Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 December	23 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bony (2020 film)

(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]

Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Principal photo has begun so passes WP:NFF. @Lugnuts and Csgir czar 20:00, 22 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 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)

(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. Hug^syrup 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Aircraft Inc.

(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:

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 delete. Sandstein 09:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin S

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

Insufficient notability. Poorly referenced (and many of the existing references are dead links) Rangatira80 (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sounds like a fun thing to be a part of, but not a notable entity. BD2412 T 18:36, 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. The "keep" arguments do not really substantiate the sourcing of this topic. Sandstein 10:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medievia

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

All we have on this topic are four sentences from three listings. A search brought only primary and unreliable source material. Not enough to meet the significant coverage criteria of the GNG: We can't write an encyclopedia that does justice to the topic with this little information. The entire "controversy" section has no mention in reliable, secondary sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, since List of MUDs only accepts entries with their own articles. czar 21:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article already cites three books, I also turned up this paper on google scholar in my first search. - MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Three books" = three mentions from listings in three books (listicles of the 1990s). That citation is the same story: A brief mention pulled from an undergrad thesis (Zen 2003). Can't write an article on this topic without delving into primary source original research, as in the material you restored to the article. czar 22:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undergrad theses occasionally get it right, one way we know when that happens is they get cited and quoted in a journal, which is what happened here. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad—wasn't a thesis but a 100-level course paper. czar 22:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I tend to agree with MrOllie. The article is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what claim, though? The book citations are cursory mentions and the only source with depth is the undergrad thesis. The bulk of the article text consists of primary sources and original research whose removal was reverted. czar 13:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Brief mentions aren't significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I have to agree with czar there's very little here to go on. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources and therefore fails WP:GNG. Most coverage in reliable sources are just trival mentions. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 13:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valiyaperunnal

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

Non-notable film, no WP:SIGCOV found, article poorly sourced, and no claim of notability in article. CSD A7 doens't apply to films, so I'm listing here. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeletor3000: Hai please check the article now, I just edited it as much as I know Ravishingstar (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ravishingstar: You've certainly improved the sources, but I still don't see significant coverage. Those that are focused on the film consist of the same canned release details. Those that have more depth are focused on individual actors, etc and only mention the film in name. WP:NFF suggests that unreleased films should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable. I haven't seen any mention of production details that would meet that guideline. It's my opinion that at least until the release, this one fits under WP:TOOSOON, and after the release, film reviews will likely be the source of notability. Thanks for your comment. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep considering its opening in two weeks it would surely have been better to wait until then to see if reliable sources reviews are forthcoming, drafting would also have been a better option, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeletor3000: Hey, please check the article now, I have added some production details. Listen please, in this region this is an important film, so many people are looking forwad about the film as the movie hero named shane nigam is sensational. we all know it's a reliable film; so many references are cited there. Please check and you can do the favour to the article from your side as you are an experienced wikipedian. Because I believe the article must be in Wikipedia. Ravishingstar (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ravishingstar: Please see WP:NF, specifically WP:NFSOURCES. I don't doubt that this film is highly anticipated by fans, but the article still lacks a claim of significance. In other words, the article tells us details about the movie, but it does not tell or demonstrate why the movie is important. Lacking such a claim (even an unreferenced one) makes articles eligible for speedy deletion in many cases. If it winds up being kept per Atlantic306's reasoning, a verifiable claim of its notability needs to be added to the article as soon as possible. If it's notable, news coverage or reviews will provide more significant coverage that can be used to add a verifiable claim of notability. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of significance is a lower standard for speedy deletion A7 which excludes films, notability is the standard that applies which means WP:GNG. Having significant coverage in reliable sources is the claim of significance rather than any specific claims, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I may be convoluting the issue by mentioning A7 or claims to significance. My thinking was that in lieu of standard post-release coverage, a claim of something notable about the film would be an improvement over an article only stating its existence, cast, etc. WP:GNG is indeed the standard, however. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeletor3000: Please wait for only six days, the movie will release on coming 20. So please keep the article and don’t delete Ravishingstar (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeletor3000: The film’s trailer released, i added details about the trailer release with references, also please check this: the Wikipedia already added the film Valiyaperunnal on the list of movies 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Malayalam_films_of_2019 . please check and remove the deletion tag please Ravishingstar (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : @Skeletor3000: Have you checked article? What do you make of it? expecting the response!!

What is it that you're showing me? Did you check WP:NFF as I suggested? You seem to be missing the point. We don't need more sources referencing the same generic upcoming release details. We need something that passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. It looks like the film is going to be released before this round of discussion is finished. The only other editor to discuss this AfD has suggested just waiting until it's released to see if coverage improves. It seems like that's essentially what will happen now that the discussion has been extended, so let's just wait and do a search for significant coverage after it releases. In my opinion, the article is now heavily over-referenced, with 2 references supporting details like who is scoring the film. No reason not to just leave it and wait until the release for better coverage to emerge. Adding further references to the same generic details doesn't improve its notability. Skeletor3000 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeletor3000: Hai there, the movie has been released today (20 December), I have cited a soucre of movie review in the article. Please check it and do the needful to remove the deletion tag. Ravishingstar (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravishingstar: I'm not seeing any reviews in the article. I see you added its rating certificate. Is that what you mean? I'll search later today. Please know that the deletion discussion closes through consensus. I don't just delete the tag when I'm personally convinced. If I find reviews later, I'll add them to the article and mention them here. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete this film doesnt have significant coverage in reliable sources. Whatever coverage i could find, is from telly/gossip/media sites. Thus failing general notable criteria. The film similarly fails WP:NFSOURCES. The film doesnt pass anything from WP:NFO, basically it fails all of WP:NFILM. Also, the above argument for "week keep" is nullified as the film is now released but fails WP:NFILM. This is just another film that exists, but nothing notable about it. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: why you guys are always finding reasonable to delete the article? I don’t understand. As a fresher of Wikipedia i make mistake, I’m not an experienced editor or creator. As a fresher i am expecting help and guidance from those admins or experienced editors. But it seems like torturing me. There are a few things about the films on google, I don’t know how to add it on the article. So kidly please check and edit or remove the unwanted details as well as add some details needed. Hope for the guidance. Loving Wikipedia Ravishingstar (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravishingstar: Hi. I apologise you feel that way. I can understand very well how you are feeling/what you are going through (one of the articles I created got deleted recently after a policy was changed). But here on wikipedia, we have to follow policies, and guidelines. I have included the related policies in my previous comment. Before commenting as "delete", I searched on internet, but I found that the film is not notable. It is not about how many links, or references are there; it is about the notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: first of all the movie just released today. So please wait for the references, which references want for notable for a film Ravishingstar (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's released. Is there coverage now?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reviews are starting to surface. 1, 2, 3 at least. I'm not familiar with the sources but the reviews are substantial and all sites appear to have been reviewing movies for a long time. Skeletor3000 (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Skeletor3000: didn’t searched properly i think or you didn’t get the reviews, there are sufficient reviews i think. I will show some reliable sources.

[1](Times of India), [2](THE WEEK), [3] (Indian Express), [4], [5], [6], [7] (THE HINDU), [8], [9], [10], [11].

It is enough to keep i think, @Spartaz: @Skeletor3000: @Usernamekiran: kindly please do the needful to remove the speedy deletion tag. Thanks Ravishingstar (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about how you determined that I didn't find any when they're in the first 5 words of my comment. Also, again, the discussion ends when an admin closes it. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeletor3000: Hai dear user, could you help to remove the deletion tag please!! Kindive please Ravishingstar (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for the third time, the discussion will be closed by an admin. Please stop pinging me. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment some of the review links posted by Ravishingstar are from reliable sources, but they are not enough for establishing notability. Nowadays, almost all the media houses have online divisions, and they are generous with their publishing. To get visits to their sites, they are covering whatever they can. The reviews are not from the motable critics as suggested by the guideline. That still makes my vote as delete as above. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in my original comment, i mistakenly dropped out "not", which i added later. I have underlined it. I apologise for the confusion caused till the update. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:00, 28 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) 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funding Circle

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

DELETE This article is a clear attempt at using Wikipedia as advertising. In the article talk page, there are multiple listings created by someone claiming to be an employee and asking for edits to be made to the article. I question how organic this article. I'm not questioning the company having a page on Wikipedia, I question, the intent behind the material in the article. In my option, if you remove content in the article that could be deemed advertising, 90% or more the article would be removed, leaving you with a very unnotable article . (Bes2224 (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Keep This is a major entity listed on the London Stock Exchange. Until recently it was actually a member of the FTSE 250 Index which lists the largest companies by market capitalisation. Per WP:LISTED it is inherently notable. Dormskirk (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The employee who asked for edits to be made to the article has followed exactly the right procedure in accordance with WP:COI. It would be quite wrong the employee to have done anything else e.g. edit the article directly. I am not sure why you do not have a go at editing the article yourself. I have already removed some advertising material. Per WP:Deletion policy "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases". Dormskirk (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - After reading through the citations in the article I was surprised what had been left out vs included. Further I've discovered that the articles' projection of a stable and growing quickly company is unbalanced relative to for example coverage from the Financial Times https://www.ft.com/stream/c13dacd6-60af-4314-861a-98cfb0368cb9 (even the fact that the IPO lost ~30% of it's value on it's first day of trading being missing from the article is another example of big deal things that are missing are happen to be unflattering that are missing). Here is an example of recent 2019 coverage (check the link to see recent coverage headlines):

'A fintech false dawn for London’s stock exchange Premium - Funding Circle’s dire debut has left hopes of a 2019 listings rush unfulfilled' NOVEMBER 25 2019,
'Funding Circle tries to ease fears over withdrawals - P2P lender sends letter to investors in effort to allay capitalisation concerns' (OCTOBER 11 2019),
'Funding Circle losses widen as bad debts in UK worsen - Higher costs offset rise in first-half revenue, UK-based lender says' (AUGUST 8 2019),
'Funding Circle warns growth is slowing. Shares tumble' (JULY 2 2019),
'Funding Circle halves growth forecast for this year' (JULY 2 2019)
'Fintech Funding Circle shows valuations are a binary choice - Warning exposes the persistent bugs in the peer-to-peer lending program' (JULY 2 2019),
'Funding Circle investment trust to be wound up - Decision to close Funding Circle SME Income comes after returns had stalled' (APRIL 5 2019),
'Losses at Funding Circle jump 40%' (MARCH 7 2019)

Therefore the article is currently entirely misleading for readers in nature and would require a near total rewrite to reflect balance relative to reliable news sources WestportWiki (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have inserted all the above stories into the article and also an additional one dated September 2019 stating that the Press Association is reporting that lenders face a near 100-day wait to sell off unwanted loans. I have no interest in this company. I just want to demonstrate that a re-write is always possible - it just takes a bit of time and effort. Article deletions should always be a last resort - especially for a company that is getting so much coverage - admittedly negative. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok Keep - page still needs work; I'll spend some time contributing. Changing from Delete to Keep given that the page is being improve to be more neutral. WestportWiki (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Did anyone check Google Books? There is this from what appears to be an education textbook and this as well which includes a case study on the company. These are just two of several that I pulled. Not all of the press is positive either, including this from the FTs. AfD is not cleanup and this can be taken to a stub very easy to alleviate any promotional tone. As it stands, I don't think WP:TNT applies. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great. I have now included the books under "further reading". Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company has attracted coverage in multiple sources, not just the paywalled FT but also a BBC News article, a commentary item in The Guardian, as well as the "Funding for SMEs" case study identified above, which amounts to substantial coverage. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brilliant. I have now inserted all these additional stories into the article. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has existed since 2011. Subject has received significant media coverage, both positive and negative, over an extended period. The article covers both positive and negative developments for the company. This is a notable subject and the article is in no way spammy. Improvements can be discussed on the talk page but I see absolutely no case for deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major company with significant coverage. The concerns about WP:COI are justified, and vigilance is needed to keep the article neutrally worded, but doesn't justify deleting it. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple analyst reports available for this company - e.g. Merill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citi, etc. For the purposes of establishing notability, analyst reports may be used, therefore topic meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject received significant media coverage, so the issue was combined with WP:NCORP.-Nahal^(T) 19:23, 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. Sandstein 10:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperium (professional wrestling)

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

Non-notable professional wrestling stable Moab12 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objection/Keep: There are a list of results in the Cagematch database: [12] So this article is notable plus they have an upcoming match at the 2020 World's Collide PPV as well as the wXw Tag Team Champions holding it in 154 days. 69.157.124.90 (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cagematch is a database of wrestling events and wrestlers with wholly different inclusion criteria from Wikipedia, which is why many wrestlers listed there have had their corresponding articles on Wikipedia deleted. Your other arguments are irrelevant to establishing notability, Moab12 (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 20:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I'm inclined towards delete given I could find no independent coverage about Imperium itself, it rather being mentioned in passing in articles about wrestlers and/or events. I am just not seeing why this "stable" is notable outside of its members' individual notabilities. Also, Cagematch does not appear reliable by any means. PK650 (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. Non-significant professional wrest.-Nahal^(T) 19:20, 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. Sandstein 10:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Olaloye Folayan

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

Non notable academic who fails WP:NACADEMIC has little or no coverage at all let alone in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An admirable citizen and contributor to his nation, but notability cannot be found WP:Memorial. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Krakkos (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about a non-notable educator who fails WP:GNG. It's sad that he's late now, but Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased persons. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 23:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not understand why it fails even WP:GNG. Because it passes the clauses #2, #3, #7 and #8 of WP:NACADEMIC. He is pioneer of the Nigerian cars. There are many scholarly sources about him. Sambhil32 (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the creator of the BIO? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Sambhil32: Sorry but it is not clear to me which content you are relying for #2, #3, #7 and #8. Can you point me (and others) to which content and references support each of these criteria? Aoziwe (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The #2 states that The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level - Clement Folayan won national merit award for his works towards development in Nigeria Education.

#3 states The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association - Clement Folayan was a fellow of several national level societies[13].
#7 states The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. - He formed NADCC under Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment.

Are these not enough to establish notability? Thank you. Sambhil32 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect. The subject is not without some degree of academic respect and technical achievement. While I cannot find sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG for the subject in his own right, there is some valuable encyclopedic material potentially associated with the subject. As per policy, ie, alternatives to deletion: Sambhil32. I suggest two or three of relevent sentences should be each added to Ahmadu Bello University#Administration (which should also include faculty members, or faculty members should have their own section), briefly describing the subject's position and key achievements, Clement Olaloye Folayan should redirect to this, and added to Nigeria#Manufacturing and technology referring to the subject's work with automobile manufacturing linking back to Ahmadu Bello University#Administration, and added to Zeolite#Commercial and domestic referring to the subject's work in this area also linking back to Ahmadu Bello University#Administration. Aoziwe (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 18:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth armies and hosts

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

Another prime example of Tolkiencruft. There's one article/source titled "Orc Hosts, Armies and Legions, A Demographic Study", but everything else appears to be in-universe plot details and a whole lot of WP:OR. I doubt that Tolkien ever published such firm numbers or tables of organization. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:OR list that fails WP:LISTN. Belongs in Wikia, full stop._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that this is an extreme example of WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:OR. Tolkien never published anything like this. This is really fan fiction.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, fan fiction in theory can become notable. However in this case, there is little to no evidence the fan fiction exists outside of the article. Basically the tables of this article seem to be a unique work of fan fiction unto themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tricky. I'd be up for being convinced tht this was a topic worthy of an article, but this current iteration has some pretty serious OR issues. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading this article, I was struck by the sheer amount of original research and fancruft it contains. The best remedy is deletion, as there is nothing useful here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am still in shock that Tolkiencruft got so out of controll in 2004, and also that so much of it has survived so long. There needs to be major pairing back of this content. Some earlier comments on AfD discussions suggest a belief we have gotten fictional cruft under control. At least in the Tolkien sense, we still have so much it makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The amount of Original Research here is pretty astounding. As there is pretty much no sourced information here at all worth keeping, it should be deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These horrid, original research tables date back to the original creation of this article in 2007. I am less than convinced there is any evidence that Tolkien ever worked out the thought process of what the commanders of various army sizes were called, what the sizes of various armies were and related issues. It is the absurdity of articles like this that keeps us from focusing full time on removing the articles on non-notable figures, more like non-fiugures whose naes are dropped once, or in the cases of the like of Eldarion not even named outside the apendix, and I am not sure even mentioned in the LotR, although appearing in a dream in the RotK movie.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply more fancruft. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tolkiencruft indeed. Hopefully it is preserved on some fan wikia or blog or such. But it shouldn't be here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. it is OR. Alex-h (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 00:40, 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 19:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuk-luk

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

Entirely unsourced; the only source previously in the article was unreliable fringe writer Loren Coleman. WP:BEFORE search returned only fringe coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep it source it....seems to be lots of sources in the link above. Is the cotent being contested or the concept?--Moxy 🍁 21:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy There are indeed a large number of Google and GBooks hits, but all of them seem to be fringe sources that do not establish notability per WP:NFRINGE. Are there any in particular that you would recommend adding to the article? –dlthewave ☎ 22:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly no reliable sources appear to exist. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless somebody can actually locate evidence of reliable sources to support its notability better than this completely unreferenced article does. We would have to keep total hoaxes if merely saying "keep it source it" was all you had to do to stave off deletion — anybody could simply say that better sources are available for absolutely anything if they merely had to say it and had no responsibility to actually prove it. So we do not keep unsourced articles just because somebody speculates that better sources might exist somewhere that nobody has actually found — rather, we consider the sources that people show. So if you want to save an unsourced article, then it's your job to find and show the sources it would take to make a difference. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see sources dating back to 1965 to publication from 2017. This is the problem with the dark side of Wikipedia. ...no effort. before nomination...I see many many hits even crap media sources. .. let alone Google Books explaining it. common enough its in the New Yorker.--Moxy 🍁 17:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of us can speak to the work done by other editors before commenting here, but I can say that my deletion nomination is based on an assessment of results in the Find Sources links above. My practice is to assess the quality, not the quantity of sources; I'm well aware of the existence of "crap media sources", numerous books by fringe authors, and the single Google News result, but none of these meet our standards for significant coverage in reliable sources.

The New Yorker source mentions the Nuk-luk exactly once, in a list of mythological beings "closely related" to the Yeti. This is about as trivial as it gets.

When I set GBooks to search for results from 1965, it returned only results that happen to contain the syllables "nuk" and "luk" which seem to be fairly common in various languages. Please enlighten us if you've had better luck. I admire editors who are able to dig up reliable sources that I happen to miss, but your unsupported claims that sources exist are worthless. You should be well aware that we do not determine notability based on the number of search results. –dlthewave ☎ 20:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Dlthewave, we evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of search results. A source which mentions the topic's name in the process of being about something else (like that New Yorker hit) would show up in a Google search, but would not be about the topic for the purposes of establishing its notability. An unreliable source that isn't usable at all (like a blog, or a self-published book written by a fringe theorist and published by a print-on-demand house without editorial oversight) would show up in a Google search. And on and so forth: not everything that Google finds is actually a usable or notability-making hit. So you still can't just say there are sources: to actually make a difference you have to show specific sources, preferably by actually adding them to the article but at absolute minimum by listing at least three solid sources in this discussion, that are reliable and substantively about the topic. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popular alternative name for Bigfoot in Canada--2605:8D80:564:E76B:586E:5D40:9A75:FF64 (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which, if proven, would earn this title a redirect to Bigfoot, not a standalone article about it. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Bearcat Dartslilly (talk) 01:12, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mint Velvet

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

Fails WP:NCORP - all that a search returns is social media, store locators, online retail, nothing reliable, significant, or independent. Cabayi (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 19:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbanaška vera

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

This short article is a WP:COATRACK conflation of two different subjects: the description of Roman Catholicism as practiced in the Serbian Empire as Arbanaška vera (Albanian Faith) in emperor Dušan the Mighty's 1349 law code, and the outdated Serbian exonym Arbanaš to purportedly describe the people who now call themselves Albanians.

If anything, the entire article could be summarized by a paragraph in Dušan's Code and a paragraph at Albanians#Ethnonym. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amanuensis Balkanicus, its not "purported". The term Arbanaška (derived from Arbanas) was used for Albanians by South Slavic peoples until late into the Ottoman period. We can have that discussion on my talkpage or yours (with RS sources) if you so wish. As for the existence of this article, i am not fussed about it existing or being deleted. My perspective is that portions of content would better suited to articles about Catholicism in Albania, (possibly also Catholicism in Kosovo and Catholicism in North Macedonia) as that's what it refers too anyway and of course a sentence or two in the article about Dusan's code.Resnjari (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you're open to deleting this article and copy-pasting its content to other articles? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no WP:COATRACK here. I would accept this article merge to an article dedicated to the treatment of Catholics in Dusan's time. The topic has plenty material available from RS. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename -- This is an unsatisfactory article, but might provide a basis for a general article on History of Catholicism in the western Balkans. At present we have List of Roman Catholic dioceses in the Balkans, which is a list and best left as such. We also have Catholic Church in North Macedonia; Catholic Church in Albania; etc., which deal with single modern countries, almost all arising from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in 1880s to 1910s. We seem to lack a general article on the subject to which this, shorn of its present anti-Catholic POV might be a useful contribution. Not a COATRACK or irredeemably lacking NPOV, but it needs amendment. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "coatrack" does not seem to be part of the deletion policies. The article cites 5 sources, and there is no argument to explain why this fails WP:GNG. Dartslilly (talk) 01:24, 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 merge to Enemy of the people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy of the people (Albania)

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

The term "Enemy of the People" has been used widely throughout history the world over. There is no reason why the phrase's use in Albania (basically the content of this entire article) can't be added to the article Enemy of the People. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The subject is one of the most notable (and unhappy) aspects of Albania's history. There are lots of reliable sources that can be used to expand this article and turn it into a very long one. RS discuss how the term became an important concept in the country, how it evolved, how it changed in line with the party's domestic and international policies, the most notable figures that were described as so etc. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided a single argument why Albania's "Enemy of the People" designation merits its own article, when every other country's "Enemy of the People" is and/or can be listed in the article Enemy of the People, which already exists. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Enemy of the people. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a new section in Enemy of the people#Marxist–Leninist states. However in investigating this (looking for a target) I found that WP's articles on Albania, such as People's Socialist Republic of Albania, and Enver Hoxha have a severe lacuna. They deal at great length with foreign relations and say nothing about the internal affairs or economy of Communist Albania (a redirect). I wondered about Forced labour camps in Communist Albania as a merge target. Category:People's Socialist Republic of Albania has articles on specific topics, including the Party, but nothing general. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per @Peterkingiron and have Enemy of the people (Albania) as a redirect. Also if we do merge, there are 3 WP:PRIMARY sources like the CIA document, Hoxha's statement to Truman, Ambassador Bernd Borchard's statement at a OSCE conference that should not be included. Additionally the source from an old newspaper called Bolshevik should be excluded as well, due to RS reasons (its reads like a propaganda piece). Others sources are fine, especially Shannon Woodcock, my old university lecturer on Genocide and Eastern European studies. :) She has done extensive research of communist Albania so more could be used to expand content. Separate to that Peterkingiron, reasons for those gaps are many of the political old guard from the communist era are in power, or their children and grandchildren these days and hence Albanian historiography is polticised, see Brisku, p.17. [14]. Apart from Woodcock, there have been a few good studies published like Tadeusz Czekalski's The shining beacon of socialism in Europe: The Albanian state and society in the period of communist dictatorship 1944–1992 (2013) - in case anyone was wondering the shining beacon part of the title is meant to be sarcastic. But attention to this topic is sparse by non-Albanian scholarship. I wrote this wiki article Islam in Albania (1945–1991) and it was a difficult undertaking, due to difficulties in finding good sources.Resnjari (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was created on November 10. If other editors are interested in expanding it, why don't we give them a chance to work on it before deletion? Is the sourcing insufficient for WP:GNG? I don't see any policy based argument about notability and not having time to do in-depth research myself, I am unsure which way to vote. Dartslilly (talk) 01:31, 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) 18:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of rosh yeshivas

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG. Most people and organizations on this list are not notable in and of themselves. This list is incomplete, and no amount of editing could change that. It would be like making an article titled List of principals. Additionally, the term "rosh yeshiva" is ill defined (dean, principal, superintendent, administrator?) and almost none of the entries have sources. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all previous arguments. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yoninah (talk) 23:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shape Security

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They key is WP:ORGCRIT, of which none of the current references meet that threshold. Alternatively, it could be merged into F5 Networks based on this.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH-Nahal^(T) 19:13, 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. If the article should be renamed, that can happen through the usual process for page moves. RL0919 (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Torbay Road

Not a notable roadway; not in any sense encyclopedically relevant.--NL19931993 (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—provincial highways in Canada are typically kept (see WP:ROADOUTCOMES). The highway systems of the various Canadian provinces are considered notable, but for WP:SIZE reasons, they're given separate articles on the individual highways. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 05:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a notable highway because it's a provincial road. AfD is not cleanup. There's also this [16] from Transportation and Works for Newfoundland and Labrador about a bypass project involving Torbay road with a total cost of $22.7 milliion. Clovermoss (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article certainly needs improvement — but this is a provincial-class highway, not a municipal road, so it's judged by the inclusion standards for highways. It should rightly be moved back to Newfoundland and Labrador Route 20 (where it was originally created), because the whole highway is the notable topic and "Torbay Road" is just a portion of it, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. MB 03:08, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craze Digital

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

I searched for independant, reliable sources that would make this company notable under WP:CORP, but there doesn't appear to be anything that would make it notable. The best argument for keep that I could think of would be the one lawsuit mentioned by 3 different sources, but that still wouldn't make this company notable per WP:ILLCON. I understand that AfD is not cleanup, and I have tried to improve the article (see the talk page and article history), but I can't fix nonexistent notability. Clovermoss (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler McGregor (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Conference awards and being inducted into his school's athletic hall of fame do not come close to meeting WP:NHOCKEY or WP:NCOLLATH. There is no significant independent coverage to support a claim that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 04:47, 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 merge to Spokane County, Washington. (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 19:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spokane Regional Transportation Council

(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. Sounder Bruce 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perri 6

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

This person does not appear to be notable. A Google search does not show anything except that he has published some articles, but so has everyone in academia and that isn't enough to meet notability, and that he changed his name to something ridiculous, but those sources are trivial, e.g. an episode of QI. This page is trivial (and possibly just self-promotion?). Richard75 (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP's standards for academics are oddly high: Brian Cox passes WP:N easily for having been a keyboard player on Top Of The Pops, but is questioned as an academic. The football team in a class all pass for having walked onto the pitch and walked off again, but their professor doesn't.

Perri 6 is not the most notable of academics: but they do have a profile, and the oddity of their renaming has given them coverage in some unusual places too, such as Qi. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least playing a keyboard or playing football are achievements; changing one's name is not. Richard75 (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences is a pass of WP:PROF#C3, and his personal chair is a likely pass of #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a source to the article for the Fellow of the AcSS. As per David Eppstein, that gives WP:NPROF C3. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 19:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jangaon Municipality

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

Organization does not have WP:CORPDEPTH and falls short of WP:NCORP Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is an officially recognized town (see p. 9 of this document for example), not a corporation, and Wikipedia keeps all of those. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Local councils are notable. Rathfelder (talk) 16:53, 26 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

(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]

Keep I agree with Thincat; this article is the broader concept, with Amorphous metal transformer a particular type of energy efficient transformer. Merging Amorphous metal transformer into this one makes more sense. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two relists, there is still clear disagreement. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Tyson

Does not meet WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet another anti-porn nomination from the same editor. Article easily meets WP:NACTOR. --John B123 (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note which of the 3 criteria listed at WP:NACTOR this persona meets, with supporting evidence, thanks. Zaathras (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just don't see any notability here. I checked WP:NACTOR (John B123 Thanks) but all 3 bullets there appear to fail: (1) "significant roles in multiple notable films," - none, otherwise there would be blue links in the movies cited in his article. (2) "large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." - none, otherwise his website link in his infobox wouldn't be for sale and, instead, it would be boasting with followers counted in the 100,000's, (3) "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." - not really: the only claim to fame he seems to have is he got "inducted into the GayVN Hall of Fame in February 2008", but that was 11 years ago, what other recognition has he gotten since? Also, that single (and seemingly inconsistent) award by itself could hardly, IMO, be called a claim to fame. Sorry, I would had voted to keep but the rationale just isn't there. Mercy11 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has appeared in non-notable porn films, nothing to suggest subject meets notability criteria. Zaathras (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part of me is tempted to say the fact he lacks an official website is a strong sign he is not notable. Clearly there is no actual sign of notability. Wikipedia has had way, way too many articles on pornographic performers for far too long. We have been inprovements since 2011 when some of the claims about our over coverage were put out, but we still have a long way to go. We have to stop treating PR stagins by the pornographic industry as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources exist and have been added to article. Lack of official website, of which he has apparently had many, is actually a sign he has transitioned from actor to behind the scenes, which is apparently quite common for gay male porn. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added approx 20,000 kilobytes of essentially nothing, just a long list of industry awards and nominations which no longer count towards notability for porn actors. Zaathras (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those awards and noms, by far an incomplete list, show that he was hardly an ordinary performer, some of them recognized his directing work. And I think a fair assessment shows there was more than just that, and sourcing exists to indeed create a good article, which I think is the point. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If sourcing exists, then by all means produce it. Show where the WP:GNG is satisfied, as links to XBIZ and AVN don't cut it. Zaathras (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XBIZ and AVN were used afterwards to confirm mainly the films themselves, although a few of their articles also re-supported other content. Which you likely already know. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closer. Article has been completely re-written. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it has. What was before a short bio of a non-notable porn actor is now a masturbatory hagiography, bloated to the extreme with mostly AVN/XBIZ citations. His PR department would be proud. Zaathras (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, I must commend you, for having less than 200 edits you have an exceptionally advanced understanding of XfD, and how Wikipedia works. Well worth noting.

Secondly, those references, which mainly support content already in the article—confirming what had been stated was accurate, are arguably industry experts in an industry that notoriously has sourcing challenges, and serve as institutional memory for companies, like Tiger’s, that *don’t* seem to do any planning for documenting their legacy, and abandon company websites one after the next. That one is able to find anything is surprising. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions when you run outta arguments. Keep it classy! Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just observations of the WP:Ducking obvious. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What it seems to be is many many tiny and trivial citations attempting to add up to one big "it's notable!", but it just doesn't get there. No criteria of WP:NACTOR have been met ("notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", no. "fan base or cult following", no evidence presented of this. "unique, prolific or innovative contributions", no evidence of this, "thug porn" appears to be an unremarkable niche genre). As for WP:GNG, no, everything is either trivial (Paper Magazine bio sheet) or not independent from the subject (all the AVN awards). The play based on his life was intriguing, but again, a non-notable performance in itself. ValarianB (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree. That his life story was made into a play by a notable author itself seems to be notable.

That he is the de facto representative of thug porn, which is shown to represent a fifth of the industry seems notable.

And his many awards and noms *all* independent of him and his companies suggests he has been recognized for his work.

He’s been recognized both inside and outside of the porn industry for his contributions as both an actor, and producer. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we shall see where it goes, no harm in disagreeing. :) It is well-written and researched, I am just unconvinced of the notability still. Take care. ValarianB (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think being the definitive ‘thug porn’ prototype meets #3 of WP:Actor - “Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.” I look at meeting WP:GNG though, so I hadn’t considered another criteria. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmm! What constitutes a notable porn film? I don't see usual academics writing about porn. Reliable and independent sources exists and supports notability. It does not matter whether the acknowledgement was 11 years ago. Notability is not temporary. - Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the sources you claim are notable so we can evaluate them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These could include:

Ferguson, JD (27 July 2007). "JD Ferguson Presents: Tiger Tyson". Paper. Retrieved 6 December 2019.
Bacalzo, Dan (15 June 2010). "Johnathan Cedano to Star in Confessions of a Homo Thug Porn Star on Fire Island". Theater Mania. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
"Porn star's story explored in new play". Washington Blade. 28 April 2011. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
Moore, Darnell L. (7 July 2016). "Catch a Tiger By His Toe: An Interview with James Earl Hardy by Darnell L." Medium. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
Escoffier, Jeffrey (2009). Bigger than life : the history of gay porn cinema from beefcake to hardcore. Philadelphia: Running Press. pp. 314–8. ISBN 978-0-7867-4753-5. OCLC 647869684.
Harrison, Byrne (16 June 2010). "Gay Theatre NYC Review: Interview - Johnathan Cedano of Confessions of Homo Thug Porn Star". Gay Theatre NYC Review. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
Colbert, Chuck (23 March 2013). "A Weekend with Tiger Tyson hosted by the HBGC". The Rainbow Times. Retrieved 6 December 2019.
Boardman, Mickey (12 October 2005). "Tiger, Tiger, Burning Bright". Paper. Retrieved 6 December 2019.
Colbert, Chuck (1 May 2012). "HBGC Event: Black and Latino Gay Men on Pornography". The Rainbow Times. Retrieved 6 December

And his dozens of articles at AVN and XBIZ. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep votes have more grounding in wishful thinking than policy and notability not met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think being the definitive ‘thug porn’ prototype meets #3 of WP:Actor - “Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.” As well, I think he passes WP:GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well written! It has enough independent sources and passed WP:GNG. I noticed that the article has been rewritten / expanded after the nomination - Jay (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Various films he was in have earned awards, and there are plenty of sources. Notability is not temporary.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright since subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Some participants in this discussion seem to forget or ignore this RfC outcome that has conclusively deprecated WP:PORNBIO. This means that all criteria specifically meant for persons in the porn industry are now defunct; arguments based on them do not get off the starting blocks.

We now have only and strictly WP:ENTERTAINER and there is no criterion that our subject meets: Criterion #3 (unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment) is not met since there was nothing innovative or unique in his work. Was his work prolific? We count some forty films in which he participated, which is evidently below the median in the industry, and that also takes care of criterion #1 (significant roles in multiple notable films; emphasis added).

Criterion #2, which requires a large fan base or a significant "cult" following for out subject, is not met, per dearth of related evidence and despite the material added recently. The only sign of notability is emitted out of a James Earl Hardy-produced play based on Tyson's memoir. But on its own that's just not enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Let's just say it's WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think being the definitive ‘thug porn’ prototype meets #3 of WP:Actor - “Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.” As well, I think he passes WP:GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've argued this already. "Thug porn" itself is not a notable subject. So, Tyson being the "prototype" of a notion that only exists in porn industry nomenclature does not bestow upon him notability Wikipedia-style, which, lest someone forgets, is different from typical, every-day notability. -The Gnome (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had rarely heard of it myself but apparently it is a thing, at least a fifth of the industry at one point. So to you it may be nothing but in gay porn he’s apparently the leader in this niche genre that his label invented and grew. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You want to have an article on Wikipedia on a person who's supposedly famous for something about which we have not even heard, and which does not qualify in itself as notable? These are attributes esoteric to a fiel, i.e. potn, but do not provide for an argument based on policy. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information, nor is it some industry's guide. -The Gnome (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome, in your reply to Gleeanon409, you said “You want to have an article on Wikipedia on a person who's supposedly famous for something about which we have not even heard, and which does not qualify in itself as notable?” True, I have never heard of him too because I am a straight man who don’t bother to watch gayporn. But in this case, it is has got nothing to do with you or me or our sexual orientation and preferences. If you read the article and all the references given, you can see that it meets Wikipedia:Notability requirements in both WP:NACTOR and WP:ENTERTAINER. This guy has won awards (refer Awards and nominations), made countless of videos (refer Videography), has a book written containing him (refer bibliography) and has been interviewed by press, etc (independent sources). This guy is definitely has his own fanbase (certainly not you and me). Put that aside, but this article passes all the requirements as an actor; and should stay - Jay (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Jay. You did not understand. The criteria for the inclusion are not mine or personal by anyone else. I stated quite clearly that the subject is not notable, per Wikipedia's policy (even using the term "Wikinotable"). And I merely compound on this, i.e. on the lack of verifiable sources bestowing notability, stating that the field of Tyson's ostensible notability is obscure & esoteric to the point that most of us have not even heard of it. If the extra weight confuses, let's remove it and ignore it; our subject is still as far from being notable as myriads of other subjects one does not find in Wikipedia. Which is alright, really! -The Gnome (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is that *any* article be reasonably well-written and informative. I think this one is, and in researching it learned that the thugporn niche, by some estimates, could be a $500 million to $1 billion industry. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether an activity or a specialty procures large amounts of money to its aficionados or whether a text is well written do not, by and in themselves, constitute criteria for inclusion, Gleeanon409. They are attributes necessary for an article but not enough for having it up. -The Gnome (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While some of the keep votes are in good faith, the sources by @Gleeanon409: still need analyzing to determine if GNG is met.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 14:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: you seem to suggest that the sourcing offered by me wasn’t in good faith. Am I misreading that? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: Yes, I find the sourcing to be in good faith. My mistake. If it's shown to meet GNG, it will be kept. ミラ P 14:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:BIO / WP:ENT. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the broad assessment that “Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP.” I believe that was previously debunked above. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Nothing of the sort was "debunked". You simply asserted that the subject has "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment”, that field being "thug porn", a porn sub-category that does not even meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. So, WP:NACTOR is out. Apart from this assertion, nothing is proffered to support WP:GNG, aside from the typical stuff used before WP:PORNBIO wad depreceated. -The Gnome (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the sources showing Tyson meets GNG. I can’t say I really understood all the other possible criteria an actor may meet, but I think he’s been covered enough by independent sources to meet GNG. He also has plenty of industry coverage, and awards. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote at least three times "being the definitive thug porn prototype meets #3 of WP:Actor" and each time you were informed that being the "prototype" in something entirely non-notable does not support notability. Perhaps, Gleeanon409, it's high time you stepped away from this horse. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. I did state it three times but only you once convolutedly responded that it was somehow irrelevant as no one had yet written the gay thug porn article, or something, I didn’t really follow. In any case, I had dropped it so I don’t know why it’s being re-argued. I’m happy to let others see the article itself and decide if it’s good enough. If I get bored I might try the DYK process. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not understand the other party's argument, you can ask for clarifications. You did not ask for clarifications at any time. Now, you claim that the responses you received were "convoluted" and you did not "really follow." Well, this does not mean that you can continue to argue ad nauseam using the exact same point without addressing the objections raised to it. For the last time, and as simply as it it can get: You claim Tyson is notable because he is the prototype of 'thug porn.' To this, the response is that 'thug porn' is not notable. Therefore, any claim of Tyson's notability based on 'thug porn' is null & void.

You have crossed the line of proper conduct in an AfD and, through your repetitive argumentation, you're hogging the discussion and being disruptive. -The Gnome (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only see you arguing here. I took you at your word the first time that him being the prototype of thug porn wasn’t enough. Drop it already. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. Despite over-reliance on AVN as a source, and the listing of this subject as a winner of "Best Ethic Film" (I guess he must be very ethical), I think that the cumulative effect of the coverage in sources is sufficient to just eke its way across the threshold of notability. BD2412 T 23:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The AVN-type sources are all irrelevant since they're specifically about the porn industry while the subject winning an award in the porn industry again does not in itself confer notability. The "cumulative coverage" is from porn publciations and sites, which are again irrelevant. WP:PORNBIO has been deprecated and is gone. We should accept this fact and assess articles accordingly. -The Gnome (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The films, not the actor playing it, won the awards. Even when PORNBIO was active, scene-related and ensemble award wins where expressly excluded. Besides, the AVN Award credits film and scene awards to the filmmakers. Tyson was a creator in only one of the named films. Please also note that the references cited for these wins are obvious press releases from Pitbull Productions, consisting almost entirely of quotes from Pitbull's people. That doesn't support the films' notability per WP:NFILM nor the filmmakers' notability per WP:CREATIVE. Even in the mainstream, industry awards tend to be promotional fluff unless independent reliable sources attest to their significance. Porn trade mags like AVN and XBiz sustain themselves by advertising for the very same porn studios they grant awards to. Notability needs credibly independent sources. That is one of the reasons PORNBIO was deprecated. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Morán

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

Non notable architect and designer failing any notability standard. Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO and per essay 42 should definitely not have an article on Mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:ARCHITECT - there has been significant coverage she has won two important world architecture awards - the Prix Versailles which is presented annually at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. BTW, this article was nominated for deletion just two hours after it went live, we should give the page creator and other editors a chance to improve it. Netherzone (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have improved the article adding additional content and citations. It was very easy to find information in reliable sources on her work. It seems a WP:BEFORE was not performed. Nominator, Celestina007, regarding essay 42 which is not policy, please see: Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD. Respectfully, Netherzone (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone's rationale and comment re timing, as well as their additions to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:40, 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) 15:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon ikhine

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

Subject of article is a supposed politician that fails WP:NPOL and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not come even close to meeting our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes our inclusion criteria, and it's written more like the elevator pitch at the top of his LinkedIn than like a proper encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L. R. Anjali

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

Non notable singer who falls short of WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party coverage found. Just the usual primary music sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod de Rosario

AfDs for this article:

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

Rosario is a self-published practically unknown author, outside of some fringe far-right neo-Nazi circles. His works have a few dozens followers worldwide but aside from an intersting case on Nazi esotericism authors and anti-Semitic/white supremacists/conspiracy theory writers, he's practically unknown and has little to non influence both in literature and in esotericism in Latin America or elsewhere. And even as a subject study for the former is normally ignored and overlooked. By the way its Spanish article was deleted for unnotability and that was his mother tongue, that's how little he's known. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely nothing to suggest notability at all. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that he's self-published does not specifically argue against having an encyclopedia article about him. The core problem is that he doesn't meet any of the points in WP:AUTHOR. The most likely way for an author to meet this is item 4(c): won significant critical attention, which basically means book reviews in WP:RS. I'm not seeing any of those. There's some blog posts about him, but I'm not seeing reviews in newspapers, literary magazines, or mainstream media of any kind. I don't even see him mentioned in other wikipedia articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Search Limited

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 11:49, 22 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? 11:58, 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avtopartner

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 11:46, 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. Views are split between keeping as is or moving to draft space. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Tryno

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO for Non-notable rapper. Some coverage as possible celebratory but not a musician. No fans, no plays, no social media. scope_creep^Talk 10:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Greetings to you from Zimbabwe ,to my knowledge we don't judge notability of musicians by plays ,social media because if we did that everyone who can manipulate numbers would have a Wikipedia.We however judge by Notability which includes what independent sources say and as the creater of this article i used This criteria for this articlie

1 .Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

11 .Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network

To start with 1 , there is much information from blogs and other sites for the subject but with the help of @Utopes: who declined the article first and helped me find better sources i was left with sources from only top news publications in Zimbabwe .That includes Bulawayo24 ,Newsguard ,Newsday ,Oyosnews , Nehanda Radio .And i believe only notable musicians could have articles about them and even follow ups on the albums they didn't release.

You can also see international News publications talking about this artist and if you take time to go through the comments of the news articles you will see that the subject has 'fans' maybe across Zimbabwe .Storifynews,Globenews24,Koenzagh. To end with 11 ,most radio charts in Zimbabwe are constantly updated but you can see journalist in most news articles mentioning that he is toping the radio charts , Recheck NehandaRadio and on this UK radio station his track Mama is in the top 10 Yami radio

The other references are magazines but for now ,i sticked with newspapers

To me he qualify's on those 2 categories ,however I'm still learning ,i will be happy to learn why he doesn't qualify and make myself a better editor ,thank you.Georgiamarlins (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a goodly amount of coverage. I think it probably enough for WP:SIGCOV and WP:HEY if the article is updated but I can't find any music to conform he is a musician. I'll wait to see what other folk say. scope_creep^Talk 21:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Scope creep: ,greetings from Zimbabwe once again ,firstly thank you for acknowledging that he does qualify for something ,i was starting to think maybe everything i was learning ,i was learning it wrong haha but now i'm feeling better.As for music ,i ran a google check and i clicked songs and i saw you will find a list of songs ,his music is on plartforms like apple music ,amazon ,spotify etc which i believe are for selling music so its probably not easy to listen to it unless you are subscribed to the plartforms ,however a Youtube search will give you his music video Mabvuta Video which has 14k+ views and you will be surprised most celebrities in Zimbabwe don't get that much views because music in Zimbabwe is highly circulated in the streets and radios ,online seems like a last option for the artists but that's a discussion for another day,so yeah that's his music for you. The article was probably less than 24hrs old before you nominated it for deletion ,which i think maybe if you had given me or anyone else a chance of WP:BEFORE which states somewhere that a new article should be given time to be developed ,i'm sure it will be looking better as time goes since the subject is a living person.So anyway while we wait for other folks ,i would like to know how i can make it better ,should i put inline citations to the music?I think the free one is on youtube but we removed youtube references before the other reviewers said youtube shouldn't be used as a source ,i'm still learning please don't hesitate to walk with me through this ,Thank youGeorgiamarlins (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14k+ plays isn't sufficient. 250k followers is the number of followers needed to become notable via social media. There is no plays nor fans on Youtube, Spotify, Deezer, Soundcloud, Apple Music nor Amazon. Not a sausage. scope_creep^Talk 13:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Once again @Scope creep: ,not that i disagree but i would love to read that somewhere because so far i haven't came across the number of followers needed for someone to be notable, i'm still learning .I however have a problem of judging a musician by plays or views because that is not fans ,you and i know that numbers can be manipulated ,people are buying followers and views ,so its kinda debatable.To me what tells us someone has fans is the urge by Newspapers and Magazines to write something about that person (Because of sales) ,awards and radio rotation because we know for someone to be in the charts they are voted for. Also i think we should acknowledge that the artists from developing countries like Zimbabwe,Mozambique and Malawi in Africa are different from developed countries in Africa like Nigeria ,South Africa and Ghana ,since you took time to check plays maybe you can take a look on how the artists are different my only guess is because the developing countries don't use much internet as developed countries or something to do with resources but that just my own view .I chose to contribute for Africa because i'm African and i have noticed that many African celebrities especially from Southern Africa don't have Wikipedia despite being well known in their countries ,so i actually do my research on these things,so maybe that's why i see things differently. Lastly this is a question ,how many categories does someone has to qualify on to have a Wikipedia about them? to my knowledge someone has to qualify on at least one but i'm not sure if i read it right? .Thank youGeorgiamarlins (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm just convinced that the subject passes criteria 1 of the WP:NMUSIC. I had a long and insightful conversation with the creator after I originally declined their draft, which can be found here. Utopes (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Utopes: The usual practice is to present the evidence on here. I think it would be discounted by the closing admin if you don't. I had a look on your talk page but couldn't see nowt. scope_creep^Talk 22:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, there was an edit conflict. I do plan on supporting my claim, I just wanted to post a link to the discussion in the voting comment (I promise I'm not a rookie). Utopes (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Here is the rationale that I'm coming from. It is true that the subject does not meet the typical notability requirements to have an article. None of his songs have debuted on the Zimbabwean top charts, he did not perform on a record label, etc. This was the first thing that I noticed when I read the draft, and I declined it for this very reason. Most of the sources used were not reliable, independent sources. However, after I turned my back to the case, the author reached out to me and requested my reconsideration. After politely elaborating my reasoning back, it appeared that there were sources that were verifiable, including [18] and [19]. Now, I did come by these sources in my WP:BEFORE, and was convinced that they weren't large enough or just gossip articles, so they couldn't be used to demonstrate notability. However, I don't live in Zimbabwe; apparently, this is just what news is in the country. That's when I realized that the standards of accuracy differ across country borders, something that I didn't understand before. Large media organizations such as CNN doesn't have heavy operations in countries with lacking economies. Because of this, consistent coverage from large media organizations simply does not exist, and the locals have to rely on smaller publications that don't encompass large regions. With this new light shed from the author, I took a new look at the article and... a lot of the sources were still not reliable. However, there were some magazines that I above linked that have limited regional span, but are apparently award-winning for these regions. Because of that, I was willing to grant these sources the verifiability required and gave it a weak pass. I may have overstated my initial keep vote though, as it was a jerk instinct after looking at the article for so long. I'm probably an involved editor on this article though, so I will keep subsequent comments terse. Utopes (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't cut it as a cogent argument. It is not realistic and I think that type of argument is prohibited or already well know as an Afd argument. There is large external reporting agencies to the country that are reporting about what happening in country, on a regular basis, as is does in every other country in the world. There is also local news networks that always exist. Zimbabwe is no different. The essentials state is that he jobbing muscician that is fairly well known in the country but no sufficiently ambitious to make it anywhere else in the world, its all local reports, so by definition he is non-notable. What about the extensive coverage that is already there. If he was trying to make it as an real musician, he would show up in social media in some some part. The big social media and music networks are no less valid in Zimbabwe as they are in anywhere else. Take a look at this for broadband speeds in the country: [20] [21]. I think more folk is needed. scope_creep^Talk 23:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep greetings from Zimbabwe once again.I understand your point of view but i would like to show you something that you may not be seeing.Its not that artists from Zimbabwe like the subject are too reluctant or not ambitious but its because of the system and the media here. Take a look at the producer Brian Soko he is a very known producer across borders (ambitious artist) who won a grammy,His well known production Drunk In Love by Beyonce is one of the famous hits ,but he is from Zimbabwe look at the coverage he got ,look at the references used. News Agencies do report in Zimbabwe but they only or should i say mainly focus on politics ,i never seen them reporting about artists ,with the exception of the legend Oliver Mtukudzi who was given a National Hero status.If we only wanted international media like CNN or Newyork times ,all Zimbabweans wouldn't have Wikipedia ,Please may i show you the following Zimbabwean celebrities articles and you might see that the Diego Tryno article is well referenced Check: 1 Alick Macheso 2 Tocky Vibes 3 Charles Manyuchi 4 Shinsoman 5 Shingisai Suluma 6 Carol Mujokoro 7 Paul Matavire 8 kikky Badass 9 Maskiri 10 Adrian Allen .Its not a mistake that if you check the sources ,they are the same sources in almost all articles Pindula being the most dominant,followed by Newsday and Nehandaradio,i was told pindula is an enclopedia so i removed it but i stretched out the fact that only notable artist in Zimbabwe has pindula ,anyway thats not the point.The point is most of these articles got the same sources or newssites and also that's why you see that the articles are suspected to have undisclosed payments but to me that's not the case, the thing is if you decide to work on an article on a Zimbabwean celebrity you dig deeper to find sources that are reliable and that too much effort will make you seem like you have a connection with the subject but the truth of the matter is if no one puts an effort then we won't be having Wikipedia for Zimbabweans. Lastly If you spared few minutes of your time to check the above highlighted articles you will see that Diego Tryno is hardly the only artist who got regional coverage from newspapers and magazines that are not in Zimbabwe this includes Regional Christian Magazine , Nigerian magazine ,Ghana news publication ,supported by the international articles i highlighted at the top of this discussion ,you can see he is getting that coverage beyond borders. The subject might not be very famous world wide now but i believe with the sources on the whole article he does pass WP:GNG ,WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO criteria 1 and 11 since we mainly focus on what we have rather than what we know. You once said it qualifies WP:HEY and i'm still yet to improve the article ,if its kept and comes mid january and there is nothing new about the subject on news ,i will personally nominate it for deletion because it has given me a headache lol ,Thank youGeorgiamarlins (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. That will give the article six months to see the implementation of proposed improvements. If further developments materialize that solidify the notability of the subject in that time, it can be submitted for restoration to mainspace through the usual process. BD2412 T 23:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is probably the best outcome. scope_creep^Talk 00:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412,Greetings to you,improving the article can be done while the article stands,all the sources in the article shows the subject is notable ,i however suspect that the grounds for this nomination is WP:SBEXTERNAL , Wikipedia:Systemic bias ,WP:BIAS ,WP:WORLDVIEW Which is rather a documented problem on BLP articles so dealing with these articles needs us to be very neutral, i will give you sources as per WP:THREE ,please take a look at them without judging the location [22] [23] [24] ,I must say looking for only three sources is hectic but i wanted you to check the pattern ,1 talked about his release. 2 talked about his genre shift and previous en devours, 3 A follow up on his failed album release which was published before by other publications meaning a repetition by major publications Harare Times ,this must show us without WP:BIAS that the subject is notable ,i would love to hear your own reasons if the sources in the article are not worth it ,still learning so don't hesitate to say anything ,Thank youGeorgiamarlins (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What, storifynews? newsday.co.zw? blownaija.com? I don't know that any of these are noteworthy or reliable sources. BD2412 T 01:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have not see anything that proves that subject is notable and passes WP:MUSICBIO. No.7 may fit, but fails WP:V as it is impossible to verify. Where is band members lists, album names, tours. It's all missing. There is fairly extensive coverage, but at least two of the entries suggested above looks to be promotional as they displaying the singer's image, which shows up in several sources. That is indicative of paid promotion. So far I've not heard a single song that rapper has released. It is impossible to confirm he is a rapper. scope_creep^Talk 02:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 ,that does bring back the issue of WP:Global and WP:SBEXTERNAL which in between states that some sources are not used even if they are reliable because most editors prefer BBC or something similar.However i have seen some articles with less than 4 sources and i'm thinking out of all 16 sources + external + the New Hararetimes source i just found and showed you minus the 3 that you mentioned you might find you will be left with 12 lol and that's still enough for WP:GNG,but maybe if you google the publications solo without the subject you will be surprised they are actually very reliable ,for instance Newsday is actually A government owned paper ,its owned by Zimpapers which is now owned by the Zimbabwean Government.Lets not ignore the fact that you know more about your location than i do and vise-versa ,its not me just saying it ,its well detailed on WP:WORLDVIEW ,repeating it might seem unnecessary but i just want to make sure you read it and consider it when making these decisions Sir. Thank you for bringing out those sources though ,shows you actually spared your time and went through the article Georgiamarlins (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep , I'm still doubting your judgement Sir because reading just one source will probably show you this is a solo artist and i haven't seen a Lilwayne or Eminem with a band ,i don't intend to attack you if it sounded like that.Lazarus(Age vo1) is the album i found on google and other sources ,also on Music Brainz the music enclopedia [25] ,followed by the said failed album Stories (Age vol2).I haven't found anything about tours except him cancelling a christmas tour Koenzagh. As for the image ,when you go to his instagram he has 1 post .twitter ,no image post and the only images you find are on google and my own general thinking tells me unless he uploads more images whoever who writes an article about him will use the same image that he or she finds on google and that only proves that he is independent from the publications, if the publications had different images of him it will prove that he is supplying the images since if the images are not online the only source to get the images would be from him and the radio stations library. i don't know why the subject is not active on social media but it doesn't take away the fact that he has coverage and coverage implies notability.Georgiamarlins (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Edited the article ,re arranged it and changed layout ,added new information from the available sources ,and added new information from new sources as per WP:HEY .Thank youGeorgiamarlins (talk) 11:12, 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. Consensus that the sources that exist aren't sufficient to prove biographical notability. As the sources provided by the Keep !voter have had a rebuttal provided, I don't think a relist to consider unseen new info is necessary Nosebagbear (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Shah (entrepreneur)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV References are press release, profile pages. Nothing in-depth or intellectually independent that can be called a secondary sources. Heavy spam target. scope_creep^Talk 09:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shah fails WP:GNG as he is not someone whom has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus he "is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Dr42 (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references are from one publication and also some of the references are dead ,if he was notable the article would've been constantly updated and fixing deadlinks would'nt be a problem since he is a living personGeorgiamarlins (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 015:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here are a few references and media coverage I found: The Entrepreneur, Forbes India, Business Insider, Economic Times. Mr RD 17:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't really cut it as they are all promotional in nature, and two of them are the type of coverage that is explicitly prohibited from establishing notability, re: finance information. Lets look at each in turn:

* Short interview give by the subject himself. Not independent, nor secondary, nor intellectually in-depth.

* A longer interview on new startup company cred on startup section. Not independent, nor secondary, nor intellectually in-depth

* Its a slide with no explanation. Non-rs.

* Some name drop. Not non-rs but not fit as a ref, finance info, explicitly prohibited to proving notability.

scope_creep^Talk 17:48, 28 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) 10:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Mikelson

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

no evidence of notability . Academic administrator, who meets neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG, No major positions, no significant publications The references are nio=ostly just notices or inclusions on a list. DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with the edits that I've made, Mikelson does not meet the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. I'll have a look around for some other sources later, but from my initial view this isn't a notable person. Dr42 (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only workable source in this article is the first one which is her audio interview ,the rest are just mentions so she doesn't pass WP:GNG Georgiamarlins (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of academic notability nor of any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Provided citations do not establish notability. No prejudice against later recreating the article if additional sources are located. ElKevbo (talk) 02:54, 28 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir ibn Muslim

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

This individual has received not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tahir Ibn Muslim is mentioned in one source on the entire internet, and there are no other mentions of him in Google Scholar or any other historical documents. Dr42 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . The only reference is a book Mortel 1991 and i tried to look for the book and there is no proof it exists ,also the only thing that mentions the name of the subject on google is this article.Georgiamarlins (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No question there was a Tahir who was emir of Medina and that the Mortel source is RS, but I do have some concerns I have raised on the talk page. Srnec (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the source is a WP:RS which is about the only modern scholar I could find to deal with this particular subject. This does not mean that this person is non-existent or non-notable; being the hereditary ruler of one of the two holiest cities in Islam is clearly notable. Rather, it is a typical example of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on the topic in Western sources. On Srnec's concerns, these are valid, but should be examined independently, to determine the 'truth' as far as we can, before any decision on keeping or deleting or renaming or merging this particular article. Constantine ✍ 11:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I know little of the subject, but take it that this was an autonomous state, of which the subject was the ruler. If English peers and MPs are generally notable, so should such a ruler. This is not an English subject, so that finding English language sources on it may be difficult. I expect that Mortel cites (or relies on) a variety of Arabic ones. It would certainly be better of Sharifs of Medina was an article not redlink, but the purpose of redlinks is to encourage article creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Georgiamarlins:, were you saying you couldn't find the source on the internet? It's available on the JSTOR one, and I can confirm it exists. I'm supporting the NPOL or NPOL-esk existence of this article , notwithstanding any critical issue that those with more expertise with this field of sources may discover. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nosebagbear, Greetings from Zimbabwe, thank you for the heads up, i however repeated the search on the JSTOR Here and i saw nothing again.I however suppose it might be because of my location, maybe my country is blocked from content on JSTOR. I can withdraw my statement but i won't change my vote because i have not accessed the source for now,judging with the votes many accessed it so the article will be kept.Thanks a lot.Blessed Sunday,cheers!Georgiamarlins (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - is what works for me, but I obviously can't speak for location-based issues Nosebagbear (talk)

Keep As the first Husaynid emir he is certainly historically significant. Refs on jstor here and here; other sources here, here and here (p.66). I have not searched for any Arabic sources yet. Mccapra (talk) 13:00, 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 merge to Have You Ever Been in Love (album). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orchard Road (song)

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

Merge with Have You Ever Been in Love (album) or Leo Sayer Dr42 (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the song can do well as a stand alone article ,just a google search shows the song has enough coverage to have an Wikipedia articleGeorgiamarlins (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgiamarlins: - general google hits/activity can't be used as a sign of existence. If there is reliable coverage there, please link to it. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ - the article is poorly written, but must be notable as it is a top 20 hit. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its parent album, Have You Ever Been in Love (album). The two votes above are not very convincing, committing the "it must be notable" fallacy. It was indeed a top 20 hit but it has received very little coverage as a historically notable song. The guideline at WP:NSONG says charting "indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable" (emphasis in original). This song shows little evidence of meeting the other requirements in that guideline, which also says "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." The fact that it reached the charts can be, and already is, mentioned at the album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Have You Ever Been in Love (album). Whether or not it's notable, there isn't enough to say about it that it requires a standalone article. There are a few more sources that could be used: [26], [27], [28]. The British Newspaper Archive has a few results, but only brief mentions. Note to nominator - merge proposals should be raised on article talk pages, not brought to AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Michig Yeah, I frankly agree with this, so I'm gonna change to Merge to Have You Ever Been in Love (album).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Egotrip (band). There's consensus that notability isn't met and that in some style, the article must go. There were only the two firm "merge" !votes (including the nom), with a leaning in clear-cut preferences for redirects, based on reasonable points. If there is any non-duplicated, sourcable, content, then it can be moved across from the page history. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Egotrip (album)

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

Article should be merged with Egotrip (band). Dr42 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination, album does not satisfy WP:NALBUM. Achaea (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge . The Egotrip (band) itself is poorly referenced ,but since this is about the album ,it can be deleted or merged but it definitely can't be keptGeorgiamarlins (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Definitely not notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Egotrip (band). I am not sure what information from this article could be used for a merge so I think a redirect would be better. Nothing in the current article is sourced, and the album is already named on the band's main article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there is no substantial content for a stand-alone article, if coverage is found it can be used to improve the band article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Egotrip (band). There is really nothing to merge. As others have said, the band needs much more proof of notability themselves, but that is another process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to JSW Group. RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JSW Infrastructure

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

Article should be redirected or moved to JSW Group Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have already included the relevant information from this article at JSW Group. Dr42 (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge .This should be merged to JSW Group Georgiamarlins (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JSW Group: Routine coverage is insufficient to demonstrate specific notability for this subsidiary. Dr42 has located the subsidiary information into the parent article so a redirect seems a reasonable outcome. AllyD (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Augustine

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

Bill Augustine fails WP:GNG as he has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore "[he] is [not] presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Dr42 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article reads like an exaggerated business promo. Wide coverage from reliable sources could not be found. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounded like i was reading an advertisement ,but poor writing is not the issue ,the issue is i went through all the references ,they didn't seem independent and i can't seem to find better ones on google for notability Georgiamarlins (talk) 14:01, 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. The core arguments for deletion are that these timelines are excessively detailed and heavily reliant on biased unreliable sources. Separately these would usually be seen as fixable problems that don't justify deletion, and the main arguments for keeping focus on that. However, the more common sentiment is that in this particular case it makes more sense to start from scratch, and looking at the content and sourcing, especially the sheer volume of problematic material, gives credence to that position.

Since all parties generally agree that it would be acceptable to have some type of timeline for this conflict, there is no prejudice against creating a new timeline article or series of articles that do not replicate the current problems. RL0919 (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)

Also:

Timeline of the war in Donbass (April–June 2014) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (July–September 2014) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (October–December 2014) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2015) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (April–June 2015) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (July–September 2015) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (October–December 2015) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (April–June 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (July 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (August 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (September 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (October 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (November 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (December 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (January 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (February 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (March 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (April 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (May 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (June 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (July 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (August 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (September 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (October 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (November 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (December 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (January 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (February 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (March 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (April 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (May 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (June 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (July 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (August 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (September 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (October 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (November 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (December 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–February 2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (March–April 2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (May 2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (June 2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (July–August 2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (September–October 2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (November 2019–present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Content

This series of articles is unsalvageable. Start with the titles: it's not the "war in Donbass",. it's the Russian invasion of Donbass. The articles contain hundreds of references, almost all of which are to Russian-operated disinformation websites (e.g. news-front.info, topwar.ru, 112 (.ua/.international). It is effectively impossible to fix this as the sheer number of sources makes it virtually impossible to clean them up: I spent over an hour trying to remove the crap sources from one of these and only got about 15% of the way through before losing the will to live - I did not even save it because it left so much unsourced. Few statements have more than one source, most of the sources are garbage, and the garbage sources are often cited multiple times. If we do decide to have a timeline article on the Donbass invasion, this would not be it. It would not even be a valid starting point. WP:TNT, WP:COATRACK and it seems quite likely also WP:KREMLIN. The articles I call out are the worst offenders, but all this timeline series are plagued by similar issues of terrible sourcing, excessive detail, news-like coverage and the rest. Guy (help!) 22:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any delete/keep opinion of yours — is this intentional?
as for Kremlin, Yanukovich did not succeed (was evacuated by Russian military helicopters instead, some count this escape for the start of the war), “me and myself” have only referenced to official sources of a sovereign country, Ukraine (occasionally adding casualties officially not reported); if the articles under question here should be deleted, I'll copy/paste the deleted ones into another Wiki, building on the bases I started in the very beginning of the war (in March of 2014; cfr. 2014-1/2014-1, etc.).—Pietadè (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"excessive detail" would be to add into the timelines that 1 dead (on 1 Dec 2019) SBU colonel's body was handed over in a week; earlier declared prisoners swap is apparently stuck, etc.—Pietadè (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This series of articles is a total disaster. Even putting aside the source issue, they are filled with direct extracts of daily news reports (see WP:NOTNEWS), with no obvious encyclopaedic value. No attempt is made to provide a narrative of any kind, nor is there any indication of significance or context for the 'information' displayed. The actual sources themselves are horrible...we're basically presented with a mess of unreliable Russian propaganda and unreliable Ukrainian propaganda, none of which is picked up by reputable western outlets. Destroy this mess...it is unsalvageable. RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.g., yesterday one Ukrainian serviceman was wounded and another suffered retinal injuries inflicted by a laser weapon (ref 0) and sorry to say, not a "fake news" — as for me, use of laser weapons (not for the 1st time in this war) has both encyclopaedic/historic value ('cause, the larger part of my graduation thesis in late 1980s was a commented translation of Machiavelli's Il Principe, but that's not the case here (though, have not read in English or Russian translations similar to each other, esp. in regard of populo/populo, etc....;-F)), people are different.—Pietadè (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are U fluent in Russian, Ukrainian?—Pietadè (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy, RGloucester and WP:TNT. Miniapolis 02:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - best thing for these articles is a large dose of WP:TNT. If there is to be anything useful or recoverable, this is not in fact usable material to start from - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean it up per MOS:LIST, WP:PARTISAN and WP:PRESERVE. Note that all of these are Wikipedia official guidelines, while the invoked WP:TNT and WP:COATRACK are mere essays.

Keep in mind that these are stand-alone lists, not conventonal articles; thus "a narrative of any kind" is not neccessary, according to MOS:LIST.
I had been editing WP since 2006 and I 've never heard of that "reputable western outlets" are mandotary when you write something about an eastern Europe topic. WP:PARTISAN doesn´t prevent the use of biased sources: "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Counterbalance is the best way to achieve neutrality in this case. Note also that editors of the timelines use to present only the bare facts (number of ceasefire violations, weaponry, casualties, etc.), and try to ignore blatant propaganda (blame games, especulation about future bad-faith moves of the other side).
Even if you regard these lists as a "mess", this is not a reason to have the bulk of information deleted; no matter how hard the work, WP:PRESERVE establishes that valuable content should be retained : Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page. One solution I could embrace (as one of the main editors of these chronologies) is a weekly timeline with the basic facts in a table format, as proposed some month ago by users @Onetwothreeip: and @Reidgreg: at this debate. We could set a reasonable deadline (possible months) to perform the changes. --Darius (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the nomination. These timelines can't be cleaned up, because virtually all the content is drawn from propaganda sites. Even if the level of detail were appropriate (spoiler: it's not), the articles need to be completely restarted to comply with our policies around neutrality and sourcing. The first article listed has around 650 references of which 550 are definitely unacceptable, and the rest I haven't yet checked. That's not fixable by cleanup. Sources don't have to be Western to be reputable, but they do have to be, well, reputable. "News-front", for example, is a Russian sponsored fake news and disinformation site. That's nothing to do with whether it's Western or not, it's to do with the fact that the invading country has created it and funds it as part of their information warfare. State-controlled media outlets like RT are similarly not considered reliable. Guy (help!) 16:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the nomination is based upon mere essays, not established WP policies or guidelines. Obviously you didn't read WP:PARTISAN, nor the explanations I made about it. Even propaganda sites are suitable if proper attribution is provided and it is counterbalanced with opposite propaganda. There is nothing in WP that prevents us from using sources other than "western outlets", I repeat, and some info from the websites you mention as "unreliable" is replicated by western media. These lists could be a "mess" in the view of some users, but since there is a counterbalance, WP:NOP is not an issue. And if the chronologies are to be deleted (spoiler ahead) the editors will restore a wikified version of them, with the proper clean up, trimming and table format.--Darius (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a balance between propaganda views is exactly what WP:NPOV is not. That's called WP:FALSEBALANCE. The fact you don't understand this is very worrying. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's you that got it wrong, WP:FALSEBALANCE deals with science, when somebody wants to give the same weight to fringe theories and mainstream science. In any case you can propose (or outright perform per WP:BOLD) the deletion of all pro-Russian sources and left the Ukrainian ones, since the Ukrainian press are less suspected of "propaganda". But there is some hurry to get these timelines erased...--Darius (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DagosNavy, no, it also deals with news, especially in politics. If I show you ten mainstream articles identifying that Donald Trump lied about a thing - say Sharpiegate - and ten conservative sources that swear blind he did not, we'd go with the mainstream sources. The truth is not halfway between facts and propaganda, or at any point between competing forms of propaganda. Guy (help!) 21:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG Remember that the treshold for inclusion in WP is verifiability, not truth, that is why partisan sources (marginal or mainstream) are allowed, with the proper attribution and in a certain context.--Darius (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DagosNavy, verifiability requires a reliable source. These sources are fake. Guy (help!) 22:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't apply when the sources are not merely partisan, but literally fake news propaganda sites. I appreciate you've worked on these, but the articles are literally catalogues of propaganda that we literally can't trust - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DagosNavy, no, the nomination is based on the fact that these articles have hundreds of sources, most of which are unusable fake news and propaganda sites. An article which is a collection of propaganda from fake "news" websites is a clear problem per WP:NPOV and WP:V/WP:RS. Guy (help!) 18:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weird...but if you read it carefully, most of the time the "fake news" coincided on both sides, may be they agree at least on that...--Darius (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DagosNavy, We do not decide what is true by comparing the propaganda of both sides. We use reliable independent sources. These articles cite few to none of those. Entire articles drawn from hundreds of propaganda links are a pressing problem. I do understand that yuo've put a lot of work into this, it's a pity nobody noticed earlier because if the sourcing problems had been corrceted at the outset there may be less of an issue, but this stuff really can't stay. I don't mind userfying them for you and helping you to identify the unusable sources (WP:RSN is a good place to ask). Guy (help!) 20:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG Don't worry, I can use my work elsewhere, or rewrite a summary version of the chronologies (with third-party citations) here in WP even if these timelines are eventually deleted. I still think that in the context of WP:PARTISAN, pro-Russian military daily reports are quite reliable, as long as they only involve claims about themselves.--Darius (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DagosNavy, you might be able to make that argument fly for TASS but not something like News Front, see [29]. That is a fake news website in the classical definition. Guy (help!) 22:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Guy, the fact that the issue of fake news was not raised until recent times made us somewhat careless in our choice of sources...TASS or RIA Novosti would be entirely another matter, IMHO.--Darius (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RIA Novosti and Voice of Russia were replaced by Rossiya Segodnya (Russia Today) in 2013 and are now broadcasting as Sputnik News. Sputnik and TASS are both rated as questionable sources because of extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or ... fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is not clean-up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing, very much the point of the deletion rationale. These articles are sourced from fake news and propaganda, and cannot be cleaned up because of 650 sources in one article, 550 are definite disinformation and the others have not yet been fully assessed. And the existence of 48 separate articles with daily blow by blow news-style coverage is also a problem. Guy (help!) 18:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the "cleanup" would involve removing almost all of the content. You're correct on the general principle, but this is the sort of case WP:TNT is talking about: "extensive cases of advocacy and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up." - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Pietadè (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC) (including about 130 “politically motivated” articles on Ukrainian settlements, linked to these timelines—Pietadè (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

My account in Wikipedia dates back to 2011, have created 3K+ articles since (mainly «outside this topic»);
this is a war, and has casualties, since GRU/CIA sources are not available, one has to stick to the sources available,...—Pietadè (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed an erroneous assertion. I put it to you that if an editor makes such an accusation without so much as looking at the earliest edits of the person they accuse, then action should be taken against them. I have listed Pietade's early edit history with hidden text (Edit to view). My apologies to Pietade if he was the one who added that tag, although I cannot imagine why he would have. Anarchangel (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is precisely that the sources are so bad that, if kept, almost all content will need to be removed. It is also accurate to note that almost every edit you have made in at least the past three years (I didn't go back further) has been on this topic - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do remember the times where one side counted every single bullet/shell/rocket for a single violation, and, the numbers, violations per day (minute/second) in total were, "vast"...
I haven't referenced the sources like the one below (by the way, both parties present weekly updates; perhaps, later, these articles can be reduced to some kind of 52 weekly "compounds" for 2014-2019; right now no one knows what shall the next day bring along (some call it history)):
3. As the result of the Russian armed aggression, 7 servicemen from the JFO were WIA. They were all transferred to the military medical facilities.
4. We want to inform with grief that over the past week, 1 serviceman was KIA.
Ministry of Defense expresses sincerest condolences to the families and loved ones of the deceased defender!
And, have to add, that my humble 3,000+ articles and 50,000+ edits in Wikipedia are not entirely circling 'round this war, au contraire... ;-)—Pietadè (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, the sources are literally unusable, and almost every edit you have made in at least the past three years (I didn't go back further) has been on this topic - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine counts explosions (they hear) and reports them, with delay;
my contributions started in etwi and are not narrowed down to a single war; just as I can read and understand both Russian and Ukrainian, thought to make use of it.—Pietadè (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International media ("reliable sources"), like RFE/FL, Reuters, BBC, has covered the topic provided that the number of casualties per day has reached some point;
besides that, the articles have had readers, how about their right to have information (and to consume it using the space between their ears to “digest” it)?—Pietadè (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nominator, per WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, per WP:NOTNEWS, and yes, per WP:TNT. It is absolutely not humanly possible to "clean up" this huge mess. Totally unsalvageable. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. These articles go beyond unencyclopedic. This is Wikipedia, not Sputnik. WMSR (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. Yes, they include too many details, but the content is ~~well~~ sourced, and this is a legitimate content for lists, based on policy. As about the "WP:Kremlin", I am not sure what exactly nominator implies. Edit history of these pages, like here, does not show anything special. I think it is precisely the opposite: Kremlin would like these pages to be deleted. The less people know about Russian aggression on Ukraine, the better. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My very best wishes, no it is not "well-sourced". Did you not read the nomination? While they have superficial referenciness, the references are completely spurious. One of the most cited sources, for example, is "News Front", a Kremlin-backed fake news website promoting the fiction that the Donbass invasion is a people's rebellion. Of the 650 sources in the headline article, 550 are fake news or disinformation websites, and the balance are as yet unvalidated. I have never seen an article in my entire time on Wikipedia that used so many references to covert propaganda sites. Guy (help!) 10:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeh, I did not check them carefully. Who created this content? It is probably worth investigation. With such sourcing, this indeed can hardly be saved, as some contributors tell. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - My very best wishes, I think it was good faith - the sites are carefully designed to look legitimate. There's one WP:SPA but DagosNavy looks like a diligent editor who was misled in a way that was deliberately intended by the sites. Honestly it's a surprise we don't have more trouble with this, you have to put quite a bit of effort in to find out that these are bogus. Guy (help!) 19:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I looked even more carefully. Yes, I agree it might be a good faith (and significant!) work, which makes me hesitant to vote "delete" when the content I think is fixable. I agree that a part of the sourcing is poor (probably ~30% of refs by my account on a couple of these pages I checked), and some statements do not properly reflect what sources say. However, knowing this subject a little, I think these pages are not disinformation, but rather insufficently reliable information, just as on many other WP pages. On a balance, I am inclined to keep. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        My very best wishes, it's not fixable, these are day by day, almost hour by hour "news" reports based on hundreds of sources, the vast majority of which are fake. I tried to fix it, it was not achievable. Guy (help!) 01:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but simply looking at the first page in the list, Timeline of the war in Donbass (April–June 2014), I do not really see any fake news, the sourcing is to BBC, RFERL and a lot of Russian and Ukrainian language sources which are mostly valid (of course one should know who Tymchuk is, etc. to make a qualified judgement). One should realize that a detailed coverage is possible only using Russian and Ukrainian language sources. That's not a problem per se. Is it informative? Yes. Is it really poorly sourced? No. Someone made a significant good faith effort, and I respect that. Is it excessively detailed? Yes. But this is not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        However, another page Timeline of the war in Donbass (July–August 2019) was full of crap. I quickly clean some of that. At the very least, these pages need a heavy clean-up to remove everything sourced to open propaganda/disinformation sources. It appears that different pages from this series are sourced completely different. My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        My very best wishes, UNIAN, Interfax, Washington Times, Korrespondent, Radio Free Europe, kp.ru, zavtra.ru are all identified as promoting fake news and disinformation about the Russian campaign in Donbass. But you're right that first page is one of the less egregious ones and is inappropriate as much for the excessive level of WP:NOTNEWS as for the use of unreliable sources. Guy (help!) 11:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry to disagree, but Radio Free Europe does not promote fake news and disinformation. UNIAN - no, not really; I think it can be used. Washington Times - yes, probably. Others - you could be right, but I do not know because I never used them for sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is a reliable source, rated "least biased," and their reporting factual and usually sourced. Media Bias/Fact Check hasn't rated UNIAN ([Ukrainian Independent Information Agency UNIAN]); among their customers are AP, Voice of America, BBC, Reuters, Deutsche Welle. I would assume some pro-Ukrainian bias but who identified UNIAN as promoting fake news and disinformation? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete series as unencyclopedic. The articles are in violation of Wikipedia policies on reliable sources/secondary sources and on what Wikipedia is not (not a diary, not a newspaper, not an indiscriminate collection of information). Most of the sources (and all of the pro-Russian sources) appear to fall into the category of original research, i.e., repeating content of announcements by the military and self-proclaimed local officials/authorities, sometimes up to four times because pro-Russian officials recorded, local officials confirmed, and pro-Russian authorities recorded. It's the same pattern day after day, year after year. Here's an example, chosen at random (Timeline of the war in Donbass (November 2019–present), 1 November):
- Pro-Russian officials at Donetsk city recorded 16 Ukrainian violations of the ceasefire in 14 locations using small arms, small arms, heavy machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, 73 mm anti-tank recoilless rifles, 82 mm mortars, anti-tank guided missiles, armoured personnel carriers and armoured fighting vehicles. (Source: dnronline.su, i.e., the "official site" of the Donetsk People's Republic.)
  In the same briefing, the authorities reported that Ukrainian forces opened fire on their positions 127 times over the past week using one anti-tank guided missile, a single tank round, 120 shells from 82 mm and 120 mm mortars and other 362 explosive rounds. The Ukrainian military attacked 32 settlements, where 17 civilian buildings and facilities were damaged. Two pro-Russian soldiers were killed in action and two civilians wounded on the same period. (Source: dan-news.info, i.e., Donetsk News Agency)
  Local officials confirmed that Ukrainian forces broke the ceasefire three times within the boundaries of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic. The Ukrainian military employed heavy machine guns, 73 mm anti-tank recoilless rifles, 82 mm mortars, 120 mm mortars and BMP-1 armoured vehicles to engage pro-Russian forces at Sentianivka and Lohvynove. (Source: mil-lnr.info, i.e., Military Police of the Luhansk People's Republic)
  A number of Ukrainian violations of the ceasefire were recorded by pro-Russian authorities at Donetsk city. Ukrainian forces fired upon Staromykhailivka, Mineralne, Spartak and Trudivske, around Donetsk city, Mykhailivka, Dolomitne, Gagarin, and 6/7 mining complexes, in the area of Horlivka, and, in the region of Mariupol, Novolaspa, Pikuzy, Zaichenko and Uzhivka. Most incidents involved the use of infantry weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and 73 mm anti-tank recoilless rifles. Spartak was hit by a 120 mm mortar barrage, while Mykhailivka and 6/7 mining complex were shelled with 82 mm mortars. (Source: https://t.me/s/online_dnr_sckk/5542, i.e., the Donetsk People's Republic (Donezkaja narodnaja respublika))
Those are four variations of the same info from the Russian-supported side, each from one source (none of them a reliable secondary source), driving home a point which appears to be "BUT they attacked us, we're the victims." On the same day, the Ukrainian state news agency reported that their forces returned fire. Their forces were monitored by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) which probably keeps the news agency from straying from the truth. Their report also contains military hardware detail but we don't get three versions of it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The ceasefire violation reports from both sides came from the "Joint Center on Control and Coordination" (сцкк) established in 2014 to control the demarcation line. Even if the withdrawal of Russian officials by the end of 2017 made the term "Joint" somewhat farcical, they were established by the Minsk agreements and still work close to the OSCE mission. So, although nominally, both the Ukrainian military and the rebel forces attribute their press releases to a "third part". In that sense, both sides can be considered "secondary sources", at least technically.
  I was forced to introduce pro-Russian sources in the articles when some users expressed their concern on the alleged "Ukrainian PoV" of the timeline(s). My insistence in highlighting the proper attribution ("pro-Russian officials", "Local authorities") is what WP:PARTISAN demands in order to allow the use of biased sources in the proper context.--Darius (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Malformed nomination. "This series of articles", "these articles": not one of the voters mentions the fact that Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is a completely different type of article from the others; I wouldn't exactly say they had good reason, but inasmuch as it is hidden by being part of a giant list, they had cause to overlook it. There is one good rationale to not include it as the titular example for the nomination, which is also a good reason to not include it at all and make a separate nomination: that it bears little resemblance to the others, in coverage or in quality. This is a COATRACK of an AfD. It is always a risk to nominate a large group of articles, so I am sure administrators are ready and capable to work with the nominator to separate the list from its outlier, or let the nomination stand or fall as a whole, whatever the standard practice is. Anarchangel (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew I had forgotten something. Another reason the AfD is improperly formed is that the AfD tag was not added to Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and who knows how many other of the articles. That article, as it is superior to the others in the performance of its purview, may have attracted Keep votes and rationales that are now denied consideration. Anarchangel (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, heheh, contrary to nominator's assertion: War in Donbass is a valid article topic and Category title while Russian invasion of Donbass is no such thing. Yeh, it's like that. Anarchangel (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" wasn't part of the nomination. I added it yesterday because it seemed to fit the pattern, and I have removed it now. Except for you, none of the other editors had seen it when they voted. I had no intention of "hiding it" right at the top, and I didn't know that it was improperly formed. Keep up the good work, lose the attitude. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, my earlier answer seems quite irrelevant, given the gravity of your misconduct. It is quite clearly not your AfD nomination to alter. It would behoove you to not only acknowledge that you have erred, but to demonstrate that you comprehend the nature of your error. Anarchangel (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite sure I don't know what you could possibly mean about attitude that would make any sense for an editor assuming good faith to say. No need to explain, though, I am really not interested, just work harder on learning from your mistakes. Anarchangel (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor who was not the nominator added a Ballot tag, which was not necessary and poisons the well. Another editor who was not the nominator added an article to the nomination. They gave no notice to that effect. They deleted same article from the nomination as though it were itself a tag they can just slap on and take off again, let alone an open forum where anyone can change what everyone is voting on halfway through. Or is SpaceTime a sockpuppet of JzG? SpaceTime's comment, "Except for you, none of the other editors had seen it when they voted." is revealing. It is the opposite of a justification. Anyone who has voted would be understandably upset if someone changes their vote by changing what they were voting on. Likewise, I shall be very sad indeed if changing the target of a discussion after people have made up their mind is now considered standard practice. I have changed my vote to STRONG SPEEDY CLOSE.

The nominator tells us the opposite of the truth about the title of the article. The nominator has accused an editor of being SPA without even checking their edits. A brief list of Pietade's early edits follows, in hidden text (Edit to view): Anarchangel (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "None of this addresses the demonstrably problematic content of the articles in question.", I guess this would be a good time to opine on the content of the other articles. I have no problem with minute details, nor with the sources; perhaps my senses are dulled from all the crying wolf about primary sources, sources in general, and sources from other countries, but bearing in mind Operation Mockingbird and such, I find these to be better sources than are normally trusted by WP.

So what I've gleaned from this thread is that one editor improperly made changes to the nomination, and you were the only one who voted before they reverted their changes. You then moved onto an ad homenim attack against the nominator. None of this addresses the demonstrably problematic content of the articles in question. It is not commonplace for an editor to add articles to a different editor's deletion nomination after voting has commenced, but it is abundantly clear that this misdeed has not affected the outcome of any votes. Not sure what you're getting at, but I would seriously reconsider how you plan on getting there. WMSR (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A thief still stole something, even if they give it back later when someone points it out. Pointing out misdeeds, in that case, is really the opposite of what ad hominem means: calling someone a thief rather than produce evidence of it. Nom asserts, and has not corrected the assertion, that 'it's not the "war in Donbass", it's the Russian invasion of Donbass'. Nom added the SPA tag to Pietadè's comment, which tag is an untruth which is within the scope of due diligence to uncover. I repeat, since you have ignored it, someone attempted to change the votes of the people by changing what they were voting on, which is outrageous behaviour and a threat to not merely these proceedings but all AfDs if it allowed to go unchecked. Saying nothing happened not merely does not make it so, it makes you complicit in this misbehaviour. It seems you have a problem with MY behaviour, and advise me to change, but you have not pointed out anything that I did or what to change that is actually problematic, so I will assume you were referring to your charge of ad hominem, your use of which seems based on a misapprehension about its definition. Anarchangel (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~; I'm not a fan of TNT by any stretch but it is far better to delete this than give our readers these articles sourced by 85%+ completely unreliable sources. And oh so many editorial hours would be wasted if we try to fix this that could be better spent elsewhere. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 07:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to take the job, no matter how many "editorial hours" should be spent. The solution (in accordance with WP:TNT) could be a removal of all content, a merging into 5 year-by-year scaled down pages (2014 to 2019) with the main highlights of this war, including well-sourced info from the old articles. Remember that WP:TNT also recommends an "start over". In that way, WP will preserve the historials, since almost all the users involved in this debate acknowledge the good faith of the main contributors. Even edits from PoV warriors and vandals are left for the record, so I think that all these efforts should be recognized.--Darius (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing prevents from fixing pages during an AfD. If you wish to fix them, you can copy content to your user space and work with it. However, (a) these timelines must be made much shorter and focus only on the most important events (we do not need that many sub-pages any way), and (b) do not use any sources from this discussion and "DNR", especially because these subjects indeed were covered in much better sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DagosNavy: If you are happy to take that up then sure. The best option in that case is to move the articles to your userspace and merge them into ~6 summaries of the invasion of Donbass. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 23:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I buy your idea, j947. i was already working (in my notebook), and a 2014 timeline is taking shape. I will need some time, but next Christmas weekend may be a good occasion to have the work done, to say, by the end of the next week or so.--Darius (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll change my !vote to userfy then redirect with merge when DagosNavy is finished. Best way of going on about it so that you still have access. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nominator. This is clear WP:TNT territory, with a gigantic volume of unreliable sources (including Kremlin propaganda). But even leading that aside, this is excessive intricate detail. There is no reason why the important/key points could not be treated, in greatly summarized form and with much better sources, in the main article. Neutrality^talk 17:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean it up. X1\ (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. After studying through the articles I can conclude this is written in a complete one sided point of view. WP:NOTDIARY applies here. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773: "One sided point of view"... Reliable or not, the timelines are made of reports from both sides... Can you elaborate, please?.--Darius (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Hundreds or even thousands of sources that are not reliable is the same thing as not having reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darius covering mainly one side (GRU induced military-political groupings), me humbly counting killed, wounded, injured, etc. (the more casualties, the higher coverage by international media) reported by the other side of the «Game», that is currently knocking on doors of EU, NATO, etc., and having quite a success in doing so;
so, would U dare to say to parents of the dead/wounded, humiliated in other ways, that all this is fake, graveyards, cremated ashes, destroyed bodies treated by doctors in many, many other countries hospitals, are fake;
so, «fake» is a word, that seems to be in charge of this "forum", or, what's the correct word, yet, no single reference supporting the alleged "fake", thus, willy-nilly a question arises: does this "forum" represent views of Wikipedia, or a wide range of (paid?) political agenda outside?—Pietadè (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cfr. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish military interventions in Syria — does anyone besides me see some kind of similarity with the present URI?—Pietadè (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pietadè:, your presumed objection is almost completely unintelligible in English but I can assure you I have no paid political agenda. I have never and will never edit Wikipedia for pay and even this oblique suggestion I might be is extremely objectionable. Please don't do this again to anyone without crystal clear evidence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if offended You, or, if U feel so, indeed!—Pietadè (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion may yield a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 06:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Undue weight given to minor incidents and extreme unreliability of sources. WP:TNT required. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These topics are not notable, failing WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. The broader topic "Timeline of the war in Donbass" is already covered in War in Donbass.----Pontificalibus 12:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Fix . Wen't through few of the references and i think there is something contributors can work with there .Keep and let other editors put their own efforts in fixing the article .I will start working on it tomorrow and see where i can get it Georgiamarlins (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgiamarlins: Which timeline did you look at? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Space4Time3Continuum2x : I checked the first 5 in detail and browsed almost all of them ,but i'm still yet to sit down and work on them.CheersGeorgiamarlins (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments below. The first one is very different from the later ones. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this is clearly not the case of WP:TNT. The WP:TNT essay rightly makes the points about copyright violations and "TNT tipping point argument" (if the article's content is useless including all the versions in history). None of that is the case here. These pages are not useless. One should simply remove clearly unreliable sources (I tried to to it on one of these pages, and this is clearlt doable). Also note that the first page in the list is already fixed in this regard. As about the day-by-day coverage, I think this is definitely excessive, but it does not make these pages unreadable, so this is not a reason for deletion. Hence my "keep" above. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes:, @Georgiamarlins: I am already working on a scaled-down, reliably sourced version of the timelines, replacing the current daily configuration with 5 year-by-year pages, as agreed with user J947 on 18 December. The present timelines should be merged into the new ones, in order to preserve the historial and the good-faith edits of the contributors. This will be done by 26/27 December, I guess. I will upload them to my user sandbox--Darius (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes: No, it wasn't fixed, it started out that way. The first article (Apr-Jun 2014) used reliable secondary sources. The second one (Jul-Sep 2014) also started out that way, but by July Russian sources were being used. I clicked on three of them; only one of them was still online. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, we do agree that Timeline of the war in Donbass (April–June 2014) is actually OK in terms of sourcing. That alone is an argument against mass deletion of all these pages. The second one, I am sure it can be improved, but after quickly looking at the actual content, I think it does not mislead a reader, but just provides an excessively detailed information. Not a valid reason for deletion, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's OK. It contains a number of suspicious sources and a number known for publishing propaganda (e.g. Washington Times). 19:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You found a page with a reference to Washington Times. OK. And what are you suppose to do? Nominate such page for deletion? Or just fix the statement(s) and referencing? That particular page, Timeline of the war in Donbass (April–June 2014), includes close to 400 references and only a few of them maybe immediately problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DagosNavy, Pietadè: After several editors have pointed out to you that you are adding content from extremely unreliable primary sources, you are continuing to do it. For example, on December 24, you analyzed the Twitter feed of https://t.me/s/online_dnr_sckk/6011 of the self-styled Donetsk People's Republic and extracted the following WP entry (although I can't figure out where you got the 73 mm anti-tank recoilless rifles): Pro-Russian sources told the press that Ukrainian forces had broken the ceasefire on a number of occasions by evening. Dokuchaievsk, Trudivske and Donetsk airport, in the surroundings of Donetsk city, and, in the area of Horlivka, Dolomitne and 6/7 mining complex, came under hostile fire. In the main incidents, Donetsk airport received fire from infantry weapons, automatic grenade launchers, 73 mm anti-tank recoiless rifles and anti-aircraft guns. Dolomitne was hit by an 82 mm mortar barrage. What "press"? If they did, no news outlet, let alone a reliable source, deemed it worth a mention. I put the Google translation of the Twitter feed in Talk. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point one: nothing in WP prevent us from editing the pages until consensus is reached on the matter, and Point two: Just in case you did not read the recent posts, I am working on a new chronology, a year-by-year one instead of the current daily format, with more reliable sources and getting rid of any direct pro-Russian statement, exception made of scattered information taken from partisan but reliable sources (TASS, for example). I will upload the new timelines to my sandbox page the next weekend. Be patient.--Darius (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read your recent posts and was waiting for the 26/27 Dec upload to your sandbox. That doesn't explain why you keep adding material from unreliable primary sources. Couldn't you hold off on that for now? Should free up some time for working on the new timelines, if nothing else. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK Space4Time3Continuum2x, this will be my last DNR "vespertine report", at least here in WP :). Wait for the scaled-down, cleaned up chronologies (I've already finished 2014, 2015 and 2016, but I want to upload all the pages together). Tons of junk and unreliable references are being removed. Regards.--Darius (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Merge some. This...is a lot of articles. It would be hard for the average person to go through, and is too much detail. I think pairing down to one article per year would be appropriate. So... Timeline of the war in Donbass (2016), Timeline of the war in Donbass (2017), etc... Alternatively, they could be compressed to 6 month timescales. But the two or three, or even one month articles is absurd. That, or perhaps there should only be one article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection

• Explanatory note: up till the end on 2018 all the articles were born as timelines covering 3-months periods, since the beginning of 2019 they cover 2-months periods. At some point many of the 3-months articles were split into 1-month timelines, in doing so the history was mainly lost, no page views, edits, etc.—Pietadè (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The timelines not mentioned above are below:

Timeline of the war in Donbass (July–September 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (October–December 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (April–June 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (July–September 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (October–December 2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (April–June 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (July–September 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbass (October–December 2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- —Pietadè (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did much of that splitting, and no history was lost. Every split I made is properly documented, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, and you have shown no evidence to the contrary, for my or others' edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the multiple reasons given above. Mztourist (talk) 05:33, 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 merge to United States Department of Justice Criminal Division. RL0919 (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

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

Lack of notability. The article got zero references over 12 years. — Sbsail ^talk 06:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United States Department of Justice Criminal Division. There is no question that this entity actually exists, and it does get some Google Scholar hits. BD2412 T 06:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the content to United States Department of Justice Criminal Division. There are quite a lot of hits in the news and Google Scholar but they are usually something like "Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section prosecuted a case" or "Joe Doe, an attorney at Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section". I haven't seen anything encyclopedia worthy. — Sbsail ^talk 08:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing that the sources support a separate article, merely that they support inclusion in the parent article. BD2412 T 12:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 06:38, 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. Subjects do not need to be notable for any personal achievements, provided there are independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage for whatever reasons. The consensus in this case is that there is such coverage. RL0919 (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Sieber

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

Not Notable - Should be deleted EliotWL (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EliotWL (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. EliotWL (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. EliotWL (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 05:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A brief (but by no means comprehensive) search of Google News and Google Books indicates that this subject is reasonably well-covered in reliable sources. There is definitely room for expansion, and the sources currently in the article are sufficient that it does not need to be moved to draft pending such improvement. BD2412 T 05:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Brand ambassadors", "social influencers" and suchlike are not my cup of tea, but if there is enough in-depth coverage of them in reliable sources - and there is in this case - then they merit an article. Edwardx (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources show notability, as a fashion influencer etc. PamD 11:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough reliable sources (Telegraph, Vogue, per WP:RSP) with enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Achaea (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is a big no for me. There is no notability in being a socialite without achievements. And there is absolutely none of that going on here. You have given a woman an article for... buying couture? And getting married? Is this where we really are?! Being a Chanel brand ambassador does zilch. I have borne witness right there on almighty "social media" to Chanel giving brand ambassador status for the Cannes Film Festival to Swedish twins who are literally only famous for being best friends with Drake! Trillfendi (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem we come to with that is that mainstream media chooses to give such people coverage, such that they meet the criteria for being covered by reliable sources. In a sense, we reflect the subjects that society outside Wikipedia has chosen to give its attention, even if we find the accomplishments of those subjects trivial. BD2412 T 23:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at all those sources. Daily Mail.... good God, that one goes without saying. Vogue: woman has nice house. They do it every issue. Only thing worthy of note is a sentence of working with Emma Watson as her stylist. But even that isn’t special enough to save this article. Next it’s woman models purse, in photos it appears she had had taken of herself as all the so-called influencers do these days. No official campaign to speak of, and again, even that isn’t enough. Then it’s the ghastly "woman buys couture". Ok what is next? Woman buys Mercedes? Then we have woman gets married. Millions of others do the same every year. It’s a right of passage but not particularly a notable case unless you’re the likes of Meghan Markle or Isha Ambani. The rest are simply about appearances. What’s so great about it that thousands of others in her rank haven’t also done? None of it warrants a Wikipedia article. This is a glorified Daily Mail piece in itself. Trillfendi (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have seen at least three reliable sources discussing subject of our discussion. I see no real red flags here. Was a WP:BEFORE conducted? Oh and besides what sort of rationale is “not notable should be deleted” Celestina007 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dramatic irony. Trillfendi (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like Kardashian fame but that is essentially what this is. She is notable because of significant coverage in reliable sources. Many people get married, but not many are featured in Vogue. What was strange to me is this article was deleted right after I cleaned it up. This is the link to what it looked like before. I would not have spent the time to do so if I didn't think she was notable. --Titanchowder (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difference with the Kardashians is that they have reliable sources, and now documentaries, dissecting their fame (regrettably even from The Guardian now) despite utter lack of talents, to the T. How they got to this point in society. By itself their tv show is notable for being the highest rated in its category. It isn’t just “these are pretty girls with nice clothes, nice houses, nice cars, rich boyfriends, publicity stunt marriages” because that would just be in the realm of gossip, not notability. I find it odd that on other occasions where it’s actually valid Vogue “isn’t enough”, but when it’s people of questionable-to-nil notability it’s “but Vogue!” It’s a feature of every issue but is it really notable enough for a Wikipedia article where no notability is actually expressed? Trillfendi (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been said that Vogue "isn't enough"? It is a consensus green-light source for reliability. BD2412 T 14:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any discussions where Vogue was discussed as being either or. I am only speaking about these times. Although, I would say it is a reliable source. What I would suggest is that we use it carefully though. Someone mentioned once in Vogue may not demonstrate notability, but several times likely would. I would agree that Kardashians have notability now. I would have to look at the history but I believe they had articles prior to having documentaries, clothing lines, cosmetic companies, etc. --Titanchowder (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She seems clearly notable. Article is well-sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CmdrGibbons (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:23, 28 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 Indigenous Australians. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous peoples of Australia

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

Deletion may sound like a drastic option, but, having just discovered this article in the course of trying to track the many articles relating to Indigenous and/or Aboriginal people in Australia (partly to create a style guide), I see many problems here.

All of the difficulties of dividing the peoples into different types of groups.
It lists only a handful of those in List of Australian Aboriginal group names (which outlines some of the problems with divisions).
The groups in this list are a mix of endonyms (the name as used by the people themselves), exonyms (names used by one group for another, and not by that group itself) and demonyms (terms for people from specific geographical areas), with no explanation or differentiation.
Not only the types of divisions, but the spellings have multiple variants.
An article purporting to cover such a broad topic but only delivering a miniscule selection is worthless. The only way I can see to keep it as it is is to put quite a lot of work into adding a lot of material and sources, changing the lead to reflect some of the difficulties of grouping, and for each group covered, properly explain its origins and place in the criss-crossing hierarchy of groups. As it exists, it is not conveying reliable information which leaves the reader anywhere near fully informed on the topic.
It may be better done in sections within one of the main articles?
- Indigenous Australians
- Aboriginal Australians

Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is sourced and I don't see any actual justification in your nomination for deletion. What you've described are issues with the article that can be fixed by editing the article and AfD is not for cleanup. Per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." This discussion should therefore be procedurally closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though I agree with Aussielegend it should be able to be fixed with editing realistically, it started as a meaningful attempt to address the 300+ Aboriginal countries that made up Australia but its been replaced by List of Australian Aboriginal group names along the way its also started to gain some of the aspects of a WP:POVFORK. -- nuke and start fresh. The first sentence of the article sums up all of its problems There are several hundred Indigenous peoples of Australia; many are groupings that existed before the British colonisation of Australia in 1788, its still an unresolved issue that First Nationas people have their own unique identities, cultures, knowledge, and Countries across all of what is Australia. Upon colonialisation they were lump with a generic identity by the colonialists, to have done otherwise would have invalidated the concept of terra nullius, its why for some Indigenous Australians isnt liked as it perpetuates everyone as being one generic group ignoring their diversity... Gnan garra 06:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge and redirect then? "Indigenous peoples" refers to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders so Indigenous Australians would be the appropriate target in that case. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the redirect, the content could be merged elsewhere or used in part to form a more appropriate article its a topic area thats probable best discussed in a broader way via rfc, wp:awnb than afd Gnan garra 07:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AussieLegend and Gnangarra. Having just educated myself slightly more about the nature of and criteria for the deletion, I should probably done a merge proposal instead. I would be happy with a redirect. However, adding the hotch-potch selection of groups included in this article (compare with Indigenous Australians#Groups and communities and Aboriginal Australians#Aboriginal Australian peoples), it's going to be challenging knowing what to include in each of those sections too. As a side note, Torres Strait Islanders barely feature, although I do recall reading somewhere that they tend to refer to themselves by island or area of origin. (I'm too tired to think about this properly now, but will go through it all again another day.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep its a complex issue, I appreciate that you're trying to unpack and address the issues. Gnan garra 09:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever problems the article may have, the notability and sourcing are clear. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doctorhawkes, if you look at the notes I've made on the citations (which are very sparse), you will see that they all have problems. In fact, Only one statement (about Mokare) is actually sourced, in the whole article. And as mentioned above, notability is covered in other articles (which have their own issues but are better sourced, and can be worked on to create better coverage). Also, issues with "Indigenous" vs "Aboriginal". Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Would a merge with Indigenous Australians be a viable option? Vorbee (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vorbee - short answer, yes, IMO. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although they may be able to identify aspects, the complexity of the subject and issues have not been grappled by most editors above - the whole issue of what to do with materials about people who were here before the europeans were, is that the project, the categories, and the terminologies have never been really properly reviewed. There is a need to have a review, rather than deletions... JarrahTree 09:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I agree that the topic is notable. However, the articles Indigenous Australians, Aboriginal Australians, Torres Strait Islanders, List of Australian Aboriginal group names, etc, do a better job than this article. I do not agree that this article is sourced - there are no sources at all for most states, and SA and WA have sources only for one piece of information each. The information included for each state seems quite arbitrary, as does the info for each group named - for some it's only a language name and area, for some a notable person or two, for others something the group is famous for (a strike, traditional dances). It reads to me like a student project - produce something with information about Indigenous peoples from each state of Australia, but with no criteria for what information to include, and no requirement to include all the groups within each (or any) state.

It would require a huge amount of work to decide on what information should be included for each group, to edit the entries to include that information, and to provide sources for each piece of information, etc. I don't see anything worth merging here (the few sourced facts are already included in relevant articles), and I don't know that a redirect is necessary, though it costs nothing - so a redirect to Indigenous Australians wouldn't hurt. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a significant number of inbound links, although they might be driven by two navbox templates. This article is so incomplete as to be useless - it asserts there are several hundred groups, then lists 33 of them, sometimes using past tense. I'd expect it should at least list all the groups in the state-based subcategories of Category:Australian Aboriginal peoples. The two template uses could be changed to List of Australian Aboriginal group names and see what other inbound links there are. I think rather than disrupt the much longer list in List of Australian Aboriginal group names by merging the paragraphs here to it, I'd check whether there is content here that should be added to any of the identified 33 group articles (unlikely given the sourcing comment above), then delete this page if it doesn't have any other use. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that too, ScottDavis, and have just changed Template:Indigenous Australians (slightly differently to your suggestion - the Indigenous category seemed more appropriate for the Peoples heading, as the Aboriginal list does not include Torres Strait Islanders, and the list article was included underneath anyway). I'll have a look at what this does and what the other template has too (might be later). Also - not sure about leaving "half-caste" in that template? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Also just changed Template:Ethnicity. Back later to look at the rest. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at a few of the others, and removed the hidden target of a piped link - readers were being taken to this article by clicking on words such as Australian Aboriginal or Indigenous Australians, both of which were sensible targets for the text. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laterthanyouthink, I am not familiar with templates of this type, what they are used for, or the criteria for including articles or categories in it. I see that "half-caste" is included as "Half-caste (deprecated term)", and links to Half-caste#Australia. It is a very significant term historically, as that section makes clear - the categorisation and legal definition were the basis for the Stolen Generations, and control of people of Aboriginal descent in reserves. So I would not recommend removing it from this template without discussion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

therein lies the rub - the term is of historical context, but some editors are offended by the term - to separate the nature of 'reporting' the issues in the encyclopedia is one thing, to explain to offended parties what and why we are doing things - is exactly why I suggested above (lost in the extended discussion) that there are a whole lot of terms and usages that require review - and a central point for discussion is created and maintained - some articles might come and go - but something like at the Indigenous project - so that more recent joiners to the conversation can see what has already been explored... where kind older/longer term editors might dig up the recurrent issues in links, so we dont have to re-invent the wheel over terms all the rest... JarrahTree 10:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly {{Indigenous Australians}} should have Blackfellas and Half-caste moved into a separate group/list, "Informal and historical terms". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, on {{Indigenous Australians}} the "Languages" (plural) group should perhaps be "Language" (singular) because Avoidance speech, Loanwords into English, Placenames are not languages (e.g. set list), but they are "language" (topic). Perhaps they should be moved into a different group/list. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, thanks RebeccaGreen. I actually (wp:boldly) added the "(deprecated term)" after "half-caste" to the template just to make it clear that it was not in use today, for those who have no idea of the history and wouldn't click on the link, and because it stood out as out-of-place in that list. Mitch Ames' suggestions sound reasonable, but I'll have to come back to this when I have time and a functional brain again.

Just an update for ScottDavis and others - I started working my way through the other links earlier, and so far have found very few with any good reason for linking to this page, and have changed or removed them from the articles accordingly (running into a few other "interesting" other items along the way). I'll carry on tinkering with these as time permits. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, meant to add, JarrahTree, I see your point, but still think that this article in particular has little value. I am trying to chip away at a few little things and over time will become more familiar with what ground has already been covered, I hope. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rebecca Green. An undoubtedly notable topic, however the content is already much better covered at List of Australian Aboriginal group names. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I (and ScottDavis and perhaps others) have now gone through all of the links to the page, and found none which were not better linked to Indigenous Australians, Aboriginal Australians or List of Australian Aboriginal group names. Those left are all links to user or project pages, or in the "See also" list. Although I proposed the delete in the first place, I now think that merging to Indigenous Australians possibly makes more sense, because that way the history of the page is maintained? Either way, I still see no sense in keeping this page. Apart from the massive task of attempting to improve it (which, if it hasn't been done in 13+ years of existence, I predict is unlikely to happen now), the problem of overlap remains. What would actually be in this article that is not covered by others? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. And just discovered another little gem, hidden in another article: List of indigenous peoples#Australia. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the credit - and dealing with a few articles I had skipped as needing less-trivial fixes. I'm still not convinced there is anything in this article that would be lost by its deletion. I suspect the paragraphs were created from the relevant group articles, so there would be nothing new here to merge back to them. I don't mind if it becomes a redirect, in case someone decided to try to find something that used to be in it.

The other list you found has three "main articles" which are clearly needed to fill in the spaces between the central desert and the south, west and east coasts (but Tasmania gets included). It mentions Australia's external territories, but does not make comment on any indigenous/pre-contact inhabitants. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per RebeccaGreen and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Topic is notable but covered elsewhere (e.g. Indigenous Australians, Aboriginal Australians, Torres Strait Islanders, List of Australian Aboriginal group names). These are sensitive topics and thus REDUNDANTFORK "doubly applies". Britishfinance (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect title to Indigenous Australians per arguments above. It is no benefit to the encyclopedia to split up what can be kept succinct. BD2412 T 03:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone happy if I merge? This would mainly consist of providing a redirect to the Indigenous Australians page, but I will check to see if there's anything here which is not included in the other articles. There seem to be more Delete votes than Keep, but a merge does have the advantage of maintaining the page history. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes. Bookscale (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have a problem with merging to maintain the page history, but I don't think any content from it should be added to the other articles unless/until it is well sourced. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree with RebeccaGreen on that. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOTCLEANUP the notability is in the reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 20:48, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking Beyond

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

non notable public artworkby non notable artist, apparently designed as commercial advertising for a steel company. No sources except listing in a survey. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure that it's fair to call Faust a non-notable artist. He had a solo exhibition of his work at the Midwest Museum of American Art [30] . This work, however, does not appear to have received any significant coverage. Vexations (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:19, 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. Sandstein 10:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anntonia Porsild

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

Non-notable subject/individual, as well as very limited sources (mostly non-reliable and/or primary sources). The contest in which the individual won, Miss Supranational, is also considered a non-notable beauty pageant competition on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the lack of an article entry on said contest and any related articles, on English Wikipedia. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noting for now that the community found Miss Supranational non-notable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational (2nd nomination). ☆ Bri (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per consensus that Miss Supranational is non-notable. I believe the pageant community here should be very proactive about these non-notable articles being created so often, as it's a major problem. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sole point apparently asserted for notability is one that does not provide it, and the subject is not well-sourced to reliable sources. BD2412 T 05:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete if the competition is not notable than winning it does not make one notable. The reverse is not neccesarily true.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST Atlantic306 (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Naturally, her winning the title has generated plenty of media coverage, and she has appeared on TV talk shows like this one. I'm not sure whether they're in-depth enough to satisfy GNG though. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Village Shopping Centre

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

Not a notable mall; not in any sense encyclopedically relevant.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has a previous WP:PROD, so soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Village Shopping Centre is not a "topic [which] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore "it is [not] presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" under WP:N. Dr42 (talk)

Delete Fails WP:NBUILD.----Pontificalibus 09:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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