But we are an encyclopaedia, we must not create articles about such subjects. Lets create articles on pets of celebrities, or which celebrity pissed on who. Afterall thats the spirit of wikipedia the encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michig. It is nonsensical to expect scientists to write about this Cryptozoology-related subject. Nonetheless, what about this from high quality publisher Psychology Press by Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf? This source meets WP:SIGCOV as well. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article could pass WP:GNG as either a creature or as a legend. When scientific sources are referenced, that is about determining whether or not Buru can pass as a creature, which it does not appear to. As a legend, the sources are about three paragraphs in your book, which is a solid source, and a short reference by UNESCO. I'm not convinced that those two by themselves are enough to pass GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Izzard, Ralph (1951). The hunt for the Buru. this one is looking legendary. oops, already mentioned above, but i came across it in the bibliography for a work on the Apatani language.—eric 14:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reliably sourced foundation myth. The content may be more appropriate in other articles with this a redirectDAB.—eric 15:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Concern that some of the RS being advocated for Keep is not really independent, and the article itself remains unsourced; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Edit. The article doesn't violate any major WP guidelines, but it is pretty much a stub. If it stays, it needs to have more information and have sources. If it's not edited within a specified time frame, then come back to this page and delete it. Dictator Black (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sourcing does actually violate our Verifiability policy. Could you suggest any sources that might be used to add more information? It's already been at AfD for a week which is the standard time period we allow for article improvement. –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have yet to see a single reliable source discussing this topic, just the usual fringe proponent circles. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC) Keep, Eric in particular has dug up reliable sources to replace the fringe—looks like the article might be saved after all! :bloodofox: (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stuart Blackburn SOAS University of London. Several published works on oral history of the Apatani. Not a reliable source? Fringe proponent? Care to reconsider?—eric 00:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @EricR: Have you linked one of the articles Blackburn wrote about the Buru? I went to the Blackburn link above, went to the article on the Blackburn page, and went through the article and could only find one mention of "buru" and that mention was in somebody' name. So can you please link to the articles by Blackburn so they can be analyzed? Hog Farm (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found the book linked by EricR earlier and found references to the creature under the name "bura" on two pages on the book. I can't tell if the mentions, in the description of a local myth, are enough to meet SIG-COV or not, though, especially since the UNESCO source literally mentions "buru" in about 2-3 sentences. Hog Farm (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jesus fucking christ.
          • Fürer-Haimendorf, C. (1962). The Apa Tanis and their neighbours. pp. 12–13, 62–3.
          • Fürer-Haimendorf, C. (1980). A Himalayan Tribe: From Cattle to Cash. pp. 12–13.
          • Beggiora, S (2018). "The Mystery of the buru: From Indigenous Ontology to Post-modern Fairy Tale". International Quarterly for Asian Studies.
          • Blackburn, S (2012). "Apatani Ideas and Idioms of Origins". Origins and Migrations in the Extended Eastern Himalayas.
          • Farooqy, P (2017). "Symbiosis Between Nature & Culture–A Case Study of the Apatani Cultural Landscape, India". Journal of World Heritage.
        • —eric 03:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Eric, as you appear to have access to these items, please provide some passages with which to expand and de-fringe this article. I'd be happy to change my vote if we have material to work with here, and it sounds like we may indeed. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would creating a new section at Apatani people about their folklore and including the information there be acceptable? Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked at the sources here I feel that there may be an arguable case for keeping a very short paragraph about this cryptid but on balance, the outcome I would prefer is a very selective merge to list of cryptids where it's already mentioned. We would need to edit Buru (disambiguation) accordingly. —S Marshall T/C 15:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a "cryptid", it a well known and documented legend of the Apatani. Did you read Beggiora? Here is a quick introduction to myth within anthropology. I guess gaming magazines and Rich at IGN are more Wikipedia's speed.—eric 16:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @EricR:I'm still not convinced this warrants a separate article. But after the sources that have come up, I would support a merge to Apatani people if a new section about Apatani folklore is formed. Would that be acceptable to you? Hog Farm (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Hog Farm: I would hesitate to merge to Apatani people. It is a very short article, includes very little about their history and nothing about other myths. It doesn't seem like there are many editors interested in the topic to clean up the text. Adding a whole bunch about a legend with Stonor and Izzard wandering around looking for a dinosaur seems pretty WP:UNDUE. A better merge target would be Ralph Izzard, where looking for Yeti and swamp monsters is appropriate content. We should neutrally describe both the real myth and the nutty expedition which tried to make it a real creature. I lean towards cleaning up the existing article, or WP:TNT. Merge to Ralph Izzard would be workable, but merging to Apatani i think would create a bigger mess than there is now.—eric 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand "cryptid" to mean an animal that hasn't been shown to exist. If that's wrong then the mention in List of cryptids will need amending.—S Marshall T/C 23:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. whether this is a cryptid - The problem is, these things can exist for centuries as local legends, with (as long as sufficient evidence of significance exists) no problem for inclusion in an encyclopedia as a myth/folklore topic. But then cryptozoologists get interested in them, and suddenly they become (in some people's eyes) 'cryptids', and people try to get them deleted because they hate cryptozoology as a pseudoscience (i.e. not a proper science) and argue that they should be deleted because they are not proven to exist by science (i.e. proper science), which is both obvious (otherwise pseudoscience wouldn't be interested in them) and ridiculous at the same time. --Michig (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such a merge will not work as the list has long only been about notable cryptids, thus is merged it will just be removed as not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. We write about cryptozoologist interest when there's notable coverage in reliable secondary sources. We do not, however, use fringe sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but heavy re-working is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rework as a legendary creature. Scientific sources are not needed for myths.--Auric talk 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor who has worked on thousands of myth-related articles on Wikipedia over the past few decades, I have along the way encountered everyone from Young Earth creationists to Neo-Nazis intending to use fringe sources promote their views in these spaces. In short, I can say that your take on our myth coverage is categorically false. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How so?--Auric talk 21:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All sources must meet WP:RS, and folklore topics (including myth) are no exception. This means academics with relevant backgrounds, such as folklorists and philologists, rather than Young Earth creationist Tim's evangelical cryptozoology emporium on the internet, self-proclaimed monster-hunter Max's Facebook page (gotta catch 'em all), or "Adolf Messerschmidt"'s self-published books on how (your ethnic group of choice) in fact consists of "reptilians" controlling world politics. Since the project lacked folklorists from an early date, fringe sources have been a problem for a long time in these Wikipedia circles. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems that the currently used source is acceptable and Eric convinced me that other good sources exist. That said, the article needs work and some sources are difficult to access, unfortunately. —PaleoNeonate – 05:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closing admin There's a discussion about moving this and similar articles to draft space to work on them. I don't think anyone would object.—eric 22:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to withdraw this if the article is moved to the draft space temporarily for improvement. Hog Farm (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • done, and db-r2 on the redirect.—eric 03:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nomination withdrawn Per the guide to non-admin closures, I can't close the AfD, because there is still one standing !vote to delete. User:Roxy the dog, as the only remaining !vote to delete, would you find a move to the draft space acceptable? Hog Farm (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 08:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland Blob

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

Fails GNG; lacks significant coverage beyond fringe cryptozoological sources. –dlthewave ☎ 22:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Globster#Notable globsters. Not enough coverage in RS to warrant having an individual article, but could be a plausible search term. What is known about this "item" can be covered in one sentence at the main globster article. Hog Farm (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nothing to merge & not worth a redirect since the suggested section Globster#Notable globsters is for notable globsters. This globster is not notable so a deletion is the best approach IMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People didn't know what this thing that washed ashore was. Oh, it's a whale. Duh. Unclear why this is notable. Reywas92Talk 22:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Globster#Notable globsters Seems to have very limited notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:15, 22 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! 08:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Imakaev

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:BIO. Mitte27 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. Zero allegation of notability, except an |unverifiable claim that he was the first Christian author in Russia, which is not even wrong. Created and edited by SPAs Yoshi13 and Paddylopez. 19:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Bearian above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:19, 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.  JGHowes  talk 03:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ringdocus

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant RS coverage. WP:BEFORE search returned a couple of local newspaper articles; everything else is fringe cryptozoology that can't be used to establish notability or write an article. –dlthewave ☎ 22:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you are aware of additional sources, please list them here. "There may be more" doesn't carry much weight. –dlthewave ☎ 16:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: I see more sources, but none seem reliable. Did the two sources you saw appear reliable? Could you list them and tell is why they could be reliable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is I saw two (local) newspaper articles. Thus it has recived some press coverage, thus it has some notability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 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 delete. czar 22:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beast of Riber

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

Fails GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE search returned mostly fringe cryptozoological sources that cannot be used to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 21:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Roxy. (COI declaration: I ran the Derbyshire Biological Records Centre for over 20 years, collating tens of thousands of mammal records across the entire county. These eventually made their way into "The Mammals of Derbyshire" by Mallon et al. (2012). Whilst there have been various unusual reports of big animals in various places - and Riber Zoo did get the (possibly deserved) blame for a few unusual animal sightings/escapes here, I've no recollection of this moniker ever being given anything other than a passing media mention, unlike the Beast of Bolsover. Page 177 of The Mammals of Derbyshire is devoted to "Big Cats", and states Big cats are reported....from time to time, usually featuring prominently in the local press, when they may be awarded lurid names like the 'Beast of Bleaklow', 'Ashbourne Beast' etc. ...Not one of these reports has yet been backed up by any kind of hard evidence such as a photo, corpse or definite track.) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:13, 22 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 22:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrides blob

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

Non-notable news item with no lasting coverage or significance. WP:BEFORE search returned numerous fringe cryptozoological sources but not enough reliable sources to establish notability or write a quality article. –dlthewave ☎ 21:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: very limited coverage suggests a lack of significance and notability. Dunarc (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing any notabilitySlatersteven (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:13, 22 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.  JGHowes  talk 03:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sacha Nemcov

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

What a mess. Appears to have been moved from AfC by 2 (now) blocked editors. Absolutely non-notable. 3 bad sources available, a blog interview discussing cryptocurrency, a newspaper article discussing local pot laws that mentions him in passing, and another blog post that mentions him in passing once. Therefore fails GNG by not having any real coverage in reliable, independent sources. PK650 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When an article starts by touting someones "academic credentials" and those are from a for proffit institution, this is pretty much a sure sign that it is overly promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some minor coverage, interviewed as blogs, profile pages. Logs of blog entries. Mercury news. Nothing else that I can see. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 10:24, 22 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. If someone wants to transwiki this please let me know. Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek Starfleet starships

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

This is an extremely long list of in-universe minutia with no real world information that I can see. This is a list for fans, by fans that does not help the general reader. Any article linking here is simply dumping the readers into a mass list with very little utility. There exists Spacecraft in Star Trek, which can hold the small list of actual bluelink articles. I don't think there is any justification to go into such depth. TTN (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that recognized purpose is? TTN (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
informational. Lightburst (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An indiscriminate collection of original research and fancruft. All references are Wikipedia links linking to episode plots. Majority of starship links redirect back to this article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why do we have a list of every single ship in Starfleet? The vast majority of these ships only appeared in a handful of episodes. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research; non-notable trivia; not a useful navigation aid. Mostly unreferenced or referenced only to primary sources. (A list of notable starships would be appropriate.) Pburka (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Such lists are not encyclopedic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning towards keep On policy/guideline grounds, fictional starship lists typically get deleted because they are non-notable as a group (WP:LISTN). But Spacecraft in Star Trek already establishes notability of the group, and this list could now be argued to be a legitimate WP:SPINOUT: Nobody would object to have a complete list of starships within a well sourced spacecraft article, if it wasn't for Star Trek having so many and needing more space. On the other hand, I realize that a separate plot-only list could be construed as fancruft, so make of that what you will. – sgeureka t•c 07:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-canonical fancruft. Does it get any lower than that? As the nominator has noted, there's already Spacecraft in Star Trek. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Heavy fancruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. yes, some of this is obscure, but it is canonical, as all of these did appear on screen. we have articles for every episode of Friends, every video game, every comic book, plus articles for Japanese anime, old records from the 1970s. etc etc. so why not this data as well? --Sm8900 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article explicitly states that much of it is based on non-canonical sources. Also, we don't have articles on every video game and comic book, and besides WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mix of ships seen on screen (film and television) and ships named in tie-in fiction, comics, video games, etc. No criteria explaining which named ships are included and why. Rdzogschen (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Wikipedia has such stupid policies like deleting useful information, I will not contribute ANY MORE MONEY. Mass storage is now extremely cheap, so there is no excuse for deleting useful information. I blast the argument “Such lists are not encyclopedic” into the water, as many entries in various encyclopaedia can be considered to be lists/contain lists.

As for the argument that “This is a list for fans, by fans that does not help the general reader”, that could be used for any article in any specialised subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.95.183 (talk) 08:01, 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. czar 22:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Tootsi

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

Was thinking of doing an A7, but decided to bring to AfD to get a broader view. A WP:BEFORE gives no real RS on her outside of blogs/instagram accounts/commercial art sites (luckily, her name gives a very distinctive search term). I can't see any case for GNG here. There are claims in the article that she was a "director" on various Estonian realty tv-shows, but I can't find much on her, and I think she was probably one of several directors on these programs. Britishfinance (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A search found a couple of minor mentions of the subject. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. As of now, however, it fails to meet notability guidelines and does not pass WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I found a few (minor) mentions through search, but nothing of any real substance. Agree that it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has written a book, with mention in Postimees, the Estonian daily newspaper. In time, a possible Wiki article, but I don't think she meets notability yet. ExRat (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only a few sources in one publication for her book, and no RS found for her work on TV shows, etc. If she writes more books and gets more reviews of them, she may become notable, but for now, WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:48, 22 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! 09:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Wolfe

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

Simply non-notable. Only found 2 sources about him. The first one, from the York Dispatch is a decent one, but doesn't go anywhere near establishing notability, given its local nature, and it being the only "good" source I found. The second one merely says in passing that he was fined $10,000. So no notability claim (being a pit crew chief isn't included in any racing guideline I could find), and no sources to back any ad hoc claim either. PK650 (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:36, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 09:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vee Kapoor

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

Fails GNG and NMUSIC. Only weak source I could find was this one, which doesn't look reliable. In any case he doesn't appear to fulfill any of the notability criteria, and yes, I did take into account his Hindi name. PK650 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:12, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 09:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent Hands

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

The subject may be notable, but this doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article at all, and is likely some for of covert advertising. It is worth noting that this was draftified, but moved back to mainspace by the creator. Stubbing is pointless as it'll likely lead to this being speedied under A7. Adam9007 (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - yes, this is confirmed undisclosed paid editing. MER-C 20:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:10, 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 Swedish Bikini Team#Members of the team. WP:ATD-R czar 22:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Trentini

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

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NACTOR. None of her roles are significant, book not significant, no SIGCOV of any kind Rogermx (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage, only provided source is IMDb. Quick search does not show any reliable sources to support notability of this actor/author. ~riley (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete The only sourcing is to IMDb. Wikipedia is not supposed to mirror IMDb. Beyond that, her roles and modeling nowhere comes close to rising to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, probably, to Swedish Bikini Team. I can find some sources which include info that is not currently in the article, such as an article in the Los Angeles Times in 1982 about radio stations [7] that describes a TV commercial for KPRI with Peggy Trentini in a cutoff Tshirt, which was ruled unsuitable for broadcast before 9pm, and then reported on in newspapers and TV news: "They made her into an instant celebrity ... we held several Peggy parties .. We printed up 5,000 full-color posters of Peggy ...". A Philadelphia Daily News article from 2012 [8] has an article about the Swedish Bikini Team, of which she was a member, and with which she appeared on the cover of Playboy - and this article has a sub-article (I'm sure there's a proper name for that) about Peggy Trentini, how she won a part in that team, other things she appeared in, including Vampirella, Desirable Liaisons, and a Carson Art Player on The Tonight Show (they are in the article, so could be sourced). The Telegraph (UK) has a bit about her in an article called "What it's really like to be a Playboy cover girl" [9] (though it's mostly quotes from her) and The Mirror (UK) has a bit about her in "When celebrities cash-in on their loved ones deepest, darkest secrets" [10]. These are not quite enough for WP:SIGCOV or WP:BASIC - with a few more sources about her it might be, but for now, redirection to a notable group she was part of seems the best solution. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As nominator, I agree with Redirect. I want to thank RebeccaGreen for all the research she did on this subject. Rogermx (talk) 14:13, 22 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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Brock

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 02:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
\

Delete. The article is on the verge of being a stub, isn't entirely neutral, and as a quick Google search will note, Brock isn't particularly noteworthy. Dictator Black (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article was in a strange state, as additions by WP:SPA Jasonpetersuk had turned it into a how-to article promoting a "Brock Initiative" wrapped inside a pre-existing biography. The main body of these additions was a WP:COPYVIO which I have removed. A substantial part of what remains can probably also be considered a WP:COPYVIO: see the Mission section of [11]. AllyD (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As executive producer and producer on Life on Earth, The Living Planet, Wildlife on One, Natural World, and others, he certainly meets WP:CREATIVE#3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There are reviews of these series, and episodes within them, describing them as "Richard Brock's film", "Richard Brock's documentary", etc. The article certainly needs work, as it represent the body of work for which he is notable in just one sentence - the second and third paras could be deleted, and his work expanded, with sources from The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Stage, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:13, 30 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 22:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arsura River

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

"Arsura River" is a disambiguation page that was restored from redirect on 3 December after this RfD. Two links to articles that were both deleted after proposed deletion on 12 December. Concern was that there was no evidence that these streams exist, and if they exist, they do not meet notability criteria. This disambiguation page would meet speedy deletion criterion WP:G14, but this was contested. Markussep Talk 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'd be interested to hear what the participants in the recent RFD have to say. Pinging @Shhhnotsoloud, Tavix, and Thryduulf. - Eureka Lott 03:19, 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 delete. czar 22:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysical Astronomy

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

WP:TOOSOON at the very least. The article is in the form of an essay or original research. The term itself was coined two years ago and hardly picked up anywhere. Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the above comments. Aldebarium (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism and horrifically bad sourcing. Neutralitytalk 22:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we do not help popularized new terms, nor do we publish original research. Everybody in 2019 knows that. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as in its current form, seems to be an essay more than anything. Even if it wasn't written like an essay, I can't find more than one or two notable sources on this. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it might be a notable term ([12], [13]), but all of the articles were published before its supposed coining. A term by the name of 'metaphysical astronomy' could be notable, but the one that could be notable isn't this one. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 21:26, 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 keep. While the article presents as a brief definition, there was a consensus, supported by sources, that the topic is sufficiently broad on which to develop a more substantive Wikipedia article. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denunciation

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 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 22:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meenatchi Gopal

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

Subject is a non-notable local organiser of an art collective and a political campaigner. Article created by her husband, Selin George (see original version of the creator's user page), so a conflict of interest on his part. DavidCane (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did not do a search, as this looks to be a GNG fail on first glance. If anyone finds anything, I am willing to be swayed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither being president of a local organization nor running as a candidate in an election the person did not win is grounds for a Wikipedia article — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and the notability test for presidents of organizations is passing WP:GNG on the sourcing. But this is referenced much more to primary sources rather than reliable or notability-supporting media coverage — she (and/or her husband) is the author of nearly half the footnotes here, not the subject of them, and then two more after that are the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations. And the three remaining sources that are actually real media aren't about her either, but just glancingly mention her name in the process of being about other things. This is not how you make a person notable enough for inclusion — and even if she were notable, her husband writing the article himself still wouldn't be the way to get her in the door per WP:COI. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see any evidence of being an artist. I don't like shipping my thinking out but the work has been done. scope_creepTalk 09:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. This is by far the worst case I've seen of WP:NOTINHERITED in 17 years, mixed in with for the children and poured onto a soap box. She "is currently the President of ... the founder of ... a member of ... the second daughter of India's eminent artist (K.M. Gopal who doesn't have an article although his co-op Cholamandal Artists' Village does, and "still fighting for her family membership") ... learned art from her father until his death ... worked for companies such as ... has continuously pursued art as her passion since childhood ... [took a bunch of art classes] ... reinstated Kalaimaiyam, which was an art collective ... founded Gochi Academy ... to encourage creative arts among young audience.(sic.) ... emphasizes creativity over technique ... stood for ... has supported many social and welfare activities where a community voice is needed." (emphasis added.) Bearian (talk) 20:28, 18 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 22:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain fennec

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

Could not find any reliable-source coverage; the only citations in the article were unverified "personal communication" with a biologist and a personal blog which was copied from the Wikipedia article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Literally nothing to see here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of cyptozoology mentions saying it's a maybe. Nothing to see...move along please. Non-notable non-species. It can always be recreated if somebody proves something in the future and gives it the same "common name". (Don't get me started on common names for rare things!) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverifiable, made up in a day, and original research. Closing admin has cover from me to salt this stupid page. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much more to add.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a Dr. K. de Smet, coauthor for a few works and doctoral thesis on distribution of mammals in Algeria[14] cited a bit. Can't find that he published on the critter tho.—eric 15:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources.-Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 22 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 21:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Viktorovich Ivanov

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

He never played in the league that is qualified as fully-professional in WP:FPL and therefore does not pass notability criteria set in WP:NFOOTY. The prod was deleted with the comment saying that FC Lada Togliatti played in the fully-professional Russian First Division in 2000. That is accurate, but Ivanov himself was just on Lada's roster that year and did not play in any games himself. See http://footballfacts.ru/players/18177-ivanov-andrej-viktorovich for confirmation. He only played in non-fully-professional third tier and below. Geregen2 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:41, 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 21:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Reeves

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

The source was an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate and appears to have no other notability. DavidCane (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom I attempted to have this speedy-deleted when it was created, but that was disputed. Jerry (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no sign of notability, only a candidate in the past election, shouldn't have been allowed to stay in the encyclopedia this long. PamD 12:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this does not demonstrate that she has preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten her an article independently of the candidacy, and is not referenced to anything even remotely approaching the depth and range and volume of coverage she would have to have to make her candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people do not become notable merely by running for public office, it is in holding public office they become notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable individual. Her only claim to fame is being an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate. Once again, candidates don't get articles for only being candidates. They have to have done something more significant or have won. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Had her vote reduced by 6.5% on 69% turnout, failing to get in. Non-notable. scope_creepTalk 09:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - run of the mill candidate who lost in a landslide. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 18 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 21:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extrajudicial Executions and Assasinations

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

Extrajudicial killings and assassinations are two distinct concepts, as evidenced by us having two separate articles for them. There is no need to have a disambiguation page for the combination of these two concepts, and redirecting this page to one or the other of them would be inappropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This doesn't seem to be a helpful redirect disambiguation (not to mention that it is incorrectly in title case).—ShelfSkewed Talk 18:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Serves no useful purpose. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Serves no useful purpose. Otto (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Putting the word "and" between two different article titles and then creating a page to disambiguate them is helping no-one. I'd suggest WP:SNOW but someone clearly thought there was enough purpose in the article to remove a PROD so maybe we should let it run its course. Lithopsian (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW, and salt. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there are chances to create a meaningful article. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 13:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:05, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 09:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derro (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

D&D monster/race. No evidence of real-world notability, and no third-party sources cited (or found after a search). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:25, 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing (2007 film)

Crossing (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The notability claim here is that it had Leo Award nominations, but those are a regional film award, not a national one, so it would be fine to mention in a properly sourced article but is not an "inherent" notability clincher in and of itself in the absence of any solid sources. But the only real source being cited here at all is the film's IMDb entry, which is not a notability-making source — the other two sources don't actually have anything to do with this film at all, but are being used to pad the article with content about other films the director made after this one, and even on a ProQuest search I was only able to find one review in Vancouver's local newspaper, which is not enough critical attention to get it over the "reviewed by film critics" criterion. And furthermore, the article was created by an editor whose username strongly implies a direct connection to the production company that made the film, a clear conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:08, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 09:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Animus (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

D&D monster. Interesting topic, but no evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:18, 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 and redirect to Cthulhu Mythos deities#Lu-Kthu. Spartaz Humbug! 09:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lu-Kthu

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

This another example of a non-notable entity that was inspired by Lovecraft's works. There are no academic or journalistic sources that meaningfully discuss the character or the story that it appears in. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:17, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 09:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

West Indies Yacht Club

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

Article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG as well as WP:SIGCOV. Only listings appear to be in directories with no in depth coverage. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given it's history and size, I would expect to find more sources, but I am too busy to look myself right now. So a tentative "keep" for now. --Bduke (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bduke: That's the whole issue there aren't very many sources other than their own website or directory listings. There isn't significant coverage as far as I can tell. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 07:25, 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 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Merge anything sourced. Spartaz Humbug! 09:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aarakocra

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

Fictional race from D&D. Significant within some campaign settings, but no evidence of real-world notability. A couple of hits on Google Scholar, but one isn't a third-party source, the is a passing mention. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see why the merge target should be here either. It will end up at AfD sooner or later. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of avian humanoids#Fiction while it is not notable enough for an article, it does have at least enough mentions in RS to confirm their existence.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as above. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While I suppose I wouldn't be completely opposed to Zxcvbnm's suggestion of giving it a mention on the List of avian humanoids#Fiction, I really don't feel that the one passing comment in the source brought up by the nom is enough coverage that this is necessary. Searching for references beyond that turn up the usual collection of primary sources and mentions without any actual coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there's to be a merge or redirect, I support it being to the D&D list, and not to the article on avian humanoids - though maybe a mention there is appropriate anyway. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:23, 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 Cox Enterprises. MBisanz talk 12:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander C. Taylor

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

nominating for a deletion and redirect after trying to boldly redirect it. There is no evidence that Alexander Taylor is notable independent of his position on several boards/as CEO. There is no in depth coverage and his name is generally only mentioned in passing or as a part of standard business publications. Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. @Praxidicae: Not saying you are wrong but Taylor is the president and CEO of Cox Enterprises, a notable company. Its chair James C. Kennedy has its own page. Why do you think Kennedy should have it but Taylor should not? castorbailey (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -from what I can see, he probably meets WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearian, I see 9 results from news. 1 is the press release for his becoming COO, 2 & 3 are local news articles about that and his joining the company's board. 4 & 5 are about his grandma giving away her money. 6 is the announcement of his joining the board in his college newspaper. 7 is about Taylor Swift and Lamar Alexander. 8 is about Vanderbilt, his alma mater, whose board he is on. 9 is about wealthy American dynasties and mentions his name. What are you seeing? --valereee (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.He's new as CEO but with family ownership he will be among the richest and most powerful for a long time.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No desire as yet to Delete, however, the specific RS that would confirm GNG have not yet been provided at this AfD; a non-notable CEO of a notable CORP is likely to become a ReDirect; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of claims that he's notable but no one has provided any actual sources to establish that he is actually notable. Having a job (and being "rich") does not make one notable, nor does being in the family business. He doesn't have any coverage of him as an individual. Praxidicae (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cox Enterprises. Being a COO isn't enough to show notability. Maybe he'll become notable, but right now he's just a CEO who serves on some charitable foundation boards just like every other COO/CEO. --valereee (talk) 16:28, 30 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 20:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Cvitičanin

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

Completely unreferenced article about a filmmaker, not even attempting to make any discernible notability claim whatsoever. As always, filmmakers are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists; they need to show evidence of their significance as filmmakers. But this literally just states that he exists and cites zero sources at all, the only referencing it ever cited in the past was the subject's own self-published website about himself rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage in real media, and the page was created by an editor whose username and editing history suggest the possibility of a direct conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 08:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adhora Khan

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

Failed WP:NACTOR

  1. Has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has not a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
  4. Has no notable awards or nominations. ~Moheen (keep talking) 17:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has enough sourcing to demonstrate that Khan meets WP:GNG. It also shows she has had two significant roles in notable films, so I believe she does meet the first criteria of WP:NACTOR, and she has been cast in two more roles in upcoming films, see [15]. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: (all sorts of WP:ANI stuff going on): Delete or draftify: (Subject to references) article creator self-removed a validly created CSD tad as opposed to validly contesting it. Most references appear to be in Bengali, without even a title translate to English in the citation. and while it is acceptable to use non English references it is difficult for those not proficient in the language to scrutinise the source. The only English Language source given appears to be for an upcoming film and therefore not acceptable for WP:RS as I recall. For article retention can I suggest per WP:THREE the three most suitable sources are presented here with sufficient evidence in English to prove their satisifaction of WP:RS. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC):Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Djm-leighpark:, where did the article creator remove a CSD tag? I can't see the article being tagged for CSD in its history. Also, as you point out, there is no requirement for sources to be in English, so how can you use the fact that they are in Bengali to ignore them? If you want to read the sources, you can use Google translate on the online ones. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to all there was no CSD on this particular article and please WP:TROUT me on this and thankyou for pointing it out. In terms of non-English language sources, I believe without looking up guidelines/policies there is a preference to use English-language sources when available for the English Wikipedia. It is obviously far more difficult for me to scrutinize foreign language sources to check for press releases, conflict of interest, etc, etc. Google translate can be far more problematic and may not handle larger documents. Because of this I certainly don't want to waste my time scrutinizing multiple documents. As I say the creator couldn't even be bothered to before a trans-title ... though at least gave a lang= parameter. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. this article enough sourcing on google to meet WP:GNG. I didn't find any reason for deletion. According to (here 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) all of news source are reliable source. an also she had two important roles in the notable film. she has acted in two more roles in the upcoming film. this article should not be deleted.-Nahal(T) 23:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for presenting your sources. I've checked the first three (as I said I would above), and they all seem to say she will apprear in a film so maybe WP:TOOSOON. On that basis I'n not changing my delete !vote. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This biography clearly fulfills these criteria as he She has received significant coverage in at least three leading mutually independent daily newspapers in Bangladesh. The concept of "WP:TOOSOON" applies when the basic criteria are not clearly met.-Nahal(T) 21:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't begin to accept your argument unless their is an official gender re-assignation. Can you point out the source in which that occurred. And I want the 3 specific sources designated .... not a vague go and guess them. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Naughty-naughty NahalAhmed Using this edit [16] to make me look like more of a stupid plonker than I am already am by changing the enrty. Striking one he and putting she would have been sufficient. We all make typos ... and I'm in the top 2%. The question here was by getting the gender incorrect was this a typo or had the articles been read correctly. What I am looking for here is not 9 sources too difficult for me to go throught but simply the 3 best sources that verify she is an established actress in published films say. In a waffley sort of way we may have this below but it is rather going a hard way about not demonstrating it conclusively.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for fixing that she/he with a strikeout. I'm almost certain if you presented just the 3 best sources or had the best sources first I might have !voted keep or at least weak week. As it is due to the ANI stuff I am staying out and neutral. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reminding me. I was mistakenly writing for using 'he' . wikipedia isn't not a competition, i just think that she is probably notable actress, that's way I've show on some reliable source with my point. If she work/acted only a single movie then I Would vote delete. she acted in two movies in the lead role. I have found bangladeshi relaible news source in google by her bengali name. Considering everything i do vote weak keep. If this article will delete or keep , nothing to do. as a volunteer i just share my opinion.-Nahal(T) 00:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Khan has only received press in February and October of 2018. Simply put under WP:N and applicable here, Khan fails to meet the requirement as she "has [failed to] receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[.]" Therefore, "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article." Dr42 (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see Kaler Kantho link "ছবিটিতে প্রধান দুই চরিত্রে অভিনয় করেছেন জনপ্রিয় নায়ক বাপ্পি চৌধুরী ও নবাগত নায়িকা অধরা খান।" (lit. translation:Bappy and introducing Adhora are the leading cast of Nayok) and Janakantha link "এ সময় চলচ্চিত্রের পরিচালক শাহীন সুমন, চিত্রনায়ক সাইমন সাদিক, নায়িকা অধরা খান, খল-অভিনেতা জয়রাজ, প্রযোজক শরীফ চৌধুরীসহ অনেকেই উপস্থিত ছিলেন। (lit trans. Adhora is the heroine of Matal). She is the lead actress in both films. And User:Dr42 please stop your WP:IDONTLIKE activities.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    These films do not have WP articles nor are they inherently notable. Can you produce any sources that these films are notable? The actors, simply because they are top-billed cast in a film that we know nothing about, are not automatically notable. This is not a difficult question. Look at everyone from Daniel Craig to Nicole Kidman. Those are articles of established film stars. Yours are stubs. They contain non-notable (per WP:GNG) films that don't even have WP articles themselves. Even if you look at a 13 year old actor you'll find an article with more sources and citations (see: Jacob Tremblay). All I'm saying is that you need to corroborate and substantiate your articles. For the third time -- this is not about personal attacks. This is about policy. Try focusing on the quality of articles, not the quantity of new articles. Dr42 (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dr42: there is no requirement that reliable sources have to be over a particular time period. Nor is the lack of a Wikipedia article a good way to decide a film is not notable - that is explicitly not how we decide notability in either direction. The fact that the current sources in the article are from two months is not a policy-based reason to delete this article. There are eight reliable sources in the article already. How does that fail WP:GNG? If you really want to make up a rule about the time over which the sources are spread, here's an interview from The Daily Star from December 2018. Or you could go back to this piece in the Daily Sun from August 2016. Or this from ARB News 24 from June this year. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are seven articles from October 2018 and one from February 2016. This, in my opinion, does not reach the bar set for WP:SIGCOV. This is less than a year of continuous coverage of a non-notable individual. Khan hardly has enough coverage to warrant more than a few sentences in the article. If Khan is so notable, why isn't there more information about him in the article? Again, per policy, Khan fails to meet the requirement as she "has [failed to] receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[.]" Therefore, "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article." Dr42 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Dr42: There are 11 sources, including the three I listed above. These span from 2016 to 2019, so your claim that there is less than a year of coverage is untrue. You have misread the eight (not seven) sources currently in the article - they range from February 2016 to October 2018. Even if that were not the case, there is no requirement in WP:SIGCOV for sources to extend over any given span of time. It simply does not say what you want it to say. She has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, over a range of three years. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are eight sources. Look at the current rendition of the article. Only eight sources. While I confess that I have no idea if they are reputable in Bangladesh, I can say without a doubt that 7 sources from October 2018 and one from February 2016 doesn't automatically push Khan into meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:SIGCOV or WP:N or WP:GNG. It's just not going to happen. The article itself consists of merely four sentences. Please, let us not pretend that this is a significant article worthy of fighting for when in reality, this deletion thread is already many times more than four sentences and no one has even edited the article to substantiate it or provide it with further sources or proof. This is my final word on the topic. It's not notable and vote is not changing. Dr42 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Mirror Cracked: the user @Dr42: has WP:IDONTLIKE on me. The user put paid article on this article. And even reverted my message thrice from talk page.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to continue to use the WP:IDONTLIKE excuse, at least understand what it means. As it says in the essay, "The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to describe what you "like" or "don't like"." I have, with every edit and tag I've contributed, done so with justification, corroboration, substantiation, and in line with policy and regulations. You, on the other hand, are seemingly stating that I've resorted to saying "I don't like it" or one of its variants. I've provided well-constructed logic and reason to my contributions pertaining to your articles just as I have across all of the other edits I've made on WP. This has nothing to do with you personally. This has to do with your articles -- especially this one, which merely consists of four sentences. Dr42 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [Deindent] @Dr42: your justifications here are unsupported by policy. You are wrong about WP:SIGCOV and WP:N and WP:GNG. Please don't claim that you are following policy when you are obviously not. Your claims above are not at all policy-based The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    According to @Dr42: a paid article may contain merely four sentences without any image?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Say what you will about your interpretation of WP policy, but it's clear that WP:SIGCOV, WP:N and WP:GNG are not met in this article. These policies are a unified set of guidelines that this four sentence vanity article clearly does not meet - "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." There are no sources that discuss Khan in detail. They are about the film and are cursory and trivial at best. Thus, per the above-mentioned policies, the article does not meet WP:GNG and doesn't even meet WP:NACTOR for the reasons given above. My vote is not changing. My vote remains unchanged and it is a resounding Delete since the "topic has [not] received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, [and] it is [not] presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". Dr42 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    These are hard to find because only these national arguments disregard Project:no personal attacks policy.-Nahal(T) 00:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. I have a low opinion of this article as I see it. But I currently don't intend to argue for either keeping or deleting, because the cited sources and most likely most or all of the sources that could be added are in a language I cannot read. However, I note that (i) although it's referred to above as a "vanity article" no evidence is provided for this being so (and the article is free of the sycophantic language that I associate with vanity articles), and (ii) although the article was and remains flagged with a template saying "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use", the talk page neither says anything about this nor refers the interested editor/reader to an explanation elsewhere. Dr42, why do you say that it is a vanity article? What evidence do you have to suggest that it was created for money? -- Hoary (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Answers. Based on the user's edit history and narrow focus, he seems to be cornering the creation of Bangladeshi articles for politicians and actors. I have a suspicion that this individual may be compensated for his work by either the Bangladeshi government, a union (or unions), or even a board of trade or tourism. It's mere speculation. That's why the word "may" is used in the sentence (i.e. "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments) (emphasis added)". It is merely a possibility. As for why I've determined that this is a vanity article, there was formerly an entire essay on vanity articles on WP if I recall correctly, but it's mostly been transferred to this page on COI. Based on the article creator's past, it seems that he has a penchant for a niche of articles as opposed to contributing to all areas of wikipedia. He has a very narrow scope. And that narrow scope of articles, consisting of mainly Bangladeshi politicians and actors, has unfortunately landed the user in hot water a few times. See user talk page, specifically here, here, here, here, and here. My suspicions are merely that: suspicions. That's why words such as "may" and "might" are used as opposed to definitive words such as "undoubtedly" or "provably". As to whether or not the article creator has a personal relationship or friendship that would be a COI we have no way of knowing. I am acting out of an abundance of caution based on the < 24 hours that I've seen this user in action, including the depths he will go to defend the articles he has created when they are simply not notable individuals. Again, if they are notable, and if they do meet GNG, so be it. But if the article has been created solely based on the person's existence without corroborating and substantiating proof, then that's what I think I'd call a vanity article because it serves one purpose -- vanity. It's a four sentence article about an actor that's not notable nor is she engaged in any work that's notable or falls under SIGCOV or GNG. That's really all I have to opine on the subject. Again, my vote is delete. It's a vanity article. The article creator has a narrow scope. And there's not much else to convince me otherwise. Dr42 (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On being paid: "It's mere speculation. [...] It is merely a possibility." On vanity: "My suspicions are merely that: suspicions. [...] [I]f the article has been created solely based on the person's existence without corroborating and substantiating proof, then that's what I think I'd call a vanity article because it serves one purpose -- vanity. [...] It's a vanity article." This is feeble stuff, Dr42. You claim to be "acting out of an abundance of caution", but you seem oddly incautious in questioning motivation. Please read and digest WP:AGF. -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoary please said to the user not to harass me. Today he put 4 CSDs (3 of them declined and another is Nimish Pilankar and 1 AfD (Pramod Khanna) on my articles. Even, alleged me with false allegations on WP:ANI.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoary please said to the user not to harass me. Today he put 4 CSDs (3 of them declined and another is Nimish Pilankar and 1 AfD (Pramod Khanna) on my articles. Even, alleged me with false allegations on WP:AN.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is about the article, not about its creator or any other editor. Also, your complaint is already at WP:ANI. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article meets WP:GNG but my concern is to add more English language sources. I have noticed only one particular source in English. Abishe (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reviewed/patrolled S. M. Nazmus Shakib's articles in the past and I am not convinced against the allegations against him. The user according to my knowledge has also created biographies about Indian politicians as well apart from Bangladesh related stuff. The right of creating articles related to their home nations cannot be questioned. Abishe (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the tags should be removed from the article despite of AfD. What are you thinking?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Khan meets WP:GNG. also meets WP:NACTOR (she has had two significant roles in notable films) Wm335td (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Wm335td (she does meet NACTOR), and NahalAhmed's sources above, plus two additional interviews with her that I have added to her BLP from the The Daily Star (Bangladesh) (the largest daily english paper in Bangladesh) here and here. No longer TOOSOON, she has arrived and is being interviewed by Bangladesh RS. Britishfinance (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: not convinced that just two roles, though significant, are enough to meet WP:NACTOR. I feel the article is a bit premature in this respect, but, at the same time, I'm hesitant to be too harsh on the article because it seems as though the actress will become more notable in the near future. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:31, 1 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. czar 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simonee Chichester

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

Poorly sourced article with some advertorial overtones about a filmmaker, with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The strongest notability claim here is that her first film got some audience votes at a single film festival for an award it did not actually win, and otherwise this just lists her other work without attempting to demonstrate that any of it was notable at all. And the only references are that non-winning film's IMDb profile and the film festival's deadlinked primary source list of all the films that got some votes, with no evidence whatsoever of any actual reliable source coverage about the film. As always, the notability test for a filmmaker is not just that she and her work exist -- it requires evidence of her importance as a filmmaker, such as winning notable film awards and/or having critical attention paid to her work in real media. And furthermore, the article was first created by a user named "Myfriendsimonee", so there was a clear conflict of interest here. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ミラP 18:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ミラP 18:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ミラP 18:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article lacks even one 3rd party, secondary reliable source providing substantial coverage, let alone the multiple ones GNG calls for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should have been speedied. Fails WP:BIO. No effective sourcing. scope_creepTalk 09:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I find mentions of her in other media and a book, they are mostly identical (the release of her documentary) and the remaining ones aren't enough to establish notability. Fails WP:BASIC. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:48, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 09:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chthon (Marvel Comics)

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

This fails to establish notability. There's some of the usual pop culture speculatory MCU articles, but those don't establish notability due to being trivial mentions. TTN (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:28, 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 redirect to Runaways (comics). Merge as required Spartaz Humbug! 09:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gibborim (comics)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:25, 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 redirect to Chuck E. Cheese (character). Content already merged with the target article (per AfD discussion); all that is left is to Redirect to the target (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Rat

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

Non notable could be summarised in one sentence at Chuck E. Cheese (character) instead Theroadislong (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:11, 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. I'll leave up the backlinks so that a redirect to Asgard (comics)#The six races can be created, if so desired. – sgeureka t•c 07:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giants (Marvel Comics)

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

Combo article of a few different Marvel topics, none of them notable on their own. The article doesn't establish notability as a whole either. The only real world information comes from the simple confirmation of a movie appearance, which doesn't lend to notability. TTN (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Asgard (comics). BOZ (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comiccruft. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comic book cruft that fails both WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not every concept in Marvel Comics needs a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete barely tangential to a notable topic. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let this page stay. While it does contain information to detail the different giants of Asgard, only Laufey and Ymir are the only giants who have pages on their site due to them being recurring enemies of Thor. If the decision is Merge, I suggest we go with what @BOZ: says and redirect it to the six races section like I had to do when the Trolls got merged there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:51, 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 Kanab Creek. Spartaz Humbug! 09:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nagles Crossing, Arizona

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

Non-notable area which fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a bit of retaliatory nom (along with 4 other articles) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr., which now seems to be headed for the deletion. And since this editor has never shown a propensity for Arizona geography articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND, since, according to GNIS it is has a "an official federally recognized name." Onel5969 TT me 03:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My !voting record and AfD participation is available for anyone to see. I participate on multiple AfDs across every subject. I am sure Onel5969 has acted in good faith in creating these many non-notable Geoland articles. Unfortunately the fifty or so articles must all be nominated since they do not come close to satisfying SNG or GNG. Since the many articles created are not Legally recognized per the SNG of WP:GEOLAND - they must then pass WP:GNG as Populated places without legal recognition. They clearly do not pass. Lightburst (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kanab Creek where I have added a mention of this named creek crossing. No indication it is a populated place (GEOLAND#1) despite having a entry in GNIS which included it because it was a location on a topographical map. It does not meet GNG per GEOLAND#2. MB 03:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence this creek crossing is a notable place; GNIS has incorrectly classified many crossings as populated places and that is still not basis for an article. Redirects are cheap, whatever, but this isn't covered in substantive sources. Reywas92Talk 09:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per MB, I can't find anything anywhere in my traditional searches. What's particularly damning about this - the road that crosses the Kanab at Nagles Crossing is called Magles Road on OSM and Google Maps, but at least the crossing has been reflected on topo maps since the 1950s. SportingFlyer T·C 00:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):
The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.
Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.
The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.
The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969 TT me 02:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 17:15, 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 redirect to Red Rock, Yavapai County, Arizona. Spartaz Humbug! 09:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwins Crossing, Arizona

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

Non-notable area which fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a bit of retaliatory nom (along with 4 other articles) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr., which now seems to be headed for the deletion. And since this editor has never shown a propensity for Arizona geography articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND, since, according to GNIS it is has a "an official federally recognized name." Onel5969 TT me 03:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My !voting record and AfD participation is available for anyone to see. I participate on multiple AfDs across every subject. I am sure Onel5969 has acted in good faith in creating these many non-notable Geoland articles. Unfortunately the fifty or so articles must all be nominated since they do not come close to satisfying SNG or GNG. Since the many articles created are not Legally recognized per the SNG of WP:GEOLAND - they must then pass WP:GNG as Populated places without legal recognition. They clearly do not pass. Lightburst (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Red Rock, Yavapai County, Arizona which is the target of Red Rock Crossing, for which Baldwins Crossing is an alternate name. No reason for two articles on the exact same place. MB 04:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect Source at Red Rock says this is the same crossing, which is not notable either. GNIS has incorrectly classified many crossings as populated places and that is still not basis for an article. Reywas92Talk 09:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):
The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.
Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.
The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.
The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969 TT me 02:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 17:15, 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. Since there is no confirmed sourcing for where this should be redirected Spartaz Humbug! 09:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohave Crossing, Arizona

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

Non-notable, area which fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a bit of retaliatory nom (along with 4 other articles) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr., which now seems to be headed for the deletion. And since this editor has never shown a propensity for Arizona geography articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND, since, according to GNIS it is has a "an official federally recognized name." Onel5969 TT me 03:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My !voting record and AfD participation is available for anyone to see. I participate on multiple AfDs across every subject. I am sure Onel5969 has acted in good faith in creating these many non-notable Geoland articles. Unfortunately the fifty or so articles must all be nominated since they do not come close to satisfying SNG or GNG. Since the many articles created are not Legally recognized per the SNG of WP:GEOLAND - they must then pass WP:GNG as Populated places without legal recognition. They clearly do not pass. Lightburst (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This is clearly not a populated place under GEOLAND#1, nor does it meet GNG as required under GEOLAND2. Searching indicates "Mohave Crossroads Shopping Center" in Bullhead City is sometimes confused with "Mohave Crossing". The actual "Mohave Crossing" is a point on maps about 15 miles north of Fort Mohave. I've found one source that says the ferry crossing of the Colorado River at Fort Mohave was commonly called Mojave Crossing (The Civil War in Arizona). So this may be an alternate name for Beale's Crossing, however the coordinates are off. Looking at satellite images, the coords given for Mohave Crossing just don't look like a likely place for any traveled path - it looks more likely that Mohave Crossing was at Fort Mohave. This should probably redirect to Beale's Crossing, but it would be nice to have another source to confirm that (and maybe some explanation of why the coordinates are wrong). MB 05:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence this river crossing is a notable place; GNIS has incorrectly classified many crossings as populated places and that is still not basis for an article. Unsure about this redirect possibility. Reywas92Talk 09:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):
The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.
Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.
The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.
The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969 TT me 02:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 17:14, 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. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VBS2 TNT applies but recreation of a better article is encouraged. Spartaz Humbug! 08:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VBS3

VBS3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable piece of software, with the article written under obvious COI. Fails WP:GNG and is mostly unsourced, aside from the ad-ridden features list (which also mostly relies on primary sources). Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Considerable current sourcing is primary. A lot of press releases or news clippings from the companies or militaries directly involved for the most part. I've added a trandition VG style source to the talk page. Of the three VBS entries, this one is probably closest to meeting the bar, but there's not much to work with to fully show GNG, and I don't think more is coming. Apparently VBS4 exists so any further news of VBS3 is unlikely.. -- ferret (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These seem to be article quality issues, not anything about topic notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Failing WP:GNG (or WP:NVG, for that matter) is not an article quality issue. The many, many article quality issues just mount on top of it additionally. Lordtobi (✉) 10:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but TNT each of these individually into a new article free of COI. Bohemia Interactive Simulations, VBS1, VBS2, VBS3 are each sprinkled with some secondary sources on top of comments in each individual AfD. The fact that the military is training with video game like software is notable as evidenced by the multiple news agencies reporting it (whichever version it happens to be). A single VBS series article would seem logical as the general use of the software (not the versions/updates themselves) appears to be what is notable. Perhaps there is another military video gaming trainig article out there to merge/redirect to, but I couldn't tell you where that is. -2pou (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 17:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on board with 2pou's TNT + merge suggestion. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple points to consider before deleting this page: VBS3 continues to be used for training worldwide. Just as an example, The U.S. Army signed a 5-year contract with BISim for VBS3 in 2017 [1] , which means it will still be used for training and they are continuing to fund improvements to VBS3 and the ADF just renewed for at least a year. This even as VBS4 was just released. [2] A quick search of Google Scholar shows VBS3 is used uses extensively for academic simulation research. While I think the page should remain and be improved on, I'd support a merge option for the VBS series. (User: R43flldde3) 14:40, 17 December 2019

References

  1. ^ See Mariana Iriarte "BISim to deliver VBS3 perpetual licenses for U.S. Army games for training program of record"
  2. ^ See Monch Training & Simulation Channel, "BISim Announces Newest Flagship Product,VBS4"
The above user, R43flldde3, has no edits outside of this topic area and their user page declares a conflict of interest. -- ferret (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

70.240.207.189 (talk) 21:24, 18 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. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VBS2 TNT applies but recreation of a better article is encouraged. Spartaz Humbug! 08:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VBS1

VBS1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable piece of software, with the article written under obvious COI. Fails WP:GNG and is mostly unsourced, aside from the ad-ridden customers list (which also mostly relies on primary sources). Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All current sourcing is primary. Press releases or news clippings from the companies directly involved. I found very few reliable sources that mentioned it, and usually in the context of mentioning it was a more military-oriented derivation of the game it was based on, Operation Flashpoint, or as a passing mention in pieces otherwise devoted to Flashpoint. For each of the entries, VBS1, VBS2, and VBS3, I have found maybe 1 solid source that could be considered indepth. On their own, I cannot find enough independent coverage to say GNG is met. -- ferret (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but TNT each of these individually into a new article free of COI. Bohemia Interactive Simulations, VBS1, VBS2, VBS3 are each sprinkled with some secondary sources on top of comments in each individual AfD. The fact that the military is training with video game like software is notable as evidenced by the multiple news agencies reporting it (whichever version it happens to be). A single VBS series article would seem logical as the general use of the software (not the versions/updates themselves) appears to be what is notable. Perhaps there is another military video gaming trainig article out there to merge/redirect to, but I couldn't tell you where that is. -2pou (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 17:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

70.240.207.189 (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reckon it's "Virtual Battlespace". Lordtobi (✉) 13:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They seemed to have used both "battlespace" and "battlefield systems", but both of the domains they previously used for PR seem to be dead/parked now. -- ferret (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through sources, it seem they used Virtual Battlespace consistently since VBS2 and as recent as November. This name should be appropriate. Lordtobi (✉) 15:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense. If the decision is to merge everything to Virtual Battlespace with subsections for the three editions, I would be happy to stitch the history sections together. The best sources are currently clustered in VBS2 while the other two are mostly filler and routine press announcements, so VBS2 content might be the best starting point. Note that the features/technical sections are essentially gobblygook to me, and unsourced, so I would rather not be the only pair of eyes slicing those sections up. I would rather not just delete them myself, as I assume there are at least some useful wikilinks and terminology in there, which could be sourced over time. Formatting question: Separate infoboxes for each edition, in addition to a franchise infobox? 70.240.207.189 (talk) 16:51, 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 delete. czar 20:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivon Bartok

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:CREATIVE. The only notability claim in evidence here is that he and his work exist, and the references are (1) a user-generated fan discussion board for one of the shows he worked on, (2) a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person, on the non-notable and unreliable fansite of an actor who was in that same show, (3) a deadlinked primary source on the self-published website of a directly affiliated production company, and (4) the IMDb profile of a non-notable short film he produced. As always, the notability test for a filmmaker is not just that primary sources and fansites and IMDb offer technical verification of his existence, but requires evidence of his importance (e.g. notable film awards, significant critical attention paid to the films by real film critics in real media, etc.) -- but none of these references are reliable or notability-making sourcing at all, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 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 keep. No consensus to Delete with a strong consensus that the topic will be notable; on the balance between Keep vs. Redirect (the main consideration in such pre-notable event situations), the consensus was to Keep on the basis that the article already contains sufficient sourced information that is useful to readers. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Atlantic hurricane season

2020 Atlantic hurricane season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TOOSOON. There has been constant edit warring as to whether this article should stay or not and it is finally time that there is a definitive answer. Thanks. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 2020 is almost here, so a preliminary article about the 2020 Hurricane Season is justified if it contains the first forecast for the upcoming season. The creation date for previous seasons was around now for this reason, see for instance these Hurricane Season histories: Season 2019 created on Dec. 11, 2018 and Season 2018 created on December 7, 2017. Furthermore, this is exactly the same as for 2020 Summer Olympics which is more than 7 months away and has an article. It is quite ironic that the same Users argue year after year for the date of creation and end up creating it by the middle of December! Pierre cb (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Protect - I do not personally see the need to create the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season article yet, as I can not see it being populated with any major content for a couple of months yet unless a system develops off season. I note that a few predictions about the season from TSR and CSU have come out already and that the list of names are known, however, I do not feel that it is that important to have an article on the season until April 2020 when more predictions come out. I would also suggest that we protect the article in order to ensure that it isnt recreated until April, as we have had several editors recreate the article at the wrong time.Jason Rees (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (for now) - there can't be anything meaningful said about this topic without violating WP:CRYSTAL. Agricolae (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. That is absolutely the case here. WP:CRYSTAL means we should avoid speculating about future events, but here we have a list of names and a sourced prediction, and even if there are somehow no tropical storms next summer the topic will still be notable. Total waste of time nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: The nomination doesn't mention WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Willbb234: Another !voter mentioned WP:CRYSTAL. The nomination only references WP:TOOSOON, which is an essay. This is now a notable topic and it shouldn't be deleted, only to recreate it again in what, two weeks? SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see why we need to recreate it in two weeks time when the season doesnt offically start until June 1 and we only have 1 prediction that gives numbers. Personally when further predictions are released with numbers in April seems about right time unless a system happens to develop in the mean time.Jason Rees (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as I've noted below, in two weeks this becomes the active season (even though it's not "official" until 1 June) so any "it's in the future" arguments become moot. SportingFlyer T·C 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's coming, unless the world ends in the next 16 days six months, so why are we bothering to waste our time? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need an article on the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season this early when it doesn't start until June 1? Jason Rees (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because we're two weeks away from having the season be the active season, and as I noted above we're allowed to have articles if the topic is notable and almost certain to take place. There's no reason not to have an article on the nearly-active season at this point, even though it's just a list of names and a prediction. SportingFlyer T·C 19:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect If going by the list of names is all we need, then we should have articles for hurricane seasons all the way out to 2024. The list of names at Tropical cyclone naming#North Atlantic Ocean is perfectly adequate for now. Aside from the names, we only have one seasonal outlook, and having an article based on that could violate WP:CRYSTAL. For the same reason we don't currently have Tornadoes of 2020, nor should we until at least January 1, even though there will certainly be tornadoes next year. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is more than just the naming list. Having the one seasonal outlook is enough content for me. It won't be a WP:CRYSTAL violation, as we know that the season will begin next June 1st. If there are no storms, then the 2020 article will discuss the historic aberration of having no storms in a season. Barring that, the article should be kept and developed organically as more information develops. Every year around this time we create the next season's article, usually when the first forecasts happens. That happened in on 12/11/2018 for 2019's article, 12/7/2017 for 2018's article. There was an RFD in 2016 for the 2017 AHS article, which agreed that the article should be created based on the existence of the seasonal forecasts, as well as a lengthy discussion on the talk page whether to make the article (which wasn't exactly resolved, instead it led to a lot of discussion). I don't want there to be another discussion in the near future of when it's appropriate to make the article for a scheduled recurring event, especially as we have the first forecast out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that WP:Crystal doesn't apply to the the list of names and official beginning of the season on June 1st, but what of the TSR forecast? It seems that forecast is the only reason this article isn't just a redirect. I've always been iffy on creating these articles on the basis of forecasts. Also WP:OSE applies here; perhaps starting past hurricane season articles early was misguided. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why would WP:CRYSTAL apply to the forecast? SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you get down to the basics, it's a weather forecast. It may come from an expert source, but weather forecasts aren't exactly well-known for their accuracy. Should we be starting articles on this basis any more than we should start tornado outbreak articles based on SPC outlooks? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it's a forecast is irrelevant, it's still a source which specifically discusses the 2020 hurricane season. When would you suggest creating this article? SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the absolute earliest, January 1. I'm pretty much neutral to possibly starting it later. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could see waiting until June 1 or the formation of the first depression, whichever comes first, but that may be confusing the people searching for information. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you trying to institute some sort of rule for the earliest the article can be created? Articles for future Olympics were created because of the possibility of future bids being made, due to the preparations that must be made ahead of time. Wikipedia documents those preparations and the beforehand work as humans prepare for our inevitable future. There will be a 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. According to TSR, it will be fairly active. Yes, I think a single source discussing a future season merits creating the article, as it will be the first of many (based on many years of precedent). As for waiting til June 1 as opposed to January 1, consider this: since Wikipedia was created, 11 out of 19 seasons had a pre-season storm. If we wait until the first storms, we are too late for curious readers who want to know whatever there is to know about a future event. We know what naming list there will be, and we know when the season will officially begin. Do you disagree with any of this assessment? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Base: as said before, WP:CRYSTAL was never mentioned in the nomination. Please read properly and re consider. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Willbb234, hi Will, WP:TOOSOON dosent apply here either as Pierre cb stated Season 2019 created on Dec. 11, 2018 and Season 2018 created on December 7, 2017, so there is no problem if the 2020 season is created in December 2019. Andrew Base (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Base: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Willbb234:, Will there are more reasons why the article should be kept:
  1. It is a notable topic and it is highly unlikely there will be no storms next year, even if there are no storms the topic will still be notable.
  2. For example the 2030 FIFA World Cup article exists because the topic is notable even though there may not be enough sources at this time, same applies here.
For this reasons I think the article should be kept and shouldn't have been nominated for deletion. Andrew Base (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the looks of it, there is more information on the 2030 FIFA World cup than there is on the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. There is plenty of information on bids by various countries. All we have for the hurricanes is a list of names, which only justifies inclusion at Tropical cyclone naming#North Atlantic Ocean and one weather forecast, which should not be the basis for an article. The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season will be notable and will get an article whether storms form or not, but it is certain that we won't get any of them until 2020. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Willbb234: Comment WP:CRYSTAL was not part of the original nomination, but it is part of the discussion. Both I and another user brought it up as possible reasons for deleting/redirecting. It, along with WP:TOOSOON needs to be addressed by editors arguing for keeping the article. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS: ok, but CRYSTAL cannot be used by keepers as it was never part of the original nomination, so is an illegitimate justification. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, we are not limited to discussing only the argument in the nomination in determining a consensus about whether an article should be kept at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 18:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How could this possibly be WP:TOOSOON? The 2019 page was made in 2013, redirected for a few years, and made into an article in NOVEMBER of 2018! The 2018 page was similar with the redirects and branched out into an article in November of the year before as well. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Redirecting is fine, but otherwise those articles were started too soon as well. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been stated before that we make hurricane season articles once the first prediction is released. TSR just released theirs. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 17:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneGonzalo: But should we? Does starting an article based on a weather prediction violate WP:CRYSTAL? TornadoLGS (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS: But it is also stated Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 20:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneGonzalo: Is the TSR prediction almost certain to be correct? Yes, the names are already chosen, but that doesn't justify having this page any more than it does having an article for the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. So they key issue is really the forecast. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS: I am afraid you have misread my comment, as I had seen coming. I am not saying that their prediction is certain. I am saying that the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season is an event that is certain to occur, and therefore does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. WP:OTHERSTUFF does not apply here either, in your argument. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 21:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind everybody that during the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season, the first system was on January 12th. This whole discussion about went to begin an article for a hurricane season is completely irrelevant: There will be a 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, it can begin anytime after December 31st, 2019 (which is two weeks away), and it is better be prepared for it than be caught with our pants down! Pierre cb (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now WP:RUSH Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Clarityfiend and Hurricanehink - unless Donald Trump, Sr. causes nuclear winter to avoid his impeachment and removal, scientific consensus is this will almost certainly happen in two to nine months' time. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know this is basically a snow keep now, but I just wanted to add that I looked at the history of the 2017, 2018, and 2019 articles. All of them existed before this date and were never nominated for deletion. I am not trying to harsh on the nominator, but please keep in mind in periodic articles like this it is a good idea to look at the same articles in other periods and see when they were created and if they were nominated for deletion because of a too soon date. This is also a good way to determine if an article not yet in existence should be in existence for the next cycle. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Previous seasons have always been created in or around this time period. With that in mind and atleast one prediction out for the season, I see no real reason to wait all the way until April to create it. -Sdslayer100 (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect at least until the beginning of 2020. Not gonna change any minds at this point, but I don't think having a handful of numbers is a good enough reason to have an article even earlier than five months in advance of the official season. Master of Time (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on procedural grounds as the nomination statement does not advance any applicable arguments for deletion. I'd also firmly reject the suggestion of taking any action with the expectation of reverting it within two weeks' time. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We are getting seasonal forecasts now and we know there will be a 2020 AHS. Even in the quietest years, storms do form. No crystal ball here. CrazyC83 (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. While I'm still rather iffy on the idea of starting these articles on the basis of seasonal forecasts, I can see the writing on the wall. We might as well go ahead with a snowball keep. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep there's really no point in deleting/redirecting it now. Not really any policy-based reasons to not keep here. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 03:23, 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 merge to Spokane County, Washington. (non-admin closure) -Nahal(T) 19:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spokane Regional Transportation Council

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

Non-notable local city government entity. Hasn't generated any non-routine coverage. Coverage mostly consists of transportation notices, bid requests, etc. Sourced only to the organization's own website. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Considered a redirect to Spokane County, Washington, but not mentioned there and not likely to be suitable to be mentioned there. Hog Farm (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Spokane County, Washington. Generally an MPO is notable and should get secondary coverage, but when it's completely within a single county it might be mis-classified as being part of the county government. It will need a bit of explanation in the merged article, which I have started. SounderBruce 06:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:30, 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 15:35, 22 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! 09:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Selections in the Eurovision Song Contest

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

This article has been waiting in the Draft queue for several months. I cannot decide whether or not it duplicates the material in List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest.Since it's not my field, and it's unfair to leave it in limbo, I accepted it, bit only for the purpose of bringing it here so that those who know more than I in this field can decide what to do with it. Myself, I'm offering no opinion. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I find the article a bit unwieldy and borderline wp:fancruft. I'm not sure it presents any information that's particularly useful outside of a comparison of selection events. I think an article or couple of paragraphs on Eurovision Song Contest can talk about how entrants are selected at a high level, but I don't think a list/timeline is the best way to present that information. Each Country in article can detail the respective selection procedures with a greater level of detail Grk1011 (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grk above. Each country participating has its dedicated article, while this article just feels scopeless. The concept of a "national final" is also not exclusive to Eurovision. Best we could do here is a navbox template. Lordtobi (✉) 17:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the nomination is neutral and one of the other !votes is a weak delete I'd normally soft delete. However, given the history here that doesn't strike me as appropriate and so I am relisting in hopes that a clearer consensus can be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a reader, I find it useful and interesting to be able to compare the various countries and the methods they used to select their entrants, which parceling the info out to the Country in articles wouldn't accomplish. The article expands on List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest#Participants section with informative details that could not easily be added to the List article. It adds to the depth of our Eurovision coverage (which, even as an American, I know is A Big Deal). It doesn't seem like the article really fails or passes on any specific policy/guideline, so maybe it's just a case of WP:ILIKEIT, but there it is. Schazjmd (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find this article useful. Articles sources seems decent enough for inclusion. The article does expand the knowledge of Eurovision for interested readers. I think WP:GNG threshold met.BabbaQ (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to send this for a third relist given the extremely close support levels. I looked at making a judgement on policy strength/weakness, and certainly there are whispers of ILIKEIT, but there is sufficient consideration of points to warrant further consideration
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The good references pushes this article over the treshold for inclusion. I stand by my !vote and it does not include ILIKEIT.BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 18 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Stuart (Quaker)

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

This article is not notable. It fails WP:NPEOPLE. Interstellarity (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article could use improvement, but Stuart easily passes NPEOPLE, e.g. Wisbech Standard, BHO. Her legend is recounted at length in this online book (of which a free ebook is available.) HouseOfChange (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be reasonable decent historical article with sufficient sourcing. scope_creepTalk 09:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am working on cleaning up the article. I already removed a link to an article that only loosely connected to her.Will vote when finished. Leaning keep.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources still being added to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Notability:People. My major edits are complete, though I may play around with it further, as there seem to be more sources available. I found a surprising level of detail on her life considering it has all come about from oral histories. The article now focuses on facts of her life rather than their provenance. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (I already voted Keep above.) The article is now in better shape thanks to DiamondRemley39 but AfD is not cleanup. The bio subject clearly passes GNG. I suggest a speedy close rather than waiting for more SNOW to fall. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:10, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrii Ostapchuk

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Minor coverage, or press releases related to his club. scope_creepTalk 15:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The significance of the person is as a videoblogger and entrepreneur. There are authoritative sources on the profile media of Ukraine: Focus, Expert, etc. All spam from the article has already been cleared. 213.87.131.131 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User is a WP:SPA who has no idea what or how the notability criteria is applied. scope_creepTalk 16:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No RS have yet been provided at this AfD that would confirm GNG; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacking enough substantial coverage to establish GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, It lacks sufficient coverage to establish the direction of general importance.-Nahal(T) 23:30, 30 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) 16:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Color Man

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

Fails WP:GNG, I cant find any reliable sources. Andrew Base (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly delete: This article shows a lack of notability so it should be deleted as soon as possible.Kitaab Ka Kida (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable Youtuber. Some have argued we tend to delete too many internet related articles because of our insistence on sourcing. However considering that the birth year we have with the most articles connected to it, 1989, is so recent, I think the easier access to recent sources outweighs any effects of some professions not yet having good secondary source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 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 keep. I'm exhausted after reading this afd Spartaz Humbug! 09:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RevSpace

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

Doesn't meet WP:NORG

Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
https://www.nu.nl/internet/2997548/hackmeldpunt-vindt-richtlijn-ethisch-hacken-uit-balans.html Red XN Green tickY Question? Green tickY Red XN trivial coverage. Depth of coverage into RevSpace in specific is not substantial.
https://tweakers.net/nieuws/106069/onlineback-ups-hema-usb-sticks-waren-publiekelijk-toegankelijk.html Red XN Green tickY Question? Question? Red XN trivial coverage
https://www.nu.nl/internet/4155497/hema-haalt-usb-sticks-handel-ernstig-beveiligingslek.html Red XN Green tickY Question? Green tickY Red XN limited depth of coverage.
https://www.nycresistor.com/2019/01/12/hackerspace-envy-a-visit-to-revspace-in-the-hague/ Green tickY Question? Red XN Red XN Red XN Personal reflection/essay posted on group blog. Primary source and not reliably published.
anything from RevSpace page Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN obviously primary/self published
http://vice.com/nl/article/597za8/zawadi-verdient-in-korte-tijd-bakken-geld-door-multinationals-te-hacken Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is in-depth coverage about Zawadi who hacked and what happened to him and being sent to diversion. Not about RevSpace. The article doesn't devote significant details to the diversion program, so it doesn't appear to satissfy WP:ORGDEPTH
Hackaday Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Red XN "Hackaday is a blog which publishes several articles each day about hardware and software hacks." editorial oversightRSN:hackadaySee how contributor items are regarded in perennial srcs
Den Haag FM Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN "Den Haag FM Is the local radio from The Hague. " WP:AUD WP:DIVERSE, WP:ORGCRIT. Local coverage. They call it "Hague region" but keep in mind that entire Netherlands is about half the size of the US State of Maine, so "region" really means "local".
thesis/paper at http://www.scriptiesonline.uba.uva.nl/document/214401 Green tickY Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN personal interaction based. Not reliably published. "During the next ten months I was a regular guest of Revspace", so it's dependent.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/dutch_hackers_collective_wants_to_re_educate_infowar_hacktivists/ Red XN Question? Question? Green tickY Red XN The depth of coverage into RevSpace is rather trivial. Local companies sometimes come forward relating to the breaking news at the time. For example, when things out in the public are vandalized, local businesses that can repair it may come forward and their words maybe quoted. That would not count towards the notability of that business. This does not pass WP:SIGCOV.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2511821/hackers-rally-around-dutch-wikileaks-ddos-suspect.html Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN See WP:INHERITORG. The coverage focuses on the criminal; and though he was a member of RevSpace; it doesn't automatically inherit notability.
Total qualifying sources 0 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Graywalls (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Three sources (from Hackaday, Vice and Stadsomroep Den Haag) have been added since, which are independent, RS and have SIGCOV. Also, the first source you cite, about the Hackermeldpunt is a initiative of RevSpace where RevSpace members are being cited, so I count that as SIGCOV. The first tree sources are definitely RS, because they both have editorial oversight. See Tweakers and NU.nl. Update: the Den Haag FM reference is a 20 minutes recording about RevSpace, so it definitely qualifies for WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" The same can be said about Hackaday which has an article primarily about RevSpace. Also, in the GNG is stated the following about SIGCOV: "but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This is the case with the video about Zawadi, where the RevSpace part is not the main subject of the video, but it is more than a trivial mention. You state the following about NU.nl: "nu.nl doesn't appear in list of Dutch media and it appears to be a circulation of "limited interest", therefore falls short on significance.". I can present you this graph about the most visited news sites in The Netherlands published by the nl:Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek. Dwaro (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's in depth coverage and it's likely reliable and it would be fine for verifiability; however it doesn't meet significance for establishing notability, because it's a local press. It doesn't appear under articles within Media of the Netherlands. Naturally, local presses cover things that's most relevant to their locality in great depth. Per WP:ORGCRIT, greater emphasis is placed on the quality on articles about organizations and companies "follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals" Graywalls (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Significance refers to the depth of the article into the subject, not the significance of the source itself. At least the Den Haag FM recording and the Hackaday article are significant. The Hackaday article is a secondary source, because it is written by a journalist of them and uses the RevSpace participants as primary sources. Referring to "It doesn't appear under articles within Media of the Netherlands.", I'm not sure which source you are talking about. NU.nl is not included in that article because it neither is public/commercial TV or printed press. They only publish online and are the most popular (reliable and independent) online news source in the country. Dwaro (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you have to cross audience/circulation in evaluating notability for organizations/companies, to quote "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.". The school paper may have an extensive multi-page coverage ("significant") about a student body president, but the limited audience means it is significant in depth, but of "limited" circulation and interest, therefore insignificant for notability purposes. the NU.nl has only 630 views while The Oregonian has over 6,000 views, The Seattle Times has hver 9,000 and Mainichi Shimbun has over 3,000 views so that could also be an indication of limited interest. NU.nl's page view is less than my town's alternative weekly's page. Willamette_Week. Stadsomroep Den Haag has a mere 63 views per 30 days, so that maybe an indication of limited interest/circulation. Graywalls (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"that may be an indication of limited interest/circulation." That indication is proved wrong with the visitor count of the actual website, which can be found here. It states that NU.nl gets 7.1 million unique visitors every month, which makes it the largest news website in The Netherlands. You can read the English translation here. RevSpace and a project of their participants (Hackmeldpunt) get SIGCOV in that article and thus fulfills the requirement you cited. So, to summarize my current criticism on your table for per source: 1. NU.nl about Hackmeldpunt: it is SIGCOV because Hackmeldpunt is exclusively a RevSpace project. NU.nl is RS. 2. Tweakers article: this USB flash drive research took place within RevSpace and would probably not happened without RevSpace. The name may be a trivial mention in the article, but a source can be SIGCOV without it being the primary subject. To quote, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. ". Tweakers is also RS. 3. Second NU.nl article: same criticism as previous source. 4. Hackaday: This is SIGCOV, because the whole article is about RevSpace. The article is written and published by an independent entity. It uses the RevSpace participants as primary source, so it is a secondary source. 5. Den Haag FM: the recording is SIGCOV, it features a 20 minute discussion about RevSpace. 6. Several sources that have been added since are not included in this table, such as articles from security.nl, The Register, CSO Online by IDG and an academic MSc thesis which mentions RevSpace 44 times. Dwaro (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Case studies and such are regularly done for academic projects. I am not sure if academic thesis would constitute establishment of notability. Discuss that thesis on the talk page of the article. Graywalls (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not moving that to the talk page, because it should stay visible to other AfD participants. That academic source is significant, reliable, independent and secondary. What do you disagree with? You also included this discussion in the companies-related discussions, but RevSpace is not a company. It is a non-profit organization, which is clearly stated in the beginning of the article since it was made. Again, a new source has been added from the Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, while they film multiple minutes inside the RevSpace building. Dwaro (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is "that" academic source? Direct link please. Graywalls (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to this one. Dwaro (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nay on reliability establishment by that source. Graywalls (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Regarding the master's theses in general see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Masters_theses_as_reliable_source_for_notability_purposesGraywalls (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not evaluated this, this, and this source and also not incorporated any change since my criticism on the other sources, except the academic one. The first is published by Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, the second is Computerworld and the third one is The Register. Dwaro (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article references multiple independent, significant and reliable sources that clearly establish notability. To summarize: The organisation received dedicated coverage in a television report by the NOS, the main Dutch public news broadcaster. There are two articles published on Nu.nl (the top most-read news website of the Netherlands) centred entirely around the organisation and its initiatives. International publications such as The Register and Hackaday featured RevSpace on their platforms. The discovery of a security vulnerability in a data storage product sold by one of the Netherlands' largest retailers (HEMA) received nationwide coverage by various publications, such as the aforementioned Nu.nl and the popular technology website Tweakers.net. Another notable event generated by the organisation, the establishment of a hacker hotline, elicited significant coverage both national and abroad. As it currently stands I think this article could almost be considered as a stub. If anything it could do with some expansion, for which there seems to be ample potential.Thomastheo (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thomastheo:, without having English version of the video, I'm not able to see how much of the discussion goes into the organization RevSpace, so I'm not able to analyze this one. Did the reporter discuss in-depth on the organization itself? Graywalls (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My vote is still keep, but let's continue the debate here so it is clear that it happens after the relisting. I have commented on the noticeboard, see here. I argue that it is WP:RS because the thesis was supervised by Albert Benschop and the University of Amsterdam would definitely be accredited in a US context, it is listed as the 123th best university in the world. I see you updated the table with sources. I disagree with your evaluation about the The Register article. The article is primarily about the action that RevSpace took, and gives some further explanation on the actions of the criminal for context. For the Computerworld article, the same applies. To quote from WP:INHERITORG: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it.". Notice the merely. We have multiple sources about events initiated by RevSpace. RevSpace was maybe in that article associated with the event of the attack, but the article was primarily about their initiative of assisting someone in becoming more ethical. Dwaro (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply to comment Not disagreeing that it's reliable in the contents; however I maintain that it does not reliably establish notability. There's plenty of discussions in the noticeboard which shows plenty of precedent of higher level consensus regarding such sources. Graywalls (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Not disagreeing that it's reliable in the contents;". Okay, then you should update your table. The source is for sure reliable, secondary and independent. The author used RevSpace participants as a primary source, the thesis itself is a secondary source. He regularly visited the location for his analysis, which is useful or even required for a scientific thesis. That's not dependence. Please also comment on my other remarks. Dwaro (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The author directly visited RevSpace and interacted with them, and wrote his own research. This is what makes it a primary source. A zoologist could make repeated visits to a certain pet monkey in the course of writing a paper. Even if that paper is considered a break-through in science, that paper doesn't make the monkey notable no matter how extensively and reliably it documents things related to that monkey. This is entirely a different issue from whether what's written in that paper about the monkey is accurate or not. It's still not notable. If that monkey receives significant coverage in significant audience reach media about how much of an important role it had in the scientific discovery, then the monkey may indeed deserve its own page Graywalls (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This example is flawed. Paper about a monkey in a respected peer reviewed journal would be a perfect reliable source for notability (with usual exceptions eg. MERDS). Pavlor (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Graywalls has not replied to my criticism posted on 13:14, 14 December 2019 and 09:52, 18 December 2019, except for the academic source. I am convinced that the conclusion about several sources is currently incorrect. Dwaro (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources have been added to the chart. Except the NOS, which I'm unable to evaluate at this point since it's in a foreign language and transcription that I can feed into Google Translate is not available. Graywalls (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pavlor:, oh what I meant is that a peer reviewed journal about an investigation involving monkeys might deserve an article regarding the topic or the findings, but not about the specific Research monkey number 11 or the research animal keeping facility of Anytown University Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to examine the claims made in the table above. Firstly, with regard to the Nu.nl article, the assertion that it constitutes trivial coverage does not hold water, as the article is dedicated entirely to coverage of an initiative undertaken by RevSpace. It is further claimed that the circulation of Nu.nl needs to be taken into account, and therefore the article is 'of limited interest', thus falling short of significance. This assertion is demonstrably false, as the entity in question (Nu.nl) is the single most read news site in the Netherlands. Graywalls then claims that the article on Tweakers.net is trivial, failing to recognize that the entire article is focused solely on the reporting of an event that was generated by RevSpace, and also missing the fact that Tweakers.net is the most popular technology news site of the Netherlands. The third entry in the table, an independently published article concerning the same event, published by the aforementioned Nu.nl, is once again erroneously rejected as trivial, with no supporting arguments given as to why this would be so. The following entry, a blog post published by NYC resistor, an entirely independent organisation, is written off as 'obviously primary/self-published'. This claim is once again demonstrably false, as neither the author nor the organisation they belong to is in any way connected to RevSpace. The article published by Vice Magazine about a participant of RevSpace does indeed focus mainly on a subject beyond the scope of the article, although I would suggest that it still strengthens the claim of notability somewhat, as RevSpace remains relevant within the context of the article. The following entry, a publication on Hackaday.com, claims that this source is "a blog which publishes several articles each day about hardware and software hacks, and is therefore an issue of limited interest" as per the guidelines on notability with regard to audience. I cannot follow the logic of this claim. Hackaday is one of the most respected and popular weblogs in the field of technology and hacking, with a wide international readership and a large active community. The next entry, the radio interview broadcast by Den Haag FM, is written off as local coverage. According to Graywalls, due to the fact that the Netherlands is smaller than half the size of a US state, the concept of 'region' somehow does not apply. I am unsure as to what is being suggested here, but it certainly does not appear to be a valid argument. The entry that follows, regarding an academic publication featuring extensive mentions of RevSpace in a manner central to its subject, is dismissed as unreliable by virtue of the claim that an object of academic study, such as a monkey, does not automatically become notable as a result of the fact that it is studied. I fail to see how this wildly non-analogous characterization applies here, and no explanation is given as to why it would. Graywalls further rejects the coverage of RevSpace by The Register as 'rather trivial', with the accompanying assertion that 'local companies sometimes come forward relating to the breaking news at the time. For example, when things out in the public are vandalized, local businesses that can repair it may come forward and their words maybe quoted. That would not count towards the notability of that business." Once again, I cannot see how this characterization is at all relevant to the coverage in question. The article neither concerns events local to the readership of The Register, nor does it concern a business or even the reporting of a crime. Lastly, another article primarily concerning a member of RevSpace published by Computerworld, is deemed trivial. While I agree with Graywalls that this mention of an event connected to a member alone does not provide evidence for notability, I do claim (similarly to the Vice Magazine article) that the context does. The organisation of RevSpace and its actions in reaction to subject of the article are mentioned explicitly and prominently in the first paragraph of the article, even before the subject himself. It seems clear to me that, even if we put aside the sources focused primarily on participants of RevSpace in stead of the organisation itself, there are still ample sources left to establish notability. Thomastheo (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
reply to comment It's a generally accepted consensus that thesis does not reliably establish notability as you can confirm in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Masters_theses_as_reliable_source_for_notability_purposes which wraps up why the thesis can not be used for notability credit. The NYC resistor is a group blog that is a primary and self published, which means it would not provide any credit towards notability. WP:UGC. I can visit your shop, interview you and write about it in depth on my blog and the entire thing by its nature would be a primary source, self-published blog. Per WP:NORG, this can not be used in establishing the notability of your organization. Even if you already had a Wikipedia page about you, even including such a source in the article at all is on a shaky ground. Please refer to WP:RS and "Secondary sources for notability" in WP:USEPRIMARY. As for Hackaday, "respected and popular weblogs in the field of technology and hacking" it's still a blog, and as you said it's of something specific in the field of "technology and hacking" which means limited "general" interest.
I am curious how you came across this AfD. I see the last you have edited on Wikipedia is nearly two years ago. I am not making any assumptions, but are you related to the organization in anyway or if you were notified outside of Wikipedia? Graywalls (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
reply to comment You are indeed correct in stating that the included blog posts cannot not contribute to notability for this article. As you point out, I not a regular contributor, and am indeed new to participating on this side of wikipedia, and after a more close reading of the guidelines in question, I see that I was in error. Thank you for correcting me on this point. As per your second comment, I do indeed visit revspace, and came across the article's nomination through regular use of this site. I did of course look up whether it was appropriate for me to comment on the article's deletion before doing so, but as I understand it anyone acting in good faith can participate in these discussion. Thomastheo (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can indeed participate, however: it did draw my attention because you have not edited in nearly a two year and suddenly started contributing into the AfD. If you're participating in Wikipedia editing on a subject you have a connection to, such connection is expected to be disclosed upfront per WP:DISCLOSE in non-ambiguous ways. Also, regarding Den Haag FM, it is described as "LOCAL" radio in Stadsomroep Den Haag. Is this not correct? Assuming that it is correct, then the "local coverage" don't contribute much towards notability per WP:NORG and WP:AUD. Graywalls (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think merely visiting a place constitutes a conflict of interest here. I do not represent this organisation in any official capacity. As for Den Haag FM, its scope is unambiguously indicated in its name; it serves the region of The Hague, which includes the city proper as well as the surrounding region. Regardless, the notability guidelines you refer to clearly state that solely local coverage is not an indication of notability, but that is not the case here. It has been extensively pointed out, by me and others, that the article includes multiple significant and reliable references with both national and international reach. You have yet to address points of criticism regarding your evaluation of these sources. Thomastheo (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it's a relatively small group. If you're a member/regular there, I'd say that's much more connected than someone is connected to a 7-Eleven that they just shopped at. From the discussion above, it seems like you aren't quite familiar with sourcing guidelines. In depth coverage in group blogs, specific interest blogs, but relatively sparse coverage in national and international coverage don't combine together to establish notability. The concept of "regional" might be different in Europe than in the US. It is only you, and the article's creator that have participated so far. @Dwaro:, are you personally affiliated with the RevSpace? Graywalls (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The example of a 7-eleven does not help to illustrate how it would be a conflict of interest for me to participate in this discussion. Once again, we are here to discuss notability and sources, and I point out that you still refuse to adequately address them. You are right to point out I am still coming to grips with sourcing guidelines, but that does not automatically render my criticisms invalid. I do not think it is the purpose of this forum to discount commentary merely on the basis of who delivers it. We discuss the matter at hand, and where you have made good points I have conceded. As far as I am aware, this is how wikipedia is supposed to function, is it not?Thomastheo (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you these questions to better understand the level of connection and possible WP:COI if any. Are you just a casual guest? a member? a voting member? Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revspace is registered as a 'stichting', a Dutch legal entity that has no 'members' at all, voting or otherwise. The organisation is wholly controlled by a board of directors (see RevSpace), of which I am not part. I do not stand to gain in any way from editing or contributing to this discussion, either personally, politically, financially or academically. Thomastheo (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing "The article neither concerns events local to the readership of The Register, nor does it concern a business or even the reporting of a crime". The Register article is about a criminal defendant and their computer crime; and local group wanting to offer the defendant with diversion plans. So, say there's a regional paper titled "local tire shop wants to fix dozens of school buses that had tires flattened in an overnight vandalism spree" that focuses on the vandalism, the juvenile defendants and their extensive criminal history. My point is that this article would not establish notability for the tire business. My analogy is that RevSpace's position in the Register is comparable to that of the local business offering to fix the bus tires. Is this a little clearer? Graywalls (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC) @Thomastheo: Graywalls (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. The primary subject of the article is the reaction of RevSpace, and not the crime. The publication is in a different country, to suggest that it is akin to local business reporting on a flat tire does not strike me as fair. The Register chose to publish an article about the reaction of RevSpace because they deemed it newsworthy, and not the event to which the reaction pertains. Thomastheo (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomastheo:, Article being discussed, which discusses the crime and criminals, a 19 year old and a 16 year old; and that 16 year old cyber criminal is a RevSpace member.. and an organization to which he was a member came forward to want to "re-educate". I just don't really see this demonstrating major notability for that organization (RevSpace). As for size/region/national/international debate, each country in the EU could be seen as individual states/provinces in the US. The population of the entire Nethelands is comparable to that of the US State of Ohio. The "Hague Region" is quite comparable to the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area population, but less than the Seattle metropolitan area. So I think the description in Den Haag FM as "local" is correct and I would compare it to in-depth coverage in a radio station such as KXL-FM. Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article references multiple independent, significant and reliable sources that clearly establish notability. Claiming that sources like nu.nl are too small ignores that it is the one of the largest news sites in the Netherlands, and by also requiring physical printing you are setting standards that would exclude any source other than NYT/WP sized papers. Hackaday is also one of the largest DIY tech sites, which you also dismiss as insignificant without evidence. And you also claim that NYC Resistor is not independent, again without any evidence. Autopilot (talk)
NYC Resistor's contents is very obviously primary source. When you look at the information about the site, it's quite obviously a group blog. I put "?" on dependence/independence. Hackaday, for notability purposes, I would have to say is of limited WP:AUD, because it is not the mainstream. "NYC Resistor is a hacker collective with a shared space located in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn. We meet regularly to share knowledge, hack on projects together, and build community." A person Holly associated with that group visited the RevSpace; then wrote about experience on its group blog. That's a fair evidence of limited audience and I wouldn't call it "reliably" published as Wikipedia puts it, thus not an establishment of notability. It's essentially a journal of one person. Regarding independent/depedent, WP:ORGIND maybe of value to read. It's not like the USA Today, or the New York Times. Re: Hackaday: see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Hackaday Graywalls (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My vote is still keep. I do still disagree with a large part of your evaluation. The primary subject of all these articles you evaluated are about RevSpace and its initiatives This holds true for the Hacker Hotline, HEMA USB drive research, DDoS event where RevSpace participants wanted helped with ethics advice, LoRa reverse engineering, RevBank, the article where RevSpace participants argued in the news about the government policy, and the NOS source that had an item about RevSpace (but indeed not the article about Zawadi). You marked all these sources as not having significant coverage, which I thus disagree with. All these events together contribute to the notability of the organisation. You also did not added the NOS source, but it has been evaluated by me and Thomastheo that it is discussing the organization itself in-depth. Your comparison between the size of The Netherlands and the US do not make sense, WP:AUD is applied the same to every country, regardless of its scale. “each country in the EU could be seen as individual states/provinces in the US”. The EU is not a country. Its members are sovereign countries, like the US itself. Den Haag FM is, as Thomastheo also points out, a radio for the region of The Hague. Dwaro (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dwaro:, I explained it in terms of circulation and population. Entire Netherlands has about the same people as the Ohio, USA. My comparison to a local radio here in my town with similar population reach is fair and logical. You didn't address if you're associated with RevSpace in anyway. Graywalls (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like Thomastheo also said: I do not stand to gain in any way from editing or contributing to this discussion, either personally, politically, financially or academically. I do still disagree with the radio evaluation, and even if I agreed about this, WP:AUD says: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". This is not the case here, there are multiple national and internation sources. Dwaro (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment so far, there's only been one outside input from those other than the article creator and a RevSpace member. Another relist maybe beneficial. It would also provide more time to analyze the video source NOS which is in foreign language Graywalls (talk) 21:50, 22 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 Arms Corporation#Hentai. Spartaz Humbug! 09:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher's Pet (video game)

Teacher's Pet (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Teacher's Pet (OVA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable hentai video and video game (in spite of the title, the article focuses almost exclusively on the video). Only shot at notability is through WP:SIGCOV, which I believe it fails. Article references 4 reviews. All seem to be fan reviews, and two are very similar write-ups by the same fansite author. I searched but found no additional sources that could establish notability. Skeletor3000 (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the video game article and do not redirect. No coverage of the video game in reliable sources, making it a fail of WP:GNG. For some reason, the article is mostly sourced about the OVA. Thus the redirect proposed makes no sense because this article is about the video game, not OVA hentai (Arms Corporation is an animation studio for the OVA). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The reviews are done by people vetted in the field (WP:RS). Carlos Ross is mentioned in at least one news source as well as published media [17], [18]. He was also featured on G4's Attack of the Show, including discussing several of his reviews.[19] Christopher Butcher is manager of The Beguiling, director of the Toronto Comic Arts Festival, has been paneled at Anime Boston in 2014, and interviewed by Anime News Network.[1][2] HOWEVER.... an additional review would be preferred as Chris is cited twice hence (weak keep). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Fandom Post Panel". Anime Boston. Retrieved October 24, 2018.
  2. ^ Bamboo Dong (April 3, 2005). "Chris Beveridge". Anime News Network. Retrieved October 24, 2018.
  • Comment Knowledgekid87 The article in that moment was about the The Teacher's Pet video game, the one you mentioned in a book source is His and Her Circumstances anime, and Carlos Ross reviewed an OVA hentai, which isn't a video game. As for the hentai, I am undecided right now. The Mania reference is a solid one, WP:SIGCOV and reliable. The THEM one is extremely short, and Hentai Jump ref does not seem reliable. I have moved the hentai content to a separate article Teacher's Pet (OVA), as the article's title containing video game disambig implies a dominant video game coverage (which doesn't exist and is non-notable). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was talking about the individuals as a WP:RS when it comes to their reviews in general, and THEM and Mania have already been discussed before. I am leaning towards keeping Teacher's Pet (OVA) then for now, the other one can and should be deleted. For the record I would be fine with a redirect for the OVA as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:58, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 15:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Times Repent

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

Per A7 - super underground deathcore/metalcore band that only did a single EP 12 years ago. Most likely will never return. Also almost all of the sources are very non-reliable and user-generated content like LastFM and Metal Archives. Good band, but this article really doesn't need to be here by any means. Second Skin (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Oh and make sure the article for their EP, Virtue Has Few Friends, gets deleted if this goes down. I forgot to mention that. Second Skin (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge the record article into the band article as both as definitely notable with reviews of their work in Exclaim, Sputnik and AllMusic which are all reliable sources as well as coverage in other rs such as Blabbermouth so passes WP:GNG and WP:Notability is not temporary also applies, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:58, 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 keep. Sandstein 10:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bony (2020 film)

Bony (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NFF. Andrew Base (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page is going to be recreated anyway in a couple of weeks if deleted as the movie will release in a couple of months. Let's spend time in voting at major / crucial AfD's instead. Csgir (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Times of India source linked to by Czar shows that principal photography has commenced so it meets WP:NFF. Clovermoss (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above when shooting has started the article can remain. Alex-h (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Qualifies per WP:NFF, as it has been verified in a reliable source that principal photography has commenced. North America1000 04:42, 29 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 move to Quidditch in Australia and generalize to that topic. BD2412 T 19:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quidditch Australia

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

Notability. All the sources are self published save one, a small item in a local newspaper. I would favour redirecting to International Quidditch Association. TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested alternative to deletion - the organisation itself probably does not have enough notability for its own article, but as an alternative to just deleting the article altogether (which contains some useful information about an unusual sport - cf. WP:NOTPAPER) - perhaps we could merge this article with Australian national quidditch team to make a "Quidditch in Australia" page (which could include the national team as well as some information about the local versions of the sport, where some primary sources would be acceptable)? There are quite a few external sources about Quidditch in Australia, including winning the World Cup in 2016 - e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Bookscale (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started adding sources and will keep working on it. Agreed with Bookscale above, this is just a blanket article about quidditch played in Australia; the Australian Quidditch Championships and the bigger VQA and QNSW state leagues could easily have their own articles which would align better with what's in the quidditch template at the bottom of the page. Azizlight (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Move to Quidditch in Australia. There is quite sufficient WP:NEXIST, including sustained coverage in major mainstream publications, for the subject matter to be notable. The article does need some work, and this seems to be happening. Aoziwe (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the organisation, "Quidditch Australia", does not seem to be particularly notable, but despite the title of the page, the content is really about "Quidditch in Australia". Aoziwe (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sufficient RS to prove GNG, for the specific organisation, have not yet been presented at this AfD; however, there seems to be more RS on the sport itself in Australia; some discussion re ATD and/or merging or renaming, however no clear consensus as yet here either; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to relisting administrator - @Britishfinance:, in your relisting comments, you noted that no one had presented any reliable sources for the organisation. I'm not sure if you have read my comment that listed a whole heap of articles about the sport in Australia (which is why both I and Aoziwe have suggested the article be renamed), and Azizlight has substantially edited the article to strongly improve it. So I think it's a bit unfair to just say that no one has presented any reliable sources. Bookscale (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Bookscale, I should have clarified myself (which I have done now above); the issue is that the RS around the specific organisation (Quidditch Australia), seems thin, however, the RS for the sport in Australia seems good. There have beem discussions above on how to fix this (eg Quidditch in Australia etc), but I don’t think a consensus has been reached yet? E.g Is it a seperate variation (like Australian Quidditch), or an identical strain to that of other countries (like Quidditch in Australia). Seems it can be solved, but only by editors who know the topic. All the best, Britishfinance (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC) (PS, I am not an admin).[reply]
    • Thanks Britishfinance - appreciate you clarifying, as I can see you are in agreement with the editors who have commented here, including me, thank you. I think the consensus (so far) seems to be that the name of the article should be changed to a Quidditch in Australia article, in which Quidditch Australia can be mentioned. But happy for the article to be relisted to see whether there are other ideas. Bookscale (talk) 03:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -Nahal(T) 19:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Energy efficient transformer

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

Already covered at Amorphous metal transformer. No need for a separate article. Störm (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are other types of energy efficient transformer beyond using amorphous metal, as mentioned in the article. Consider a reverse merge. Thincat (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:20, 22 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. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 15:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PalaCalafiore

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

Notability isn’t established because topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject WP:GNG JaneciaTaylor (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:42, 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 delete. Sandstein 19:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berke

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

Doesn't appear to be notable at all. The only relevant Google result is this very article, suggesting a lack of reliable sources (or sources, period) about Berke other than the mere five already cited in the article. Also worth noting that not only is there a conflict of interest here, as the article was created by the late subject himself, but according to this comment he made, he apparently "want[ed] [his] story to mean something after [he was] gone" and "hope[d] [his] little notoriety as a transgendered person [would] help [him] to be heard on [his] way out from this world" - not a very good reason to create an article on yourself, wouldn't you agree? Vaporgaze (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This all is at best local human interest level coverage. Nothing here justifies having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole vote is basically a WP:PERX which fails WP:ATA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 22:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject was detailed in an Associated Press article, had two pieces of coverage that, while local, were still outside of subject's relevant geographic area of Colorado and Florida, and appeared on an MSNBC documentary. ミラP 03:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete needs more widespread news coverage. Plus, every single one of us will be forgotten, sooner or later. Pancho507 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low level human interest story. There have been many instances of changing gender and then reversing it, I'm sure this qualifies as anything out of the ordinary. With the article created by the subject and the comment left on the Jbhunley's talk page it sounds like he was desperate to be remembered, best to use other websites for that kind of thing. Mattg82 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AfD's like this are always tough as I understand the want to establish the legacy of those who have passed, but Wikipedia not a memorial and the coverage of Berke is not at the level necessary to establish GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

X, Y

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

No source listed in the article and almost no reference found online. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 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 redirect to Alfred C. Sikes#Personal life. No desire to Keep the article as a standalone topic; Redirect to its co-founder (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read Alliance

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

Not notable, fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:05, 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 redirect to Abdur Rahman As-Sudais. Spartaz Humbug! 09:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudais

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

Bois de Sudais has been listed as a red link on this page since 2007 but it is not mentioned in either English or French Wikipedia. Until there is an article on Bois de Sudais, I think that it would be best to redirect to Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais. There have been recent edits to Sudais, so I thought it best to list here for discussion. Leschnei (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect' per above. 2nd entry doesn't meet MOS:DABRL / MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bois de Sudais is invalid as noted, and Al-Sudais is not known as simply Sudais. Recent edits regarding the name are not backed-up by a reliable source. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:11, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 23:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Eaton (journalist)

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. No significant coverage of Eaton as a person. Ralbegen (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST Criterion 1. They're a bunch of results from a google search that pops up on GNEWS. Lapablo (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lapablo: Can you point to significant coverage of Eaton? The article is currently relying on his LinkedIn profile for its biographical information, which feels like a pretty strong indication against the GNG. Ralbegen (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ralbegen: I hope this is good enough for you take a pick, google result . Lapablo (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those are about Eaton? There's a lot of WP:BLP1E coverage of his interview with Roger Scruton, but nothing I can see that's about Eaton, at least nothing that would constitute substantial coverage... Ralbegen (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ralbegen: This link here has nothing to do with Roger Scruton and a few others there. Lapablo (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lapablo: WP:Interviews contribute to the GNG in the material the interviewer introduces about the subject. This interview has one paragraph introducing Eaton where we learn: he's a left-wing journalist, he quotes Marx, at the time he was deputy editor of the New Statesman, and he has a distinctive writing style. I don't think that's enough for the substantial coverage the GNG requires. Ralbegen (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:11, 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. A redirect can still be created if desired. Sandstein 23:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason (multi-agent systems development platform)

AfDs for this article:
Jason (multi-agent systems development platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N Ladsgroupoverleg 11:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the mention at AgentSpeak per [20]. I highly doubt that this redirect will be helpful, so am open to deletion, but this redirection gives an opportunity to expand. czar 19:52, 22 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 Communist Party of Australia (1971). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Briton

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

Fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in third-party sources. Leader of a splinter group from another tiny unregistered political party. Article was deleted once before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Briton) and has been re-created. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect After one ignores primary references, and closely aligned secondary references, I could not find anything at all to support GNG. Not notable in their own right. Redirect to Communist Party of Australia (1971) of which the subject was a member for 12 years, and which already ahs a paragraph about the subject. Probable search term. Aoziwe (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect from the redlink if desired. As always, being leader of a minor fringe political party is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL — a person in that boat can get into Wikipedia if they can be referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but does not get a free exemption from having to have any real notability-supporting sources just because he exists. But the footnotes here are all directly affiliated primary sources, not notability-supporting reliable source coverage, so nothing here is getting him over GNG. He's plausible enough of a search term that a redirect probably should exist — however, if there's going to be editwarring over this, then we should delete the article and then create a redirect, rather than leaving the edit history in place behind the redirect, so that there's nothing for editwarrers to revert. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Communist Party of Australia (1971) as stated above. Ideally, there would be a complete list of general secretaries in the article about the party. --Enos733 (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable leader of a small political party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bychenko Liudmyla Anatoliivna

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:BIO. Deleted in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCV. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability found nowhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Mostly unsourced; the only things listed here which could potentially lead to notability are the publications, but then only if they had significant influence (not merely their existence) and we don't have any evidence of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I can't find anything and there's not really enough stuff out there to AGF that there are some Ukrainian sources that lead to a pass of GNG. J947 (c), at 22:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of notability whatsoever. --Tataral (talk) 12:08, 18 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. After several relists, we're still getting "Weak keep" vs "Delete", so I think consensus for notability is on a knife-edge Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Shirkie

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

Despite passing the WP:NFOOTY guidelines by playing for one match for Motherwell, I would say that is not enough to pass the WP:GNG as all of the references are WP:ROUTINE. HawkAussie (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am concerned that the nominator has not done WP:BEFORE (again) given that a very quick Google search brings up sources such as this, this and this which go towards GNG. Given ongoing career and meeting WP:NFOOTBALL I say we keep the article. The nominator is also (again) confusing GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Oh I'm sorry but they all are only mentions and not actually references for that particular person. HawkAussie (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG per the above sources by GiantSnowman. Smartyllama (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the above sources help him pass WP:GNG. As a Junior player he has little hope of passing WP:NFOOTBALL again. Dougal18 (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Err once you've passed NFOOTBALL you remain passed... GiantSnowman 12:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant playing in a FPL. Shirkie has played 9 minutes in a FPL and his career has declined ever since. Dougal18 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles need to pass GNG. Special guidelines mainly suggest what types of people tend to pass GNG. However if you cannot actually find to sourcing to pass GNG the article can and should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would agree that as it stands he passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a fully professional league when he was with Motherwell. However I would also agree that playing for just nine minutes in fully professional league is a rather questionable basis for saying that someone is notable. Dunarc (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd say the sourcing is rather thin and WP:ROUTINE. He is still playing his football career, however, how far down the league has he dropped? If he was playing actual Scottish league football I would go with keep, but he isn't, he is in non-league, so I am leaning towards a delete. Govvy (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article is new and contributors should be given a chance to expand it since the subject is still play and judging with the references he passes NFOOTBALL Georgiamarlins (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment How is the article "new" when the article is five years old. When I think of new, I think of less than a year not five. HawkAussie (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - pending an improvement of references and an article's expansion within a reasonable timetable.--Darius (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only passing references or routine coverage, nothing even remotely substantial. He's a 24 year old playing in the fifth level of Scottish Football (only the top two meet FPL, so he's nowhere near it), who spent 9 minutes on the field in a FPL six years ago. WP:NFOOTBALL itself says "will generally be regarded as notable". If that word has any meaning whatsoever, it applies here. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing 4 keeps, only one of which, weakly in my opinion, attempts to deal with GNG, offset by four deleted including the nomination together with two comments which I consider to be leaning towards delete. To my mind there is some consensus to delete but as some attempt has been made to cover GNG, I'm delisting to allow for further debate, but would close as delete if more substantial sources cannot be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal keep. Passes the SNG but, although doubts about GNG are not unjustified, I think there's just enough. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the sources are weak still, I haven't seen any improvement since I last looked. I hardly see this player returning from the depths of the Scottish non-league. Fails WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible keep Played in the top flight of the Scottish league briefly, decent coverage from his time at Ayr, just enough coverage for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Further to my previous comment, I have given this case more thought. Overall I think that, on balance, delete is probably the best course of action here. I would note that the last reference to him in the article is his move to Troon in 2015 - but looking at Troon's website he would not appear to be there now. A quick online search would seem to suggest he is now at Darvel F.C., who play at an even lower level than Troon, so there is nothing to suggest that his career has been notable since he left Motherwell. Basically I would say that if he had not made a very brief appearance in the top flight, I do not think that the outcome would be anything other than delete. So it comes down to does 9 minutes on a football pitch by itself make someone notable? For me the answer is no, hence - in my view - we should delete. Dunarc (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep — All articles that pass WP:FOOTY automatically pass WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @KingSkyLord: Umm, no that's not how wikipedia works, you can't have an SNG override a GNG failure. Govvy (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's been a source of great debate User:Govvy as WP:N clearly states that it needs to meet GNG or SNG. And perhaps irrelevant given the claims that both are met in this article. Nfitz (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Nfitz: ? NFooty still asks for significant coverage, which this article does not have. Does WP:ROUTINE not mean anything to you? Govvy (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Govvy: 1) You said SNG not NFooty - there are other SNGs. 2) WP:NFOOTY actually doesn't say that at all, except for Youth players. 3) Please remain civil - I've not opined on either WP:ROUTINE or the notability of this particular player - just your unnecessary claim of "how wkipedia works". Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the RS found by Giant Snowman. He played in the Scottish league. Wm335td (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and not because of the sources proffered above by GiantSnowman (which are only tangentially about our Shirkie), but because subject evidently meets WP:NFOOTBALL criterion #2: This player has played in a competitive game between two teams from a fully-professional league, i.e. the Scottish Premier League. (For the list of leagues acceptable as "fully professional" in Wikipedia, see here.) -The Gnome (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth. CSD G5, created by a banned or blocked user in violation of their ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of disputed territories of Pakistan

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

Hopeless POV Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Other than Kashmir, which has been dealt with extensively, none of the other disputes (Durand Line, Balochistan etc.) are prominently covered as "disputed territories". The present content is entirely WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: User has created many such needless POV filled templates and pages. Gotitbro (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Almost certainly a creation of this sockmaster. – Uanfala (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not familiar with this sockmaster, but if a CU can confirm this we should mass-delete the creations of the two latest socks which all suffer from unsalvageable PoV.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The creator has been blocked as a sock, making the article eligible for G5.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 18 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) 08:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merin Philip

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

Fails WP:ENT, not notable enough at this time, only acted in two films having minor roles. Andrew Base (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:16, 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. Sandstein 23:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LS-Dom

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

Non-notable artist who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Article also appears to be mostly promotional without a WP:NPOV and the only references come from the distribution platform DatPiff SamCordestalk 07:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SamCordestalk 07:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SamCordestalk 07:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SamCordestalk 07:28, 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. RL0919 (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of cast members of Billy Elliot the Musical

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While many of the cast lists and replacement cast members on this page appear to have sources, a great many others do not, which makes their verifiability and notability suspect. Prior consensus has generally favored limiting cast lists for shows to the original and most important productions. The main article for Billy Elliot the Musical already has this, including a section for notable replacement cast members. It is unclear how it is beneficial to go beyond this. GentlemanGhost (séance) 07:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. GentlemanGhost (séance) 07:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The latter thought had crossed my mind. Not to mention The Bald Soprano in Paris or off-Broadway's The Fantasticks. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 08:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people. The notable ones are mentioned in the main article about the musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral [21] A lot of such list of cast members exist. But Ssilvers makes a good point, most are not notable, and those that are can be mentioned in the main article. Dream Focus 17:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is getting difficult to manage. And yes, a lot of non-notable people.w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate list of everything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At the height of this musicals popularity this article was used as a way of keeping all of this information out of the main article. I agree it should be deleted.Mark E (talk) 11:48, 18 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. RL0919 (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SunPCi

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

Obscure product. Should not have its own article per WP:NPRODUCT Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Let's not remove the information about this widely sold product. The information should be kept, but it can be merged into another one. I would propose a new article, such as "List of Sun Microsystems products", which other articles could also be merged into. Dwaro (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Keep:(Speedy entitle as we are here due to article spat) Yes WP:NPRODUCT does say merge, but not when target becomes unwieldy. Good real merges are actually tricky and often risk disrupting and stunting a target with issues of WP:UNDUE weight and stuff, all things taking a lot of effort to manage well. I would also note nom. has not inidcated he has followed WP:BEFORE C.3 an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag ... This alone entitles a technical keep albeit seeming not a speedy for failure to follow procedure. The article does have some sourcing/referencing issues currently but that is likely addressable.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed to Speedy keep because having just been down to consider adding a source to the article it appears there was a spat over a citation in which the nom. may well have been justified or not but taking the article to WP:AFD was likely because of that spat and that spat was not declared on the nomination, thus I contend the nomination was frivolous or vexatious per WP:SKCRIT 2a and was likely why WP:BEFORE C.2C.3 was not followed.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked around. Product does not show indication of general notability as far as I can tell and that is a valid reason for a nomination. Graywalls (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its a valid reason for following WP:BEFORE and when getting to C.3 tagging for notability for a couple of month or letting the project know rather than a delete mentality. The project might have broader vision on a possible set of merges for example. As it is here I'm very in line with the keep. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as a procedural close per Djm-leighpark. (note: I reverted one edit by the nom with a summary directing to talk. This nomination was created 14 minutes after the talk edit by the nom.) --mikeu talk 15:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically WP:BEFORE C§3 and WP:SKCRIT 2§d, as noted above.[22] Now also WP:BEFORE C§1 plus the unwieldy provision of WP:PRODUCT.[23] --mikeu talk 23:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I have changed my vote to speedy keep due to compelling arguments. Dwaro (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination Kitaab Ka Kida (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kitaab Ka Kida: I am going to challenge you to-confirm this WP:VAGUEWAVE !vote based on subsequent improvements to this article, the number of challenges to your work on your talk page (some made by myself), and the claims to have created the articles Priyanka Reddy Rape Case and Malav Suresh Rajda on Old revision of Kitaab Ka Kida where the links play through to substantial articles created by others rather than redirects created by yourself. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. Pavlor (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Earlier I don't saw it properly but now I am in favour of keeping this article. Kitaab Ka Kida (talk)
  • Keep I believe that it would be useful for some for the article to not be deleted. A-NEUN (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has made me mull over whether it would be TempleOS capable … we'd better point out specific notability sources are from (Tougaw 2000); (Railsback 1999) & (Barker 1999) with (Conover 1995); (Comerford 1999); (Wylie 1992) also possible.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:32, 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 delete. Whether or not to create a redirect is a separate decision and up to editors. Sandstein 23:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forodwaith

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

This is a minor land which plays very little part in Tolkien's fiction. The main source for this article is two pages in Appendix A of Lord of the Rings. It doesn't seem to be featured prominently in any secondary sources, unsurprisingly. Jack Upland (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into Realms of Arda. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. The reason the list does not already include much detail is that all these were created as separate articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Preservation serves no purpose. Wikipedia is not meant to extract all extractable information there is. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of everything. We need to show notability to justify an article and absolutely no notability is shown here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Middle-earth#Geography. The difference between Wikipedia and a fan wiki is that Wikipedia is to give the broad, overarching concepts and and cultural impact of a fictional world, and the fan wiki is there to supply the lesser detail. Forodwaith isn't one of the impactful concepts, and a brief description is all it needs here. Hog Farm (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Middle-earth#Geography. Goustien (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: why are we redirecting so many articles to Middle-earth#Geography? It's not informative. Why not just delete?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:40, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. czar 19:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super Nanna Maga

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

Non notable Indian movie which has not been discussed with in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:50, 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 keep. The consensus is to keep this article pending a determination of whether there is WP:LASTING coverage of it. Therefore there is no prejudice against a future renomination that argues there is not such lasting coverage. RL0919 (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Bagram Airfield attack

2019 Bagram Airfield attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only two deaths, which does not seem like enough to warrant an article. Seems more appropriate as a mention on a list of attacks in 2019 or something. Andise1 (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Week keep There does seem to be significant coverage. However, it is not yet clear if there is lasting coverage, or if WP:NOTNEWS applies here. But the number of people killed should not be a reason to keep or delete, and decisions on merges do not need to be done at AfD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This Taliban attack occurred as peace talks involving them were taking place. It therefore likely is having major consequences. Jim Michael (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Not sure if this will have lasting major consequences, it did result in a pause in the peace talks. Tactically it was one of the more spectacular attacks of the year: a ten-hour firefight at the main American base in the country, culminating in airstrikes right outside the perimeter, with damage to the passenger terminal on the airfield (source 1, source 2). But I can understand the argument for deletion or merge. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would disagree with this deletion request. Even though it was 2 deaths there was over 80 injured and it was a not just a bombing, as there was armed Taliban members who attempted to breach a US military base. This was bad enough that the US air force did an airstrike. All of that calls for this to be an article. See 2019 Bagram Airfield attack Elijahandskip (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it may be too soon to assess the lasting effects of this event, it is also incorrect to rush the article into deletion. It surely doesn't belong in the category of routine news reporting, due to the fact that it wasn't just a bombing but a brazen attack by insurgents on a facility of the country with the strongest military in the world, the citizens of which undoubtedly are growing weary of the war, the longest in their nation's history. Havradim (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, i note that a number of editors here talk of not knowing whether this attack will have lasting effects/conseguences, i am reminded of WP:CRYSTAL. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 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 delete. Redirect is an editorial choice. The only "keep" didn't convince anybody, it cites no sources. Sandstein 09:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sullivan (musician)

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

Non-notable musician fails WP:BIO and WP:NM. In spite of many name mentions in articles about Drivin N Cryin, he does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Some sources in the article have been given misleading titles which make them appear more focused on the subject than they actually are. For example, this is claimed to be an interview with Sullivan, but it's an interview with the whole band. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there have been so many former members of The Black Crows that I'm not sure a redirect or merge would be useful. One former member crashed at the house I shared with other students back in the 1990s, until he was evicted for not paying rent. Even The Big Bang Theory had a joke about that phenomenon. Ping me please if you can come up with a workable solution. Bearian (talk)
  • Delete - This article may be an attempted promotion and it also exaggerates some facts. He was not a member of the Black Crowes but was instead with their predecessor band Mr. Crowe's Garden. Therefore a merge or redirect to the Black Crowes is nonsensical. He is indeed a longtime member of the notable Drivin n Cryin, but most of the collaborations and tours listed here for Sullivan were actually the activities of the band. He has done a few collaborations outside the band, but I can find no reliable coverage to indicate that those activities are notable. A redirect to Drivin N Cryin might be feasible if within policy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Drivin N Cryin as a reasonable and fairly obvious ATD. Hugsyrup 15:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above as this is a WP:TNT case with misleading information and promotion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are Notable collaborations from this artist outside of his work with Drivin N Cryin, such as session work with Peter Buck, Warren Haynes, The Black Crowes (where he is also referenced here and here) and Nikki Sudden. These are cited on the entry and being that these collaborations started in the late 1980's not all media coverage has been digitized and searchable. Sullivan also has some Composer Notability with 36 composer credits to his credit including 2 for Major Movie releases. Please reconsider the AfD status, given his meeting Notability Criteria and in context with the individual pages of his bandmates and peers for which his Notability and references exceed. If the article is too promotional in tone and more encyclopedic page can be developed. Thank you.Dncac (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was close to closing this as delete with no prejudice for redirecting but there doesn't seem to be firm consensus for either of these and as the last editor to participate provided sources suggesting notability. So, it feels like a relist is the most appropriate outcome at the moment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 Any idea how long you think this should stay open? One week? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf, any qualified closer may do so at anytime but yes it normally stays open at least a week more after relisting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:05, 22 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 19:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Rutger

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

Non notable actor failing WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that his roles are not even specified makes it pretty clear they do not meet the definition of "significant".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Aircraft Inc.

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

Fails WP:CORP. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the product (a powered parachute, "at least six" sold) and product line for the company:

Viking Aircraft Viking II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
St Andrews Viking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three. The independent third parties refs already cited establish WP:GNG and meet WP:CORP. There is a longstanding consensus on WikiProject Aircraft that all aircraft types that have been flown meet WP:N and should have articles about them. Due to the number of aviation publications that do reviews, refs are almost always available, even if on paper. As is the case here, multiple refs are already cited. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, keep and move the three articles into one. First of all, the Viking powered parachute is an ultralight aircraft type that flew and as such passes the notability criteria for aircraft (the fact that its wing was inflated by forward air pressure after the manner of a paraglider is neither here nor there). The Viking II is a variant which has too little information to support its own article and should be merged into the main article. The company has no notability outside of its one product range and its article should similarly be merged in. But I am unsure what the new all-in-one article should be titled, as sources are extremely slim, with both St Andrews Viking and Viking Aircraft Viking (currently a redirect) being plausible. At least there was once a website for Viking Aircraft Inc. (Internet Archive), so my preference would be to move it over the redirect to Viking Aircraft Viking unless and until some other company provenance emerges. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Passes WP:GNG with RSs. NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What reliable sources? World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2003-04 appears to be the only (possibly) acceptable one (offline, so who can tell?). In the company article, references 2 and 3 are for a different company, 4 is just the number of hits on the company website, and 5 is a bare FAA entry. In the Viking II article, there's the World Directory and FAA entry again, a Wayback machine "reference" with no link or explanation as to what it's supposed to support, and two company links. In St Andrews Viking, there are two directories and a shopping guide. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - nothing on the company page seems to indicate any notability whatsoever, however the aircraft they produced does have notability - thus they should be merged into the name of the aircraft they produced. - NiD.29 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge Agree with Nid.29 above. The company does not meet the criteria for notability. While the longstanding consensus on WikiProject Aircraft deals with the notability of aircraft, not with their commercial manufacturing company. As such the correct criteria is WP:NCORP and this topic fails those criteria as there are no in-depth articles on the company itself. *edit* Changed !vote to Delete since realistically there is no content worthy of merging. A redirect is also not appropriate as it is highly unlikely to be a search term. */edit* HighKing++ 11:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all passes WP:GNG Wm335td (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus that the aircraft are notable and should be kept. However, there is no consensus yet about whether Viking Aircraft Inc meets the applicable community-wide guideline, WP:NCORP. For those advocating redirect as an alternative to deletion it would be helpful to state which article this company should be redirected to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only one page to redirect it to - the one for the aircraft they produced. - NiD.29 (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:05, 22 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. (non-admin closure) ミラP 04:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hsu

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

Non notable actor failing WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This actor meet WP:NACTOR#1 - he has starred the leading role in 2019 drama Some Day or One Day [24], and also starred a main role in 2016 drama Q Series: Love of Sandstorm. He has been nominated Best Supporting Actor at the 52nd Golden Bell Awards. Idolmm (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable appearances and sourcing. Seems like an clear keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CmdrGibbons (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC) block evasion[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:22, 29 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. Sandstein 19:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Millar (engineer)

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

State-level department head with no other political experience. There are no other cabinet appointees who have articles, let alone nationally for the heads of DOTs. His name turns up no results for most national news websites, except for a quote in The Washington Post. The local major newspaper, The Seattle Times, only has a few passing mentions of him after his appointment and confirmation. SounderBruce 03:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 03:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 03:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 03:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Franz is an elected official who has had far more regional coverage. An appointee like Millar rarely gets a full profile or interview in a reliable source. SounderBruce 04:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Franz may be elected and Millar appointed, they receive about the same coverage from local sources. (Seattle Times, local TV stations, etc.) Franz hardly has a "national" profile. KidAd (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can write and source something much better than this. At the state level, nationalizing coverage is not as essential as it is at the municipal level — it certainly wouldn't hurt if there were some, but at the state level of office there's no inherent requirement for there to be any. What's more determinative here, rather, is that three of the four footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with just one piece of real, notability-supporting reliable source media coverage shown at all. This is a role where an article would be fine if you could get him over WP:GNG on the quality and depth of sourcing, not an "inherently" notable role for which he would be entitled to keep an article that has to depend almost entirely on primary sources — but on a Google search, I'm not seeing any real evidence that Millar has equivalent coverage to Hilary Franz: I'm seeing a lot of sources that glancingly namecheck his existence in the context of being about transportation projects in the state, but not a lot of sources that are about him for the purposes of establishing his notability. I will note that his predecessor, Lynn Peterson, does not have an article at all — I've only been able to find one earlier holder of this role who does have an article, Sid Morrison, and he has an article for having been a member of the United States House of Representatives, not for this role per se. This role would be enough if the sourcing were better — but it's not a role where it would be so critically important to keep an article about him that he would be exempted from having to show better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, the question I have is whether appointed state level cabinet officials are "generally regarded as notable" (see WP:POLOUTCOMES #1) or is the standard you are proposing the "article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville"" (WP:POLOUTCOMES #2). If the former, then the article should be kept (as it is unquestioned that the subject holds a cabinet position in the Washington State government). If the latter, I am finding a bunch of sources about the subject around the time of his appointment (August 2016) (e.g. this Seattle Times article or this article from the Everett Herald). --Enos733 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that appointed state level cabinet officials are "generally regarded as notable" (see WP:POLOUTCOMES #1). There is no question the subject serves is the state's Secretary of Transportation (and a member of the State's executive cabinet). I think the amount of sourcing (even as much of it is largely quotes) is sufficient to develop a article that is much more than "he exists." --Enos733 (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as page creator Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES #1 and WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 19:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (There is also a plausible argument to be made that it would facilitate properly encyclopedic coverage of state policy issues to have articles about top-level officials regardless of GNG, but there's no need to address that here.) Article seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 21:02, 29 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) 09:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don Anderson (mayor)

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

Disputed PROD. Mayor of a minor suburban city (ranked 12th in the Seattle metro area by population) who has not held another office. His only national coverage came from a single incident (a train derailment) but has not persisted and was never focused on him. Even The Seattle Times, the largest metro newspaper, only has ten articles that mention him, with only one centered around him. SounderBruce 03:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 03:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 03:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 03:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as page creator I think User:SounderBruce makes a clear enough case for the subject's notability. National coverage for a major event? Only ten Seattle Times mentions? KidAd (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also appreciate a source for the "12th-largest city in the Seattle Metro area". Per this, it only reveals that Lakewood is not one of four major cities in the Seattle metro area. KidAd (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO1E makes your point about national coverage moot, as it was not sustained and ultimately not directly connected to him. I'm going off the 2018 Census estimate, which can be easily parsed from List of cities in Washington. SounderBruce 04:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then local and regional coverage will have to do. 10 Seattle Times mentions isn't nothing. And per WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty" Using this metric, Anderson should survive AFD because the article states more than "Don Anderson is the Mayor of Lakewood"; it also mentions his "other reasons" (i.e. the train crash) KidAd (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG, as interpreted by NPOL. He's a local politician with no sustained widespread coverage for anything else (except commenting on a disaster, which does not show notability), and the nature of his political career does not rise to the level any presumption of notability would occur. It doesn't matter in the slightest how much his political career is covered in Seattle. It isn't anywhere else, and being the mayor of a suburb is not an automatic notability pass. Sorry our new colleague is having trouble understanding this, but unless this fella climbs higher on the political pole, he's not going to have a chance for a Wikipedia bio. John from Idegon (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I am the "new colleague" you're referring to, I would like to point out that I have been editing Wikipedia for several years, and exactly two with a registered account. While I respect your opinion, I do not appreciate your condescension. KidAd (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lakewood is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist, but the sourcing here is not rising to the level necessary to get him over the bar. The existence of a few hits of local media coverage is not automatically enough to get a mayor over the bar — every mayor of everywhere can always show some evidence of purely local coverage, so if that were all it took then we would always have to keep an article about every mayor who exists, and no mayor would ever fall below the notability bar anymore. Which is why we have a longstanding consensus that mayors of smaller towns and cities have to show evidence of nationalized significance to qualify for articles — but the very small amount of "nationalized" coverage shown here isn't sufficient to demonstrate that — it's about a train derailment and just includes Anderson giving soundbite, which is not the same thing as coverage that has Anderson as its subject. The key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is to document the importance of his mayoralty, not just the existence of it — and if a mayor has just eight footnotes of which two are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, three are routine verification of election results, and three are not about him but just mention his name in the context of being about a non-political event that happened in the city, then he's falling on the wrong side of that distinction. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some cities of 58,000 are major regional centers. Lakewood is not the largest city in its county, and even the largest city Tacoma, is overshadowed by the true heart of the urban region, Seattle. Lakewood is not even a regionally significant city, so by no measure is the mayor going to be default notable. The sourcing is atrocious otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amtek Industries

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

Article is based almost entirely on dead links, article subject wants deletion (according to OTRS ticket 2019052410007654) and a google search of sources returned nothing that confers notability. As such, I think it's best this article is deleted unless someone can find some Arabic reliable sources that have covered this company. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SELFDELETE. If this was an otherwise notable subject I would agree but it's completely unsourced and there's no indicia of notability. The fact that there's opposition to it from the subject only makes it even more of a delete case. Michepman (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very unnotable. I found one weird Arabic site that gives information about it and it says that this is their website http://www.amtek.ae . Their website doesn't work anymore. The company is very unnotable.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of notability as well as there is no RS(es) into article! Saff V. (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though it isn't necessary, I can confirm the OTRS ticket and concur that this company does not pass WP:NCORP at this time. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:52, 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 wrong forum. AfD is for deletion discussions. If you want to merge either follow the procedure or be bold and try it yourself before coming to AfD. czar 19:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kissing the cod

Kissing the cod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –(ViewAfD · [25]):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing that this article be merged with Newfoundland Screech and its contents be added there to expand the "Screech In" section.--NL19931993 (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wrong forum, nominator has indicated they want the page merged not deleted, should have gone thru WP:MERGE. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close - go ahead and merge, I suspect there won't be any dissent. If there is, have a merge discussion on the talk page, not an AfD. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:16, 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 The Watchmen (band). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Tizzard

Ken Tizzard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –(ViewAfD · [26]):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WIKI:GNG.--NL19931993 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Watchmen (band), the band he's most notable for. While "was a member of two notable bands" is a notability criterion in NMUSIC, it isn't one that exempts the person from actually having to have any real sources — but the only reference being cited here at all is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a 122-word blurb about one of his two bands, not a source that's substantively about him for the purposes of establishing his independent notability. A solo album also isn't an automatic inclusion freebie either, but still depends on having reliable sources. There are things here that would be valid notability claims if the article were properly sourced — but there's nothing that's so "inherently" notable that he would be exempted from having to get over GNG on the sourcing just because of what the article says. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:22, 29 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) 09:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland and Labrador Tidy Towns Competition

Newfoundland and Labrador Tidy Towns Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –(ViewAfD · [27]):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable competition, article is two sentences; not in any sense encyclopedically relevant.--NL19931993 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing that satisfies WP:GNG in sourcing I can find. Even the main site is that was the sole non-independent "reference" of the article is dead. If there is anything that truly warrants mention, that can be crafted with sourced content at Newfoundland and Labrador without a need for a redirect given the dirth of use. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, barely an assertion of any importance, no encyclopedic notability per WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 02:20, 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. Essentially, the arguments to delete are the strongest and backed up closest to policy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Mysterious Mr. Epstein

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

There does not seem to be any indication that this podcast has anything beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Most of what I found seemed rather surface level and not particularly in depth. Therefore, it probably should be deleted. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this podcast. At best, it is too soon to have an article on this subject. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only trivial coverage exists. No real RSs. I have also listened to some of the podcast. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON. but it is WP:NOT for now Lightburst (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination Kitaab Ka Kida (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - or alternatively, redirect to Wondery. The redirect is such an obvious WP:ATD that in my opinion it should have been considered before even nominating this. However, in fact I would make a cautious argument to keep on the basis of the changes I have made. Specifically: the #1 Apple Podcast chart position, reliably sourced to Forbes, and the following (admittedly quite brief) reviews: [28], [29], [30]. Hugsyrup 11:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Hugsyrup. Recently added sources are good enough for the article to be kept. SUPER ASTIG 10:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Forbes article found by Hugsyrup is a passing mention. The other three offerings are bloggish mentons. We have no non-trivial coverage of this podcast in WP:RS. Lightburst (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Hugsyrup. Appears to barely meet GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Lindsay Graham (podcast host), and probably merge in American History Tellers, and expand into an article on the person behind both works. BD2412 T 05:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Purely by added sources which are ok and leads towards WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the sources BabaQ refers to consist of passing mentions, lacking substantial, in-depth, third party sustained coverage, and in no way confer or attest to the topic's notability...let alone "leads towards" it. ——SN54129 10:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of all the criticisms you can make of the sources I added (and they are certainly not perfect...) I’m not sure that ‘passing mentions’ is really accurate. One of them is a dedicated review article, and another is a substantial paragraph within a roundup of reviews. The Forbes one is a passing mention but the sole reason for adding that is because it establishes the number 1 chart position which, were this an album or book, would potentially be enough to pass an SNG. I’m honestly not overly wedded to this being a ‘keep’ but just want to make sure the sources are given a fair hearing! Hugsyrup 10:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don’t mind the ”criticism” Hugsyrup. POV never trumps the guidelines and a closing admins eye.BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America1000 03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Overcast

The Overcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –(ViewAfD · [31]):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable publication; not encyclopedically relevant.--NL19931993 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:44, 29 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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Joynul

Khan Joynul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Joynul Stats)

Not a notable person, this article is already deleted once but recreated by the author. Kitaab Ka Kida (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As, I am the creater I have to say something. When it was deleted it had around 5 references. I was not online then. It was deleted by User:RHaworth (He deleted pages like Maya Rani Paul, Jogesh Chandra Barman and Narayan Rao Tarale which were created by mine. I think he has a bad habits in deleting stub articles. This time I did not knock him as he replied late that my experience say so I recreate it). I can provide you only one English source (Comedy stars through the ages). If you think, an article having lack of non English sources should be deleted, you can delete it and vote for delete. And if you think a country's legendary comedian's article should be kept on Wikipedia, you can keep it and vote for keep. Thanks. -- S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Equally, Nazmus, you have bad habits in creating short stub articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Courtesy ping to RHaworth as his alleged bad habits have been brought up at this AfD but I'm not sure he's been made aware of it and it might be behind his back. The AfD nom. has previously raised invalid CSD [32] which creator had removed and seemingly an edit war ensued. Nom didn't inform creator of AfD but creator has found it anyway. Nom has also failed to sign this AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Neutral (withdrawing this !vote and leaving to consensus ... probably ) Speedy keep: (Technical) per WP:SKCRIT a:2 2:a Frivolous or vexatious nom. after edit war dispute following a WP:CSD raised with no valid criteria.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC) (This !vote from oldid=931005937 is restored after being nuked by RHaworth for now reasons .. probably accidently on edit edit conflict ... I have said what I have said on a log be it right or wrong or stupid or whatever and it should not probably be deleted unless there is a very good reason even if restoring it gets me in my usual trouble or blocked. Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: It is comes down to WP:RS and there's a reliance on foreign language sources I would suggest as a minimum the author or other interested parties elaborate the article cites ensuring trans-title,last,first,date,website,lang (or equivalents) are all populated where possible and three best are presented per WP:THREE suggestion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)(This comment from oldid=931005937 is restored after being nuked by RHaworth for now reasons .. probably accidently on edit edit conflict ... I have said what I have said on a log be it right or wrong or stupid or whatever and it should not probably be deleted unless there is a very good reason even if restoring it gets me in my usual trouble or blocked. Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
    Okay ... I've done the trans-title's on this occasion. Have a feeling some of the sources are passing mention only but The kings of laughter in the movie likely saved his his eyebrows which should be in the article. As it is I pretty well might as well be looking at IMDB as this wikipedia article. In the end imdb alone probably indicates passes WP:NACTOR as he seemshigh up the credits ... but I'm not expert at this. I think I'll stay off !voting. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The claim of "legendary" is probably true. Let us hope that someone will go to the trouble of finding paper sources, ie. newspaper articles, etc. from the guy's heyday. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per User:RHaworth-Nahal(T) 23:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have just reverted a strange corruption of the above vote comment by the nom., whilst probably a typo mistake rather than malicious people make wish to view history for details. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not only has this article been deleted and recreated, but the creator of the article, User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib consistently and purposely removes CSD tags that have been placed on articles that he/she has created. Unfortunately, the user seems to have no regard for rules or regulations when it comes to article deletion or creation. Furthermore, this article itself was nominated CSD and the user removed that tag as well. Dr42 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Khan does not meet WP:GNG or WP:N and certainly does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Simply put under WP:N and applicable here, Joynul fails to meet the requirement as he "has [failed to] receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[.]" Therefore, "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article." (Emphasis added). Dr42 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr42 those who acted in multiple notable films in significant role they are notable and passed WP:NACTOR. And even he is considered as legend. I think you will review your vote.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Please point me to your sources and I will reconsider. I attempted to identify sources for ten minutes to no avail. I judged the article on its merits. Indeed, we shouldn't even have had this discussion because had you not originally deleted the CSD tag for an article that you created yourself, it may have already been resolved. However, show me your proof and if it meets the guidelines I will reconsider. But as of right now, I do not agree with you and my vote remains delete. Dr42 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr42 yes, I recreated the article after CSD deletion. I have mentioned above why I recrearted. An article deleted in CSD didn't mean that there is 0% chance of his notability. And here deleting adminstrator himself vote for keep.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest relisting. There's no good RS in English (The Comedy Stars Through The Ages is too brief a treatment of the subject to be much use in proving notability) but given the fact that he died pre-internet and that his films were not in English this is not surprising. In looking at IMDB it does appear that he had leading roles in multiple films so WP:NACTOR may be met here if sources can be located. My guess is that any reliable online sources to be found on this individual will be in the Bengali-language. I am going to leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh to see if anyone there may be able to assist in locating RS in Bengali. If that yields nothing, then we can delete in confidence knowing that we at least attempted to do a proper WP:BEFORE.4meter4 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No RS that would confirm GNG have yet been provided at this AfD, however, there is a recognition that good en-RS could be hard to find, and thus a re-list is needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:54, 31 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikram Moondolao

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_December_15&oldid=931025259"