Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 29 November 1 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Sabine character set

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

The article has little encyclopedic substance. Also, it only has 1 reference listed.

Article easily fails WP:GNG Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to the source, Sabine is an old project created by the source's author. It is not an Apple product, as the article indicates. He says he created the character set from scratch. This is CSD material. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:58, 7 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 Air Liquide (band). RL0919 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neue Frankfurter Elektronik Schule

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

Notability isn’t established because topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject WP:GNG JaneciaTaylor (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:57, 1 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. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Nicoletti

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

PROD tag removed with statement that subject was first female prof in her department. Unfortunately, this still does not meet criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. I tried finding good sources to at least meet WP:GNG, but came up short. Ifnord (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:16, 30 November 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) 03:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finduilas

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

This was originally a proposed deletion that wound up getting turned into a disambiguation. But the only articles linked are the article soft deleted to make this page and another article that just got redirected via a recent AfD. This disambiguation doesn't serve a purpose now. Hog Farm (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while I'm not entirely sure AFD is the right venue for this (correct me if I'm wrong), it clearly seems this disambiguation has no purpose anymore, since there are no actual articles it is linking to that should be included on it. Would tag for speedy if it wasn't already nominated (since disambiguations with only one main target (or no direct targets), which this disambig falls under, are eligible). Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:08, 30 November 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 Jungle Tales. RL0919 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jann of the Jungle

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

This fails to establish notability. Neither the character or comic appear to have anything beyond passing mentions anywhere. TTN (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Atlas Comics (1950s). BOZ (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an article that needs further development and expansion, not deletion. Most of the comics characters that get listed on AFD are minor existing-in-fictional-universe-only supporting characters. However, Jann of the Jungle is different, because she was not just a minor supporting character in someone else's title, but was the main character of a comic book series that bears her name as the title. As such, the article covers not just a fictional character, but also a real-world published work (the comic book series).
Furthermore, the jungle girl is a standard archetype of fiction in general and of comic books in particular. Jann of the Jungle is historically notable as a very old character that is one of the earliest codifiers/popularizers in comic books of that major archetype. Jann preceded by decades and helped to set the precedents/tropes for later jungle girl characters like Shanna the She-Devil, and as such, Jann is significant to comic book history. Jann is not some newly-created character, but a very old Golden Age character who, though not popular, has endured in continuing to make occasional appearances in the decades since.
—Lowellian (reply) 22:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both articles are stubs, and this article currently lacks sources. What exactly would overwhelm that article? There'd either need to be a plethora of sources deep into the Google Books pages that I didn't see, or a plethora of offline sources to be found for this to be at all expanded. TTN (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, when I say WP:BEFORE above, I was more specifically referring step D.1. of the before process:
"The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." -2pou (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a possibility, but we also can't sit on articles out of a hypothetical. Generally, if something is notable, the building blocks will exist in modern media, even if you need to dig a bit for meaty content. There's certainly not much in that regard, outside of trivial references to the jungle woman trope here and there.TTN (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pelendur

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

A figure dredged out of the appendix of The Return of the King. Not notable in LOTR, little/no reliable coverage in the real world. Hog Farm (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any indication that this character meets the standards outlined in the General notability guideline. He appears to be a minor character who has not been meaningfully discussed by academic or journalistic publications. Furthermore, the articles on Vorondil and Mardil Voronwë should be deleted as well. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just no, when you one source is the appendix of a work of fiction, the subject is not notable, not ever. Unless you can find 5 or more indepdent, 3rd party, secondary sources, that means things not writen by a Tolkien and published in peer reviewed journals or contained in books published by reputable publishers, I am not ever going to be convinced this person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that an article on this obscure of a character from an apendix to a novel has lasted all the way since 2003 says a lot about how Wikipedia came to be. It clearly says we seem to have cared more about the fictional than the real then. It tells you somnething that articles on real world rulers in what is now India or Nigeria in the 1750s are not nearly as developed as this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that many of Wikipedia's earlier editors were white male nerds who were ignorant of anything outside of their interests. This ignorance caused them to ignore the interests and histories of non-white peoples. To put it bluntly, they were racially biased in a way that was detrimental to the project. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 2 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) 20:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Main Street (Orange County, California)

[edit]
Main Street (Orange County, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another of a series of articles about non-notable roads created by now indef-blocked User:21rojasjustyn. There are no sources, the road is not WP:NOTABLE and fails WP:GNG The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. (As an aside, I have strong suspicions it is rather obvious that the PROD tag on this article was deleted by its now-blocked creator via block evasion, but no harm in letting the AFD process play out.) --Kinu t/c 19:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—just like all of the rest, this topic fails to meet standards. Imzadi 1979 → 19:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite its name it is not even the main street in the cities it passes through (for Santa Ana I think 1st and Broadway are more significant; for Orange, Chapman and Glassell; for Irvine, Culver or Jeffrey). It is mildly interesting for keeping its name through three cities and for having two crossings with MacArthur, but that's certainly not enough for Wikipedia notability. I searched for potential sources with nontrivial coverage of it with no success. In the end this is just another road, below the state-highway threshold for default notability and with nothing special to set it aside from other roads at the same level. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references found for the subject. Search brings up results for "South Main Street". Lapablo (talk) 13:59, 7 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 07:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifica Amour

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

Notability isn’t established because topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject WP:GNG JaneciaTaylor (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete @Rsfinlayson: That's not a valid argument and does not address the nomination's claim that the subject is not notable. I looked into Last Chance to Dance and The Sailor Story, and am comfortable saying the only notability for some of the other albums (at least those two, assumedly more) comes from their apparent charting in NZ, per claim in the main Hello Sailor article. This one apparently didn't chart. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:11, 7 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 Procedural close/keep or merge procedual close as ongoing merge discussion. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Khan (militant)

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

The subject of this article exactly fits criteria #8 of the reasons for deletion section in the deletion policy. That is, the subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, which is the people notability guideline, and specifically the section on the perpetrtors of a crime which says A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. And there is such an existing article, 2019 London Bridge stabbing, which covers him in the 'Attacker' section. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - Seems like a pretty good WP:BLP1E example. NickCT (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's already a merge discussion open, which should probably take less time to conclude than this AfD will be open. I'm not sure it's a good idea to split the conversation by having a deletion discussion here at the same time. So far the argument for keeping the article seems to be that Khan is notable for two different criminal events covered widely at the time, i.e. the 2019 attack and the 2010 London Stock Exchange plot. The argument against is that there's not a great deal to say about the 2010 plot and it might as well all be folded into the 2019 page, at least until such time as length considerations mean it needs to be split out. I don't have a settled view one way or the other but I lean slightly towards merge at this point. › Mortee talk 19:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. This is getting very messy, what with disjointed discussions at more than one location. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I regard Khan's article as more justified than Hinckley's, due to the latter's notability arising solely from one crime. Khan is notable due to multiple, separate crimes, years apart. Jim Michael (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Terrorism gang jailed for plotting to blow up London Stock Exchange". The Telegraph. 9 February 2012. Retrieved 30 November 2019. Usman Khan, 20, and Nazam Hussain, 26, were raising money to set up a terror training camp on land owned by Khan's family in Kashmir, Pakistan
  • I request that this AfD which was initiated after the Merge discussion was started to be closed. We can not have two merge/delete/keep discussion going on at the same time.BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or at least be frozen until the talk page discussion has been completed. Jim Michael (talk) 09:37, 1 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 can be created at editorial discretion and then possibly challenged. Sandstein 07:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary (comics)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:43, 30 November 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 Civilizations in Babylon 5#Narn Regime. RL0919 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narn

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

One of the major races in Babylon 5, but nevertheless an unnecessary WP:SPINOFF from Civilizations in Babylon 5#Narn. Despite (or because of?) its creation in 2004, it is still largely unsourced (not even to episodes) and has huge WP:INUNIVERSE problems, is filled with WP:OR, and basically fails WP:NOT#PLOT in its current state. I recommend a WP:Blow it up and start over solution through soft or actual deletion, and healthy growth from within Civilizations in Babylon 5#Narn. – sgeureka t•c 18:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Civilizations in Babylon 5 but that itself is going to be an issue as that's almost mostly unsourced. I'd have to do a bunch of digging but I feel there's an appropriate article for "Mythos of Babylon 5" to combine the various articles that are mostly plot only on the show's setting, which would include the civilizations and the like. "Narn" is definitely a searchable term. --Masem (t) 20:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 2 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. – sgeureka t•c 13:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protector (Marvel Comics)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, redirect or delete all seem reasonable, so relisting to see if there is a clear preference.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 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) 20:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Put On a Happy Face (song)

[edit]
Put On a Happy Face (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable song from the musical Bye Bye Birdie that doesn’t warrant its own article. Pahiy (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Twin Peaks characters#Windom Earle. – sgeureka t•c 18:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Windom Earle

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

This article is possible both WP:FANCRUFT & WP:JUNK, I'm thinking if deletion of the article were to occur, the description of the character could be mergerd into the article about the characters of Twin Peaks. Pahiy (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 30 November 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 Features of the Marvel Universe#Regions and countries. Sandstein 07:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bagalia

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I think that there is a somewhat broad consensus, borne out here, that local politicians need more than local media coverage for notability - and that's not been shown here. Sandstein 07:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hill (councillor)

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

Article passed an AfD way back in 2011, but fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability for 8 months. Bondegezou (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL talks of "international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office" and head of an English local authority does not reach that threshold. Do you have an RS saying he has held the position for "an unusually long period"? Being a regular in Lincolnshire media would come under WP:ROUTINE. An OBE does not deliver automatic notability: vast numbers of people with OBEs never get Wikipedia articles. An OBE, as far as I know, is an OBE: what do you mean by a "fairly senior OBE"? Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being the leader of a county council is not a free pass over NPOL #2 just because you presume that he probably received local media coverage — every municipal or county councillor everywhere has always received local media coverage, so if that were all it took to make a county councillor notable then there would never be any such thing as a non-notable county councillor anymore. At this level of office, the notability test is not the existence of local media coverage — it's the existence of nationalized media coverage, demonstrating a reason why he could be considered much more special than most other county councillors. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there is definitely a very sensible argument for the leader of a county council to be considered notable. Lincolnshire has more than a million people. The mayor of a city with that population would definitely be considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLOUTCOMES says: "Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD". That's not quite "definitely considered notable". And he's not a mayor of a city: he's the council leader of a county. While one can draw an analogy, I am not convinced how strong it is. Council leader is a somewhat different role to a mayor: it's a less significant role than mayors in many countries are. It's a less significant role than a UK elected mayor. Ultimately, the question is can we write a meaningful article about this person, rather than just a bare minimum statement of his period in office? WP:POLOUTCOMES specifically also makes that point. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, you contend that it does not pass WP:NPOL, but it states that "Politicians ... who have held ... sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" are "presumed to be notable" and, in criteria two, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are also presumed notable. One could make a case that Hill is a provincial office-holder (when does "provincial" become distinct from "local" – it doesn't say; is there a distinction?) But even if not, the points made above point to the fact that he is the leader of a political organisation serving over a million people, is long-serving and has received a state honour for that service; I think this suggests a strong claim to notability. For the second points, about "significant press coverage", part of the problem with people like Hill is that the sources are harder to come by; a lot of the coverage he would have received in local press in the early 2000s and even in some of the 2010s is not online (or not easy to find) and the stuff prior to that will undoubtedly be offline – on microfiche in newspaper archives. There will be considerable amounts of material in local newspapers which could build up a case for meeting the GNG, but compiling that into an article in 2 days will be pretty much impossible. That's why these sorts of nominations are, IMO, actually damaging to the encyclopedia – far more so than Hill's article is. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Also, a quick Google search reveals that there are a lot of news stories about him – not just routine stuff, but interviews, profiles, news stories. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
The article has been tagged as having a notability problem for 8 months. That tag states, "If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted." I think there's been sufficient warning. Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but then I didn't have the article watchlisted, so I was none the wiser. There is another way of looking at, though. If the person who had tagged the article eight months ago had instead tried to establish notability, do some research and improve the article, then they probably would have saved us all some time and staved off this AfD. But then it's much easier to stick a tag on something and hope someone else will do something about it. Cheers, —14:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC).
Counties are not provinces. "Provincial" is included in NPOL in the Canadian sense of the term, i.e. another word for what the US calls states, not in the generic "from out in the regions as opposed to the metropolitan centre" sense — and unfortunately, England simply does not have any level of government that fulfills the "state/province" part of NPOL #1. In the UK, NPOL #1 only covers Westminster, Holyrood, Stormont and the Welsh Senedd, not any level of government below those.
And when it comes to establishing the notability of a county councillor under NPOL #2, simply digging out some evidence of local coverage in their county's local media is not sufficient — as I noted above, every county councillor everywhere can always show some evidence of local coverage in their county's local media. What NPOL #2 is looking for, when it comes to local councillors, is nationalized coverage demonstrating a reason why he could credibly be considered much more notable than the norm for that level of office. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there any distinction between national and local media coverage? What policy is that distinction explicitly stated in? It sounds arbitrary to me and in contravention of the principles behind WP:GNG. —Noswall59 (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Because NPOL would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore if the existence of some purely local media coverage was all you had to show to exempt a politician from actually having to pass it. Every county councillor in every county on earth can always show some local media coverage. Every mayor or city or town councillor in every city or town on earth can always show some local media coverage. Every unelected candidate in every election on earth can always show some local media coverage. So if some local media coverage were all you had to show to get a person into Wikipedia on the grounds that they had passed GNG and were therefore exempted from actually having to pass NPOL, then every politician on earth would always get that exemption and NPOL would literally never actually apply to anybody anymore.
GNG does not just count the media hits and keep anybody who surpasses a certain arbitrary number — it does also take into account the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, and the geographic range of how widely he is getting covered, and the context of what he is getting covered for. Local media cover all kinds of local interest topics that aren't relevant to an international encyclopedia at all — local bands playing their local pub, winners of local poetry contests, high school athletes, owners of chip stands, librarians, school board trustees, and on and so forth. So the existence of some local media coverage does not automatically translate into a GNG pass that exempts a person from actually having to pass the defined notability standards for their field of endeavour — if the person doesn't have an "inherent" notability claim that guarantees a Wikipedia article, then their coverage does have to expand beyond the purely local before its existence is enough in and of itself to exempt them from having to pass the defined notability criteria that apply to their occupation. There are quite literally millions of people in the world who could show a handful of local coverage in exclusively local-interest contexts in their local media, and thus claim that they had passed GNG and were therefore exempted from having to actually accomplish anything that actually satisfied any of our SNGs — so if that were how it worked, we'd just be LinkedIn. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt every elected councillor has news coverage. My three local councillors hardly register on their own Twitter accounts, let alone the newspapers. I'm just worrying here that a simplistic 'local councillors are never notable' rule is being applied here, rather than giving credit to councillors that are well-above the ordinary. Sionk (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I will reply properly to Bearcat's comment here and at Rob Parker's AfD tomorrow but Sionk is articulating my point. I've never said anywhere that we should allow anyone who happens to get mentioned in a local newspaper (or any newspaper) to be included. I'm suggesting that significant, sustained, non-trivial and non-routine coverage in local news shouldn't be considered differently than similar levels of coverage in national news. That way non-entity parish councillors would probably not meet the bar, but long-serving, top-tier local politicians like Hill and Parker would. I think this is a sensible way of dealing with this issue. —Noswall59 (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
If you're not seeing coverage of your three local councillors, that says more about news what you're choosing to pay attention to than it says about your councillors. Local media's job is to cover local politics — that's right at the very core of why local media even exists at all — so every local politician everywhere most certainly is always referenceable to some degree of local media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a member of a county council must receive significant national or international coverage (well beyond that of the average county official). The expectation is that we should be able to write a substantial article about the subject, much more than "they exist and hold this office." I don't see any sourcing that indicates that this subject is more notable than other county officials. --Enos733 (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have expanded the article considerably by adding material about his early work in local politics – he was chairman of the council's finance committee and then the Police Authority's finance committee so was responsible for setting their budgets and funding allocations in the period 1997 to 2005; this garnered him a lot of attention in the local press and in the Local Government Chronicle, and also provided him quite a political platform. He was also involved in the Speechley scandal (contending his ailing leadership in 2002) and was touted in the press as a contender again in 2004, before taking over as a "moderniser" in 2005. In my sandbox, I'll continue to research and summarise his work as leader since 2005. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • That is a huge amount of valuable work. As with the Rob Parker article, I feel with much of the content, it would be better to put that into the Lincolnshire County Council article. That article could have a detailed political history using the content you've added here and at Rob Parker. I would thus like to officially change my stance to Merge to save all that content. But more than with the Rob Parker article, you have also found good content specifically on Mr Hill and those in the discussion above should re-review the article to see if they now feel differently. Bondegezou (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete. If we are accessing with WP:NPOL he doesn't pass notability in anyway because criterion 1 states that Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. On the other hand it may appear asif he has enough coverage but doesn't so delete. Lapablo (talk) 14:09, 7 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) 20:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Nitesh

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

Repeatedly created non-notable BLP. He may be a budding writer but there is no in depth coverage of him. It's passing mentions, interviews or written by him. Praxidicae (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 4 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) 20:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Drexler

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

No evidence of notability, of the four sources two are not independent and one is just a catalog entry for a book on sale. Thus all we have left is a single obit. Not enough to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fixed malformed AfD. WJ94 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Move it to draft if you don't think its up to mainspace just yet, but Drexler looks pretty notable; the obituary is from the New York Times, and he has a book written about his tenure as director at [[Moma Architecture and Design at the Museum of Modern Art: The Arthur Drexler Years, 1951–1986 [[2]] which appears to contain a lot of biographic material as well as his work for Moma (I can see first two chapters in google books) I added a few refs found after a quick search of JSTOR, but there looks to be more - reviews of exhibitions and reviews for the many books he wrote as well. Curdle (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never been sure about obits, as they can just be placed by the family (and the NYT is the local new paper for New York), Moving to draft might be a good idea (and I am not sure really how to), as I still think we have a way to go.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK now we have enough to pass notability..Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 1 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 DJ Maj. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speckled Goats II

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

Not notable. I found one paragraph-long blurb about this album that focuses on the artist donating proceeds to charity. This is also covered on his main article. I found no other coverage except track listings and sales write-ups. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. Consensus is not notable. History remains if someone wishes to perform the merge. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Judge Fargo

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

Fictional character. No real-world notability, only in-universe notability. Non-encyclopedic. No independent souces. Nicknack009 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Nicknack009 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Nicknack009 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Nicknack009 (talk) 16:32, 30 November 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) 20:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald B. Cope Jr.

[edit]
Gerald B. Cope Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:JUDGE. Florida District of Appeals are not state-wide positions and chief judge position rotates from justice to justice. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:14, 30 November 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 07:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabiye Zubane

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

No evidence that there ever was even a production, much less a released film. All references appear to be copies of this article. This has been prodded twice but never dealt with except through bureaucracy. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete i totally agree with the nominator. The subject fails WP:NFILM, and WP:GNG. According to the article, Punjabiye Zubaney, is an upcoming Punjabi film, directed by Manjeet Maan, expected to be released in 2013. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:22, 3 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. Despite BlameRuiner's misdirected support of Cap's non-existent !vote, the overall weight of this discussion is not in consensual territory. Lourdes 15:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Salgado

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

Searching through the internet and I can't seem to find anything about this person as a footballer. There are other Pedro Salgado that does parkour but not football. Fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per SF, meets WP:NFOOTBALL and likely passes GNG. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 14:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – marginal NFOOTY pass but total GNG fail:
    • Per Soccerway, this player meets NFOOTY because, seven years ago, he had one appearance for 13 minutes for Universidad Católica in the top-tier, WP:FPL-listed Chilean Primera División. SW also lists 3 Copa Chile appearances (though SW doesn't list the dates and I can find no confirmation of the games) with 103 minutes playing time for all three. After that, he played one more season (25 games) for Deportes Temuco, which is currently in the second-tier Primera Division B, but at the time (2012), it was in the third-tier, not FPL-listed Segunda División Profesional de Chile (I love how every "minor" football league in the world names itself so as to make it appear it's in a higher tier than it really is). So his total professional playing time, seven years ago, is 116 minutes... equivalent to a little more than one full game.
    • As for GNG, my searches are coming up with a lot of other people named "Pedro Salgado", including a Chilean prosecutor who was involved in some high-profile cases, but only a handful of brief mentions of the footballer:
      1. Stretty (only link the article and SF's second link above) is an article about another player that mentions Salgado in two sentences. Also, Stretty appears to be a fan generated site with a non-professional editorial team.
      2. 24horas (SF's first link) is two sentence about the subject.
      3. AS (click to third slide) is 2 sentences about the subject.
      4. Puranoticia just lists him on the roster.
    • That's all I'm finding. Without anything beyond a couple-sentence mention, we have nothing from which to write an article (no way to improve it beyond a statbox stub), and a "GNG fail" like this suggests we should delete the article, even if NFOOTY is met with, at most, 116 minutes in 4 games. – Levivich 05:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's plenty more sources especially from soychile, see [5] and more sources come up when you add Católica to the search terms (you can ignore the financial stuff and the prosecutor, that's a different guy). He was heavily covered at one point and it's disingenuous to claim that thsoe are the only sources. SportingFlyer T·C 05:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't claim those are the only sources, I said all I'm finding are brief mentions. I did search with Catolica, and Temuco, and his full name, and variations, etc. Which soychile is a GNG source? I saw the usual mentions in game and transfer reports but I may have missed something. And what is there besides soychile? Two GNG sources makes me a keep !voter. – Levivich 06:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please look at the emol link I posted. There are six Soychile articles and many more which no longer appear to be available on the internet, such as El Mercurio [6] which loads briefly before redirecting me, or [7] which is clearly about his loan to Manchester United but gives a dead link. The Soychile articles are short but definitely cover him, see [8] [9] [10] [11] and this one is a bit longer [12]. SportingFlyer T·C 06:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          Thanks I will take a look through those before the AfD closes. – Levivich 07:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          After looking through them, I'm not convinced enough to change my !vote to keep. As is well-known, I generally think it's absolutely ridiculous to have articles about footballers who have only played a few professional games, unless there are at least two solid GNG sources, and that means from two independent publishers (independent of the source, and of each other). I'd count these two SoyChile articles [13] [14] as one GNG source combined, because they're from the same publisher, but together they are over 500 words about the player, which I'd count as in depth. However, I still don't see a second GNG source. I can't access El Mercurio, which might be that second source, or maybe there's another one out there, I just haven't found it. If the player were still playing in an FPL, one GNG source would make me !vote draftify, but in this case, I'm still at delete. – Levivich 18:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think I am with Levivich on this one. While the player might technically pass NFOOTY, this is incredibly marginal, and the guideline itself specifically notes that it is a rule of thumb which does not require us to keep articles which meet it - this seem like precisely the kind of case that caveat was intended for. I can't see any sources which establish notability for this player (I'd also note that #1 from Levivich uses Salgado as an example of a player who did not make it, and #2 and #3 are lists of promising young Chilean players who were not successful). Concerning the sources from SportingFlyer that are accessible, I don't see anything which goes beyond routine coverage. 6 and 7 look like routine coverage about a player transfer; they might technically be about Salgado but I can't see them conferring notability. The fact that a player might not be able to be picked for a match does not make them notable. 8 also seems to be routine transfer coverage, as does 9. 10 appears to be a routine story about the player not being registered for the team's squad due to an injury. (Of course, with all of these, I am relying on Google Translate; I would be happy to be corrected by someone with a better knowledge of Spanish). Perhaps the two sources which I can't access are enough to satisfy GNG but, at this stage, that cannot be verified. Given the very marginal pass of NFOOTY and the fact that (in my assessment) the SoyChile articles provide no more than routine coverage, I have no reason to suppose without evidence that these further sources would be the in-depth, reliable coverage we are after. Of course, if someone can find a working link - or even access the sources themselves and describe their contents to us - then I would be happy to reconsider. WJ94 (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with the two delete !votes strongly on whether the sources are routine - they're clearly, in my mind, significant coverage of a player. Even though the SoyChile covered him when he was in the second division, not all Temuco players receive that level of coverage. The fact other sources demonstrably exist on Salgado as well, although we can't easily access them - such as LUN's El futuro de Chile va a jugar con Manchester United from 2009 and Mercurio articles about Catolica playing youth in the cups - makes the WP:GNG pass clear. SportingFlyer T·C 15:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with Captain Raju and Giant Snowman reasoning. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:18, 5 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) 20:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of planets in Marvel Comics

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

This is just a bare-bones list of fictional, in-universe minutia. They are not notable as a whole. There is no encyclopedic benefit for the casual reader if they're redirected here. It's easy enough to say in passing "X Planet, the home planet of the X race" in regular discussion of the topic. There is no justification it's a valid split. There also exists Features of the Marvel Universe, which can hold any relevant information and already has itself a small list of planets anyway. TTN (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need for it all to be documented on this site. Fiction is essentially infinite, so there's a point when something becomes too trivial to cover. For something as broad as Marvel, the ratio of trivial to important items is extremely high. Look at the Marvel Fandom and its close to 250k articles. Even covering 5% of that is over 10k items. Even if they aren't all articles, there is no way for a general encyclopedia to go that in-depth into a single topic. If they're relevant to a particular series or issue, they should be mentioned in said issue. TTN (talk) 17:42, 30 November 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. Disregarding the two last opinions for making no policy-based argument. Sandstein 07:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tallstick

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

This piece of medical equipment does not seem to be notable. The two papers cited in the article are the only references to this device that I could find, and they were written by the inventors, so they are not independent sources. The papers have 10 and 4 citations on Google Scholar, respectively. The article was written by a blocked UPE sock in what seems to be an attempt to promote Mirette Seireg, who might be notable (I haven't looked too far into it), but this device is not. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:57, 30 November 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 Service Industries Limited. Tone 11:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Servis Shoes

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

Almost all the coverage is about its parent company, Service Industries Limited, which is listed on PSX. The article is wrongly referenced. Even the PSX link in the inbox is of 'Service Industries Limited'. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:NCORP/WP:NPRODUCT whichever is applicable. Störm (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 30 November 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 List of minor DC Comics characters. Tone 11:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arm-Fall-Off-Boy

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaomi Mi Max 3

[edit]
Xiaomi Mi Max 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product whose stub was created over a year ago and has not been touched since. Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT extension of WP:NORG. Existence is not notability. This should have been grouped together, however I have not done a "grouped" AfD. See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xiaomi_Mi_Pad Graywalls (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 09:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technology in Stargate

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Goa'uld technology in Stargate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

As a Stargate fan, it is with regret that I put these two well-sourced yet completely in-universe Stargate technology lists up for a deletion discussion (yes, despite the article name, they are lists). Per WP:NOT#PLOT, "Wikipedia treats creative works [...] in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." While sources exist [15][16] to write about the role of technology in the series in general or to write a Production design of Stargate article, basically none of these list entries would survive (WP:TNT, because even their in-universe importance is debatable beyond at best being plot devices). Their real-world relevance rests solely on the summary "The Stargate franchise features a lot of fictional technology, which was designed by the art department. The technology draws from real Egyptian objects like the Sarcophagus, Greek mythology such as Atlantis, and ZPMs can be pronounced Zed-P-M or Zee-P-M." (The remaining SG technology subjects Stargate (device), Atlantis (Stargate) and List of starships in Stargate are not as clear-cut, so they aren't part of this AfD.) – sgeureka t•c 08:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 08:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 08:39, 30 November 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) 03:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dundee Scots

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

non notable school band, with no major prizes or significant recordings--and no non loca lcoverage. . DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 09:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Lebanon Percussion

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

non notable school musical group, with nonon local references DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Pescott

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

GNG Fail. Tagged for notability since 2012. Article has a single source. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:16, 30 November 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 07:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Bailly

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

Possibly non WP:GNG actress. No third party sources can be found, either in the article, or by searching. IMDB isn't a notable source. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "LAST WEDDING.(Review)"; Eisner, Ken; Variety, Sept 10, 2001, Vol.384(4), p.58
  2. "'14 Hours'.(Movie Review)"; Richmond, Ray; Hollywood Reporter, April 1, 2005, Vol.388(27), p.10(2)
Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, her Shakespeare performance seems to be a minor role and there is only one mention of her in the link you provided. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Third in the cast list but it seems to be a play that is a spoof of Shakespeare Atlantic306 (talk)
But the reference only mentions her once and isn't about her. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actors do not automatically pass WP:NACTOR just because roles happen to be listed — the notability test is the ability to demonstrate the significance of the roles through the use of reliable source content that singles them out for attention, but the sources listed above aren't sufficient. The Shakespeare book gives her exactly one sentence in a review of a play, technically verifying that she had a supporting role in a minor local theatre production, but not substantively enough about her performance to clear the bar all by itself if it's the best you can actually do. The Last Wedding review just mentions her name in the fine-printed complete credits block at the very end right alongside everybody else who was in the film at all, and doesn't give her even one word of space in the actual body text of the review itself — and her role in that film was a bit part as an unnamed receptionist, not a starring role significant enough to count toward NACTOR. I can't find the Hollywood Reporter review of 14 Hours at all to verify whether it focuses on her performance or just mentions her name, but it would still be subject to the same issue as the other two sources. We're not looking for sources which offer technical verification that roles have been had — we're looking for sources which demonstrate the significance of the roles by singling her performances out for dedicated attention. And even on a ProQuest search, I'm finding nothing else: I get nine hits total, eight of which are glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that say literally nothing else about her, and the one that's slightly stronger is just a repeat of the same review that was excerpted in the Shakespeare book, and thus isn't a new second source. This is simply not enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bunch of one time appearances on TV shows do not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all her roles are so small I can't even tell if they are red shirts. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In regards to the nomination: actors need to meet WP:NACTOR, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", not WP:GNG. Third party sources (by which I presume independent, reliable sources) can indeed be found - I have just added two to the article. She has certainly had starring roles, as in Bong of The Dead, but whether that is notable is debatable. Contemporary listings for Good Luck Chuck say "Starring Jessica Alba, Dane Cook, Dan Fogler, Michelle Harrison, Simone Bailly", and I'm not sure why IMDB and the Wikipedia article rate the importance of the roles/actors differently. Bailly's role in the 4th and 5th seasons of The L Word was significant. I will see what else I can find, and try to improve the article a bit. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting NACTOR still requires sources, so there isn't as much of a conflict between meeting NACTOR and having to meet GNG as you seem to think there is. A person inherently fails the former if they haven't simultaneously passed the latter, in fact — every actor who exists at all could instantly exempt themselves from actually having to have any sources if all they had to do was invoke the words "major roles", which is precisely why we rely on reliable source coverage to tell us, by virtue of singling her and her performance out for more attention than just invoking her name in a cast list, whether the roles were "major" or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to Wikipedia:Notability, which says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;" (my emphasis). What's the point of having subject-specific guidelines if all subjects have to meet WP:GNG?? Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that all subjects have sources, so there is no possibility of actors "instantly exempt[ing] themselves from actually having to have any sources". RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a person has properly notability-supporting sources, then by definition they pass GNG. If a person does not have properly notability-supporting sources, then by definition their notability claim has not passed the verifiability test, and can't be kept on those grounds regardless of what the article merely claims, but fails to properly source, as being their notability claim. That's always how notability works on Wikipedia: it's not the things the article says, it's the quality and depth and range of sourcing that can be provided to support the things the article says. It's not the words "major role", it's the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to demonstrate that the role was "major" enough to fulfill the criterion. Even minor walk-on roles can be technically verified by directory listings and credit blocks at the bottom of Variety reviews — so the majorness of a role is demonstrated by sources which focus on the actor and their performance in the body text, not just by the ability to technically verify that a role was had. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ecthelion of the Fountain

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

Minor character in the Silmarillion. Little in-world significance, basically none in the real world. Sourced only from Tolkien (primary source). Hog Farm (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 2 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. Ultimately those advocating keep did not establish a policy/guideline based reason for this to be kept (the closest is WP:POLOUTCOMES which is an explanatory supplement not a policy or guideline itself and which, even so, does not cover this topic). Barkeep49 (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Mesa mayoral election

[edit]
2004 Mesa mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-PRODd because "Mesa is the 35th largest city in the United States". That is true, but that doesn't make their mayoral elections notable. Mesa is still a suburb of Phoenix. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: A presumption of notability (not just population) concerning Wikipedia:NEXIST is that sources exist just are not on the article. Someone else could argue to prove it but the bottom line is sourcing is required when or if something is contested. I would find it hard to receive arguments that AFD is not such a contesting. Primary sources do not advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't really find either the argument that Mesa has a large population or that none of the candidates have an article to be relevant. Leaning delete, but relisting to solicit more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Kier

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

GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. I cannot find any in-depth coverage. He is listed in Who's Who in American art, but only as a minor part of an entry on Yves Gaucher. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:24, 30 November 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. Not quite a good form relist; and the post re-list !vote is absolutely a no-no. Should have been closed as a keep much earlier. The re-list was a waste of community time, with no disrespect to the nominator, who clearly did it in good faith. Lourdes 15:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NRU. Andrew Base (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 (c), at 05:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you do any sort of WP:BEFORE search? I know it's not on the !voters, but I'd like to know which coverage out there passes WP:GNG as I've done my own search and have only come up with sources that are either routine or primary. SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Drover's Wife, I don't understand this either. I am a strong proponent of WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I do not know where any sources are; indeed, I don't even like rugby. I understand the presumption of notability for less recent players, but not to him. All the sources available that discuss him will be found online, and I can't find enough to satisfy GNG. J947 (c), at 01:20, 1 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 07:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Byron House

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

The Amplifier article and https://www.bassplayer.com/artists/byron-house-with-robert-plants-band-of-joy are the only sources that I can find for the subject, but there does not seem enough between the two to sustain a start-class article, so I would argue the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seem to be some additional references added on the 15th by the author. This would benefit from more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per ST47.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 (c), at 05:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I am satisfied that there is consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Amber-Rose Rush

[edit]
Murder of Amber-Rose Rush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a fairly mundane murder case which got little publicity outside New Zealand MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I respect any decision that the other Wikipedians come up with it. This case came on the heels of the Murder of Grace Millane so I thought I would write about it because of my connection to Dunedin. I agree that it hasn't received a great deal of publicity and commentary outside of NZ apart from some tabloid British and Malaysian newspapers. Will take it as a learning curve. Andykatib 05:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor places in Beleriand

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

Beleriand is a land featured in the Silmarillion, a minor work of Tolkien. This is therefore a list of minor places from a land in a minor work. It survived deletion in 2007 with a request to improve sources. There remain very few sources. This is a list of trivia. Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Biggest Reggae One-Drop Anthems

[edit]
The Biggest Reggae One-Drop Anthems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable series of albums. Couldn't find anything in the way of sources besides discog (user-generated) and AllMusic (which is generally considered reliable, but we need more than just that). Neither of these are included in the article, which has been tagged as unsourced since 2011, and as an orphan since 2012. Fails WP:GNG for music. No good redirect to an artist since it's a series of compilations. Hog Farm (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There does seem to be some limited coverage for these albums, but I do not believe that it is enough to meet the requirements for independent notability. Since there is not a clear redirect target, I think deletion is the best choice for this situation. Aoba47 (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Taylor

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

Sterling Heights does not have a strong mayor, the mayor has no more actual power than a member of the city council. They do directly elect the mayor, but he is just first among equals, the city is actually run by a city manager. When Taylor first ran for city council I deliberately voted for only him in the city council election to increase his odds of winning (he won, so it evidently worked), but he is not notable. We deleted the article on his longer served predecessor, Richard Notte, and there is no reason to keep the article on him. The mayor of Sterling Heights is not default notable, and there is not enough coverage of Taylor to show he is notable without the mayor being default notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mayors do not get an automatic "inherent" notability freebie just for existing as mayors — regardless of the size of city, the notability test for mayors is the ability to write a substantive and well-sourced article that demonstrates his significance as a mayor. This features neither the substance nor the depth of sourcing required, however. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Bearcat. Just because the individual is a mayor or local official, it does not automatically make him very notable. The coverage is WP:ROUTINE. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press are largely printed in Sterling Heights, they are not "municipal newspapers". They are both well respected major metropolitian newspapers. The Macomb Daily is a bit more local, but not just Sterling Heights in coverage. However the articles do not rise above the level of routine coverage, and some of the coverage only name checks Taylor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Earl Jackson

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

Actor that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Main role appears to have been the Maytag Repairman in commercials. Does not appear to have acted in any notable films. Paisarepa (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:34, 30 November 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Augur (software)

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

Every substantive edit to this article appears to be by a WP:SPA, some of which have usernames that Google directly to the company and others have usernames that imply company / role accounts.

The sources mainly read like churnalism (a couple closely match old press releases), with remarkably little interest despite the blockchain buzzword.

The article states that the product peaked at 265 daily users, dropping to 37 post launch. It's hard to find objective evidence of significance outside the cryptocurrency bubble. Guy (help!) 01:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This got tremendous notice inside the crypto bubble, fwiw (not much). But I do remember more mainstream coverage than the meagre sources presently on the article. I'll have a dig tomorrow - it's possible I'm just remembering Matt Levine making fun of it - David Gerard (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, my memory was wrong - not even Matt Levine made fun of it. Sources in the article: IBTimes probably OK (Ian Allison knows his stuff), Fox News substantial IMO, Bloomberg substantial, Fortune churnalist fluff, MIT churnalist fluff, Economist short but not fluff - though it adds very little new and is more of a summary. Substantial articles not already in the article: Bloomberg has this from 2015 (gosh this is interesting!) and this (assassination markets!) from 2018. Nothing in FT, Guardian or BBC. Passing mentions in NYT and Telegraph, in articles on other topics. This is literally the entire RS coverage. I'm unconvinced this is enough for WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Leaning delete - David Gerard (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wavering - given discussion below, I expect a not-disgraceful article could be written from the extant RSes. If it does achieve notability, it'll be as a flash-in-the-pan if there are readers wondering "whatever happened to ..." So, currently not strongly convinced either way - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Augur is notable per WP:NCORP. The list provided above by David alone is enough to meet all of the conditions: IBTimes, Fox News, Bloomberg, Fortune, MIT, Economist. These all have one or more full length articles about Augur, are all considered realiable sources by Wikipedia standards, are all secondary sources, and are all independent. Micah Zoltu (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What David means to say is that he believes I have a COI and has filed a COIN against me. It is not yet resolved and I'm not convinced I have a COI. I did a short stint of contract work for Forecast Foundation a couple years ago but I haven't worked for or been paid by them for a long time. Since David has decided to bring up COI here, I would also like to inform readers that David has a published book for sale that basically says (my own summary) "all blockchains are bad and all applications built on blockchains are bad". He also has a blog with Patreon subscribers where the primary topic is how bad blockchains are and how all blockchain stuff is bad. Given this, it is entirely unsurprising that he would want to delete a blockchain project page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahZoltu (talk • contribs) 17:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (came here seeing this topic mentioned at WP:COIN). David Gerard's list of sources is probably enough to establish notability, but we also have:
which appears to be an independent report from the KTH Royal Institute of Technology[19] analysing the Augur software, which takes it comfortably over the line I think. Alexbrn (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ooh, that's quite a nice one - is it peer-reviewed? If so that's a top-quality blockchain source. If not, it's probably worth the "further reading" you put it in - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so, but it's a cut above the normal for this topic space. Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification about the Swedish terminology: it is an examensarbete – a degree project – at the undergraduate/Bachelor's level (Grundnivå, 15 HP). --bonadea contributions talk 13:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ah, about like an honours thesis? - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A thesis at this level certainly doesn't have the level of review needed to contribute to notability. Only a PhD thesis would possibly do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of a honours degree is that it is one step up from a Bachelor's, while still an undergraduate degree. If I am right about that, then no. This is simply a BA level paper, a compulsory component of all BA degrees (or equivalent professional degrees – I don't know whether KTH uses the BA/MA terminology) for all subjects within the Swedish system, and it is not peer reviewed. --bonadea contributions talk 06:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a slew of reasons but primarily the nom's statement. Praxidicae (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice it had a few articles when it opened and a few hundred trades. And then essentially nothing. Is it still alive? It's impossible to say, nobody has bothered writing an obituary as far as I see it. The Bloomberg article is interesting especially when it quotes CFTC folks and others on the question of legality. Folks like this won't say "This is illegal" until the lawyers write and file their briefs. They might as well have said it though. I'd paraphrase all the legal comments as "How could this possibly be legal?" They apparently never got around to the stage of writing and filing briefs. If anybody could provide evidence that this market is still alive in any economic sense, let me know and I might reconsider. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is about a dead fish. Chisme (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTTEMPORARY Wikipedia has articles on many products, platforms, businesses, technologies, etc. that were notable for a time, then faded into non-use. The purpose of an Encyclopedia isn't to present "articles on current events" but rather to aggregate knowledge about various topics that have been notable at some point in history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem is a great example of this, no one is talking about it anymore in MSM, but it was a thing that happened and it was significant for its time. The same is true fro basically every biography type article, the person generally doesn't get talked about after their death but they were notable in their time and thus the article stays indefinitely. Micah Zoltu (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. David Gerard dismisses this Fortune article as "churnalist fluff" but it is a full length article by a named journalist that is not a simple re-hash of company press releases so in any other context would be considered a reasonable source. Overall I think there is enough to justify an article. I also agree that WP:NOTTEMPORARY applies - it is only necessary to establish that it was notable, not that it remains active and profitable today. Rhanbury (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, whether or not its activities were legal or ethical is not relevant to the question of notability. Rhanbury (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to offer an opinion here, since I was part of the Forecast Foundation team for several years. That said, I thought it would be worth mentioning that Augur has been discussed in a number of academic papers:
I think most (all?) of these are peer-reviewed. In addition, Augur was discussed in a 2016 policy primer from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University:
FWIW, I've always felt that Augur is most notable from a research point-of-view, as a (so far!) working solution to the "oracle problem". Of course I am biased, but, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Augur to have its own Wikipedia page -- in my opinion it is considerably less obscure than many other research topics that have their own entries. Just my 2 cents! Tinybike (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One other reference I forgot to add is Blockchain Revolution, by Don and Alex Tapscott, which discusses Augur:
Look for the word "Augur" instead Cifoxs (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the article. It's mostly used as an example. For instance, Heiss et al's "From oracles to trustworthy data on-chaining systems" cites Augur as an example of a "voting-based data on-chaining" system, briefly discusses what Augur is, and has a table comparing it to other systems. Bentov et al's "Decentralized prediction market without arbiters" cites Augur as an example of a decentralized prediction market, then they criticize Augur's solution, then they propose a different solution. (These articles are not primarily about Augur, though, if that's what you're asking.) I linked to the articles, so please have a look through them yourself -- no need to take my word for it.
Stepping back for a second to look at the bigger picture, I have to say: I think that the WP article in its current form is useless, and unfortunately it's not obvious to me how to improve it without referencing primary sources. There's definitely been some coverage in the mainstream media, but not enough to paint a reasonable picture of what Augur is using only those sources. From reading through the Talk page, my sense is that most of the back-and-forth warring on this page has been driven by people including information beyond what's been covered in mainstream sources, because that is currently the only way to describe Augur reasonably well.
So, here's my suggestion: replace the article with a stub for now (e.g. "Augur is a decentralized prediction market platform built on the Ethereum blockchain" could be the entire article). The article could be expanded if/when there's more thorough mainstream media coverage in the future. Tinybike (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can be used, they just can't prove notability, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but, from reading through Talk:Augur_(software) this appears to not be the case. As far as I can tell, every time a primary source (or crypto trade source) has been used in the article, it has been reverted. See for example David Gerard's comments under the "Extended additions need RSes" and "Augur (software) revert: extensive unsourced rambling" sections. (Quote: "As you know, crypto articles are under harsh sanctions - because crypto articles were getting filled with reams of precisely this sort of primary-sourced nonsense.") Currently, the WP article does not even cite the Augur whitepaper
  • Peterson J, Krug J, Zoltu M, Williams AK, Alexander S (2018). "Augur: a decentralized oracle and prediction market platform". arXiv:1501.01042 [cs.CR].
which is a surprising omission if there's no policy against it.
I wasn't aware of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Does it apply to crypto pages on WP? (Do different sections of WP have different rules?) Tinybike (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
so, crypto has super harsh rules in place under WP:GS/Crypto, which are there because the crypto articles were overcome with a firehose of spam - multi-thousand word passages sourced to the project wiki, etc. So this leads to harshness on sourcing - basically, get coverage in mainstream WP:RSes - not even crypto sites. Peer-reviewed academic work counts. Books may count (or may not, if they're Packt shovelware they're a bit dubious). Lots of things die at AFD because they can't show good third-party sourcing of proper news coverage and/or academic peer-reviewed sources. I'm not laying out a list of written rules, I'm describing the lay of the land - there are some very pro-crypto editors who've come to realise that this sort of harshness actually makes our crypto stuff not suck.
anyway I'm strongly suspecting this article will live, and academic peer-reviewed sources are awesome, and conference proceedings are pretty good - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the proliferation of scams in the space, I can see why crypto would have harsher sourcing rules, but excluding all crypto sites feels like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Many (most?) crypto news sites are highly dubious, but there are a handful (e.g. The Block) that are in my opinion pretty reliable. (Personally, I would trust a crypto-related article from The Block much more than one from Fox News.) Is there a procedure for whitelisting particular sources? If not, is that something that the editors here would be open to? Tinybike (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(this is tangential to this AFD, but ...) Everything's open to re-evaulation in principle. I'd have a look at the discussions surrounding Coindesk - see the ones linked from WP:RSP#CoinDesk. CoinDesk doesn't lie about facts, and corrects when caught out (e.g. the recent one on Kik), but has a tendency to write glowing articles about things that don't exist and never happen if they have the word "blockchain" in - so absolutely unusable for notability. Other crypto sites are worse. Blockchain press looks a bit like "specialist press", but is in practice advocacy press. The Block has done the same - e.g. their recent puff piece on the Bakkt futures, directly claiming them as evidence of number go up any moment now. Anyway, if the discussion were to happen, the place for it would be at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reason for not having Augurs white paper as a reference in the article? I am unable to see anything related to that in the sanction notice. Cifoxs (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a bit off-topic, but, just to clarify: are you saying that CoinDesk just can't be used for notability, or that it can't be used at all? I agree with the former, but the latter seems like an awfully extreme position to me. Tinybike (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more academic publications that talk about Augur (I think are these all peer-reviewed):
Here's a recent article about Augur in TheStreet.com (which is not a crypto-specific news site, although I don't know if it's considered reliable or not):
Here's a lecture series from the University of Buffalo focused on Augur and Grid+:
Here are some books that discuss Augur:
Here's a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research:
(Note: as I understand it, NBER working papers are not peer-reviewed.) Tinybike (talk) 07:14, 6 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 Falcon (comics). Tone 11:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redwing (Marvel Comics)

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

The article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Falcon (comics). The character is almost always talked about when the source talks about Falcon and then some...for instance just to name a few. The only time he is independant of Falcon is in Lockjaw and the Pet Avengers normally.

Jhenderson 777 01:09, 30 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_November_30&oldid=1142224863"