Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 November	9 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Rediscovered (A1 album). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trust Me (A1 song)

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

The entire article is based on self-published or user-uploaded content. The reference links are either Facebook, YouTube, iTunes etc which are not WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Needs careful review. Splice999 (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rediscovered (A1 album) – fails WP:NSONG. Clearly a fan has tried to create articles for every single released by the band, but only nine of them were hits, and I suspect all the others can be redirected to their parent albums, like this one. Richard3120 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rediscovered (A1 album) – fails WP:NSONG. Not a notable song, without supporting RSs Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. Fails WP:NSONGS. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rediscovered (A1 album) per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 15 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 03:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Grayson

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage beyond WP:PRIMARY sources and a few mentions in passing in fan-sites on the wider web. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 11 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. MER-C 10:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Serato

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

This article is terrible and was nothing but puffery, sourced to itself. I deleted most of it and the only thing that remains of note is perhaps the "CNN Hero" angle about some philanthropy. I'm not sure but I honestly think that I, personally, am more notable than this individual.

The article was deleted in 2011 (even with the CNN Hero source) and then recreated in 2017. Jorm (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jorm (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the main contributors to this page, I respectfully disagree with you. You removed links from reliable, unaffiliated news sources. (Orange County Register) ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

To compare your own notoriety to Bruno's is wholly irrelevant. Notwithstanding that fact, a simple google search of your name and Bruno's name will clearly demonstrate you are indeed incorrect. There are roughly a dozen of pages of news articles, interviews from independent news sources, magazines, etc. demonstrating Bruno's notoriety around the world. Sure, he has several links to his own site - which benefit his philanthropic works. 100% of the proceeds from his books are used to feed homeless and underprivileged children, to the tune of 5,055 per day.^[5]

You are correct that "the only thing that remains of note is the CNN Hero angle" about Bruno's charity. This is due to the fact that, as you've admitted, you deleted the rest (including the links to other, unaffiliated and notable news sources).

"Average Joes" do not get knighted by Italian Government^[6] and by the Italian Royal Family^[7].

"Average Joes" do not raise over $200,000 in donations on kickstarter that someone else started for you. This was reported by several prominent news sources, such as CBS and ABC7.^[8]^[9] The community has gathered to support Bruno because of his notoriety that came about due to his charity, Caterina's Club.

You are right in pointing out the page was deleted in 2011. At that point, Bruno had not been knighted (twice), and his philanthropy "Caterina's Club" was only feeding a couple hundred kids every night. Now, Caterina's Club is feeding 5,055 Orange County and Los Angeles children that are underprivileged and from no-to-low-income families. He is notable in the Southern California area and around the world. ^[10] He's provided over 3,000,000 FREE meals to these kids. I think this is anything BUT ordinary and average. This page should not be deleted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HeikkiVeharanta (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It appears that HeikkiVeharanta has an extensive and undisclosed conflict of interest regarding the article subject, as it appears they sit on the board of the subject's charity.--Jorm (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: HeikkiVeharanta is also an WP:SPA who has only edited on this article. Britishfinance (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, thank you for your profound interest in the great work Mr. Serato and Caterina's Club do. I am proud to say I am a Board Member of Caterina's Club. I do not receive any compensation whatsoever for my position. I am not an employee of Mr. Serato or any entity controlled by or associated with him. I was not asked to contribute to Mr. Serato's page by anyone. Though it is clear I have an interest in the work Mr. Serato does, I do not believe being interested in a topic in any way changes the veracity of what was posted. The links to third party news sources (including OC Register, CBS, ABC7, OC Catholic) are in no way, shape, or form created by me. The details in the links on Mr. Serato's page evidence facts that are mostly statistical in nature - such as the number of kids fed for free every night (5,055) and the fact he has been knighted twice - and are not based on opinions (such as "I think I am more notable than this individual"). I am uncertain how any bias would influence the data evidenced by these links. --HeikkiVeharanta (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "knighted by the Italian government" (The Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana (Order of Merit of the Italian Republic)) is a clear indicator of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that over 20,000 people have received this honor within the past 7 years. It's not anything really special, I'm afraid.--Jorm (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -per WP:ANYBIO "knighted by the Italian government" per Pigsonthewing. CNN award may also fit with ANYBIO Wm335td (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete knighthoods are way too common to make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is blatant PR cruft and it lacks entirely in independent reliable sources. Being one of 20k people to be knighted is a cool bar story but ultimately irrelevant to establishing notability. Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI-riddled article that lacks significant enough coverage to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drafting: Though the article seems good not properly written. Needs more work then it will be moved to mainspace. Rocky 734 (talk) 04:59, 16 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grail (Wildstorm)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failure of the WP:GNG. No independent notability demonstrated. Content entirely unsourced and in-universe, so probably a WP:TNT regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 05:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor fictional character with only in-universe plot information with not a single reliable source being used. Searching for additional sources does not turn up anything. It could potentially be Redirected to Wetworks (comics), but as neither the character not the team are particularly notable, this isn't what I would suggest. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 15 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aura (comics)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikia-esque comic fancruft, non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extremely minor character with little to no coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article itself is pretty much limited to in-universe plot information without using any reliable sources, and I was unable to find any additional sources anywhere. It could potentially be Redirected to Protectors (comics), but as that group is fairly unnotable itself, and would likely not survive an AFD, I don't really see the benefit of doing so. Rorshacma (talk) 16:30, 15 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 13:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Communities.com

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

Completely uncited article. Numerous factual errors, especially paragraphs 5-6 of the "History" section. Paragraph 4 of the same section is completely uncited; as a long-time user of The Palace, I can confirm I've never heard those quoted valuations. Additionally, I have absolutely no idea who "Patrick" and "Ingemar" are. Perhaps most problematic is the "Website outages" section and the Lede. The domain name "communities.com" was bought when it was released by the .com domain name registrar; thus, the current website, to the extent it exists, bears absolutely no relation to "Communities.com" as a company. Rarely would or should WP:TNT be invoked at AfD, but this is one of them.

In short, a total dumpster fire of an article that reflects extremely poorly on Wikipedia, particularly since some of these errors have been outstanding since Wikipedia was, notionally, a "toddler."

Full Disclosure: As a past side hobby, I own and maintain the unofficial project, The Palace Legacy Project, whose "Palace History" page provides a factual account of the Communities.com history (though, it, on its own, is, crucially, not a reliable source regardless of how accurate it is). Doug Mehus (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any reliable source which would establish notability; the two sources in the article are to the communities.com website itself and website which doesn't appear to be reliable. WJ94 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WJ94, Yes, the current Communities.com has no relation whatsoever to the former Communities.com, Inc. Doug Mehus T·C 18:49, 14 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. Sandstein 13:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences

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

The article is only supported by primary sources and, despite its name, is really just a department within BYU. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a college in the general sense of the word, that is so large some of its sub-units are denoted as schools. It is a major portion of the university and is clearly notable. If the article is to be deleted, the contents need to be merged into the larger article on BYU. The sources include a published book and an article in a published newspaper, neither of which can be relegated to the label "primary source".John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert:@Tedder: I completely disagree with your analysis per WP:VERIFIABILITY. The book was published by the university itself and is therefore not independent of the subject, and the newspaper article is an obituary and not about the department. The RFC at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES requiring independent sources for schools should also apply to their departments.4meter4 (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally I came across researcher Sarah Coyne today, who (in)famously studied the link between Disney princesses and generally negative gender stereotypes. The common name for the college/department/unit/sub-unit is "BYU School of Family Life", here's a google news search for that. It's addressed as such in this article, another researcher is mentioned under that name in this article, and there are certainly others under that search. None of those are about the department, but the alternate name might help for those trying to find references to it. tedder (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BYU School of Family Life is a sub-unit of this college. Notice, one is a school, the other is a college. Other sub-units are the School of Social Work, the Department of Polytical Science, the Department of History, the Department of Psychology, the Department of Anthropology (which the article spends a chunk of information on, including some of its sub-units), the Department of Economic, the Department of Georgraphy, and there are a few more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnpacklambert. tedder (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note I am biased on this (see my user page), but I could see this going both ways. At BYU, the college in question is at the same level of organization as, for example, the J. Reuben Clark Law School, (which per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES would be kept) and according to this source is the largest college at BYU. At the same time, it lacking in independent sources with significant coverage, that would be an argument for deletion. At the least, I'd argue for a merge to BYU. Rollidan (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to BYU. We give a specific pass to law schools and med schools only. Nothing close to WP:NORG shown. John from Idegon (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I studied for over 3 years in this college, I am not an unbiased person on the coverage. Bear in mind, in two of those years our college alumni of the year who spoke at a Thursday meeting during homecoming week (provided by the Devotional open block Tursday morning at 11), was a history department grad. While I was there Magleby, a political scientist, was the college dean. This is one issue that some people may not have considered. Actions of the BYU history department, georgraphy department, etc, are not always going to be tagged as related to the college they are in. For example here [2] is the announcement of the BYU History Department's first endowed chair (althoughat that time a history professor, Ignacio Garcia, held an endowed chair through the Charles H. Redd Center for Western US History, don't ask why that is not a sub-unit of the history department, it has to do with a long history related to moves between the history department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and BYU in the 1970s and 1980s, although not fully played out until about 2010 when many of the early moves were reversed with the rise of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, as I say, a long history), the article never mentions this college outside of the heading.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure why hardly any editors are commenting here. There are nothing but primary sources for this article. None of the keep votes are based in wikipedia policy. I'd appreciate some comments from people familiar with policy. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles from a regional newspaper such as the Deseret News are not primary sources. So there are clearly non-primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: There are no articles in the Deseret News about this topic cited in the article or in this discussio. An obituary on a faculty member hardly counts towards RS.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just dug up about Matt Easton and the huge coverage of his speech to this college.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article on a speech is still not an article about the school/department. Find an article where the BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences is the main subject please.4meter4 (talk) 03:39, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson Rodriguez

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BASEBALL/N. Only professional play is for minor league teams. bd2412 T 21:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC) bd2412 T 21:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. bd2412 T 21:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does not meet WP:NBASE however he has SIGCOV. has his own baseball cards too. Lightburst (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players as he is a first round draft pick and a top prospect. Spanneraol (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't meet BASE/N but appears to meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable first-round pick and top prospect. – Malmmf (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Muboshgu. First round picks tend to be more notable than the average minor leaguer. Lepricavark (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with different sources he meets WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON, as this player has only advanced to Class A ball and is only notable for playing baseball and being drafted by an MLB team. No prejudice against an article about this person being re-created once he gets called up to MLB. Mind matrix 16:58, 13 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. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Watson

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BASEBALL/N. Only professional play is for minor league teams. bd2412 T 21:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. bd2412 T 21:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh he doesn't meet BASE/N at all. But GNG supersedes BASE/N and this article has 26 unique citations. How many sources does a subject need to demonstrate notability? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite their number, the sources are not great. Five of these are to The Advocate, a local newspaper. Another four are to nola.com, a local website, and secsports.com is not independent. bd2412 T 22:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. The amount of in-depth sourcing in the article demonstrates that he's notable enough. – Malmmf (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that this person passes gng with much non-trivial coverage in secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON, as this player has only advanced to Class A ball and is only notable for playing baseball and being drafted by an MLB team. No prejudice against an article about this person being re-created once he gets called up to MLB. Mind matrix 16:56, 13 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 10:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relational presentation

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

Non-notable topic. All the sources I can find are related to Robert Lane (the author of the book cited in the article), or his book. There's also a patent, which seems unrelated. After 11 years, this article is still an orphan; you'd think after all this time, somebody would have found reason to link to it if it really was a thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see sources in Google books, but they appear to be for something to do with Logic, and not presentation methods. This article looks to be promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:02, 9 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 03:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Javan Haldane

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

In-universe, unsourced biography of a fictional character, other than the WP:SYNTH "Major themes" section. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all we have to periodically cleans Wikipedia of cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Filled only with primary sources and OR. TTN (talk) 14:38, 11 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 13:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Ristić (Yugoslav Partisan)

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

Unverified notability. Google search gives mostly another contemporary Ristic, namely Marko Ristić (surrealist) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article has existed for almost 2 years and lacks any sources at all. Just fighting against the Nazi occupation is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is such a brief stub that I cannot judge. He is described as a leader, which begs the question 'at what level?'. This needs to be judged against WP:SOLDIER, which normally excludes those with lower ranks who achieved little of note. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 10 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 and redirect to Deryni novels. Sandstein 13:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Torenth (fictional)

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

Non-notable fictional location TTN (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki. Delete BUT as far as I can tell Deryni series does not have its own wikia (fandom), so deleting this will also mean loosing the best page on the Internet with this fancruft. I am not sure what to do about this. Maybe this could be drafitied for a few months, and someone could create a forum account at http://www.rhemuthcastle.com/ and tell them to copy it before we nuke this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Deryni novels. Goustien (talk) 20:26, 15 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 13:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gwynedd (fictional)

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

This article fails to establish notability. It is simply a collection of fictional, in-universe minutia more suited to another fan wiki. TTN (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gwynedd is the setting for other works of fiction, so that's another strike. I am also going to nominate three kings of Gwynedd listed in this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki. Delete BUT as far as I can tell Deryni series does not have its own wikia (fandom), so deleting this will also mean loosing the best page on the Internet with this fancruft. I am not sure what to do about this. Maybe this could be drafitied for a few months, and someone could create a forum account at http://www.rhemuthcastle.com/ and tell them to copy it before we nuke this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Deryni novels. Goustien (talk) 06:05, 13 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blok E

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

Topic not notable, nor will it ever be. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references already provided show WP:GNG showing that the reason given above is erroneous. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett, References were added after nomination. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:06, 8 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earther

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

Non-notable website. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, strongly. Widely cited environmental news source with original reporting.The lorax (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lorax, Article fails to prove notability, but i'll take this as a point that I made a mistake. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:08, 8 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lavon Hooks

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

Contested PROD placed by another user after I tagged his page as being potentially non-notable. Non-notable football player - fails WP:NGRIDIRON - was not a notable college football player, and all coverage is routine. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, fails WP:NCOLLATH, and fails WP:GNG. Almost all of his coverage falls under transactional pieces noting commitment to play for a school, signing or being cut by a team, being assigned to the practice squad, or an injury. Thus he lacks significant coverage in reliable sources defining his notability. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject may not pass Gridiron at the moment but does pass WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV. Substantial coverage WP:NEXISTs Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, can you be more specific. Every "article" on the Google search page you linked is either a blog, an article where Lavon Hooks is only mentioned in passing, or it is a standard "this player got hurt/signed/released/etc". This isn't notable coverage. Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repinging Lightburst. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ROUTINE. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 22:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ROUTINE applies to events and not people. Subject has feature articles in the news from his college career which is more than enough to surpass WP:GNG regardless of WP:NGRIDIRON or other measures.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion before, but WP:ROUTINE actually applies to the coverage of people and events - see WP:NOTROUTINE which defines it as "people or events" in its lede. (Since we've had this argument before, I'm going to agree to disagree and leave it at that.) SportingFlyer T·C 05:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added more detail to the essay. Please don't try to make people believe guidelines say something that they don't. The word "routine" in Wikipedia:Notability (people) only exists in a footnote about the Internet Movie Database. That doesn't apply here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paulmcdonald, do you mind providing us with some links showing "feature articles in the news from his college career". All I can find is this, this, this, and this. It is important to note that all of these articles were printed on the same day (Dec 20/21, 2012) and all focus on him committing to Ole Miss. Two of these "articles" are from BleacherReport and SBNation, which routinely focus on these type of minor sports-focused news pieces, and one is from a regional newspaper. This is standard coverage for a single event, but that doesn't make him notable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repinging Paulmcdonald. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the ones you found and those in the article, here's a batch of general broad coverage: Trick play backfires on Arkansas, sparks Ole Miss (November 10, 2013); Top JUCO recruit Hooks signs with Ole Miss football (Dec 19, 2012); The Most Important Rebels, No. 23: Woodrow Hamilton (July 2, 2014); Rebels sniff out, snuff out Hogs’ razzle-dazzle try (Nov 2013); Football Still Matters: Ole Miss Defensive Line (Jan 12, 2015); Defense Leads Ole Miss To Win Over Memphis (September 28, 2014). Some are passing mentions, some provide more details. In any event, we have a broad selection of material that is more than enough to build the article which is what WP:GNG calls for. I can't say I'm "enthusiastic" about this particular subject/article, but it makes sense to me that the threshold has been met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are almost entirely passing mentions except for the one article about his signing with Ole Miss. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Eagles247. And again, the only article that isn't a passing mention is about him signing with Ole Miss (posted on Dec 19, 2012), which is the focus of the articles that I provided. WP:GNG doesn't concern itself with whether there is enough info to build an article, it is whether the subject is notable for inclusion. The sources provided fall well below "Significant coverage" bar required by WP:GNG. I will also point to the last bullet of WP:GNG, which states that even if a subject is found in reliable sources, the presumption of notability doesn't guarantee inclusion. He is mentioned in 15 sources or so, with the only "feature sources" found during a 3 day period all reporting on the fact that he committed to a college. This doesn't get close to meeting WP:GNG. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about it. I think it's enough, but I ain't consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, appreciate the candor. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources. The article is generally a series of transactional/routine signings and releases, which does not improve Wikipedia. It cannot improve without significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: ROUTINE There is mention of ROUTINE at the WP:NCOLLATH guideline: College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contemplated closing this and determining consensus, but since it likely would've resulted in a delete and per WP:BADNAC, I decided not to close. Instead, I'll add my comments. Though TribLive isn't listed at the perennial reliable sources table, that doesn't mean we can't cite it in discussions or articles. It appears to have a similar editorial process to BuzzFeed, which is. That article confirms that the subject was sidelined due to an injury part way through his first season. As such, he fails WP:NGRIDIRON. However, as noted, failing WP:NGRIDIRON does not mean a delete, nor does it mean a keep. It comes down to whether he meets WP:GNG. Of all the Google news and web search results I trawled through, most were stats pages and routine coverage, for which WP:ROUTINE is an essay not a policy and there is a counter-essay. As nearly all of the coverage was based off of his either being drafted or his injury/injury progress, it seems clear to me there is not significant coverage. Thus, we have a dual WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON fail. A complicated nomination, but one I'm pleased to support. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything that shows he meets the notability criteria for football players or college athletes. The coverage is typical of what anyone signed by an NFL team would receive and a hundreds of players get temporary contracts every year without ever playing in a regular season game and they are not considered notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:50, 17 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 and retitle. czar 03:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NCIX

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

As written, fails WP:Notability guidelines, specifically, WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Sources are almost all primary sources, and sources 2-3, 6-7, and 10-13 relate to the company's bankruptcy, which does not count as significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). The only noteworthy item is a single data breach, at source #14, for which sources 15-16 are repeat sources of the single event covered in source #14. As the corporation is now defunct/bankrupt, no prospect of ever meeting standalone notability. Nevertheless, completing the obligatory motions and BEFORE procedures, a Google web search for the article title revealed only directory listings, SEO listings, former social media pages, and press coverage related to either of (a) the corporation's bankruptcy (initial filing and conclusion), which is only trivial and trite press coverage, and (b) the single data breach, for which repeat sources do not count towards WP:SIGCOV. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NCIX was a highly notable organization, and as such had a significant degree of coverage given to it. Deleting it simply because a google search didn't find it doesn't count as a valid action. There's much more available if further examination is done. SuperChris (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with potential rename to "Bankruptcy and data breach of NCIX" per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Sources (ordered chronologically)

"MarketLine Industry Profile: Computer Hardware in Canada". MarketLine. July 2014.
Hoekstra, Matthew (2014-11-28). "Best in business honoured at Business Excellence Awards". Richmond Review. Glacier Media. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
Hinks, Aaron (2017-01-26). "Surrey man's tech-tip series achieves YouTube success". BC Local News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
Synek, Greg (2017-12-02). "NCIX files for bankruptcy after closing all retail stores". TechSpot. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
Shilov, Anton (2017-12-04). "NCIX NCIX Files for Bankruptcy After Restructuring Attempts". AnandTech. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Lilly, Paul (2017-12-04). "PC parts retailer NCIX files for bankruptcy after closing physical storefronts". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Chan, Leon (2017-12-04). "Computer Hardware Retailer NCIX Files For Bankruptcy". Tom's Hardware. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Mooney, Harrison (2018-09-21). "Richmond Mounties seize database servers allegedly being sold on Craigslist and containing private data". Vancouver Sun. Postmedia Network. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
Ilascu, Ionut (2018-09-21). "Unwiped Drives and Servers from NCIX Retailer for Sale on Craigslist". Bleeping Computer. Archived from the original on 2018-09-23. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Kan, Michael (2018-09-21). "Unwiped Servers With Data on Millions Sold on Craigslist". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Chirgwin, Richard (2018-09-21). "Dead retailer's 'customer data' turns up on seized kit, unencrypted and very much for sale". The Register. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Cimpanu, Catalin (2018-09-21). "Canadian retailer's servers storing 15 years of user data sold on Craigslist: NCIX did not wipe or encrypt servers when it closed down and filed for bankruptcy in 2017. Their customers' data is now peddled online by Richmond-based individual". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Paterson, Shannon (2018-09-21). "Mounties investigating claims servers with personal info for sale online". CTV News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Marshall, Joan (2018-09-21). "RCMP and privacy commissioner probe alleged NCIX data breach". CBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Dhillon, Sunny (2018-09-23). "B.C. privacy officials look into data breach involving bankrupt computer retailer". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Solomon, Howard (2018-09-24). "Data on hundreds of thousands of Canadians left on bankrupt retailer's hard drives for sale". IT World Canada. International Data Group. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Hopping, Clare (2018-09-24). "Unwiped servers and drives from NCIX appear on Craigslist". Cloud Pro. Dennis Publishing. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Proctor, Jason (2018-09-25). "Proposed class action lawsuit claims data breach exposed personal information of 258,000 people: Civil claim says bankrupt computer retailer NCIX failed to properly encrypt information". CBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Perron, Frédéric (2018-09-25). "Vous Avez Acheté Chez NCIX? Gare À La Fraude!". fr:Protégez-vous. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Banerd, Walker (2018-10-17). "Data Breach of the Month: NCIX". D3 Security Management Systems. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
Lindsay, Bethany (2019-01-03). "Court blocks class action against bankrupt computer firm, citing 'unreliable' proof of data breach: B.C. Supreme Court master says proposed lawsuit cannot proceed against trustee for NCIX". CBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.

Sources with quotes

"MarketLine Industry Profile: Computer Hardware in Canada". MarketLine. July 2014.
The report notes:
NCIX was formed in 1996, operating a retail store selling computer hardware and components. Its products include PCs, laptops, individual computer hardware components, peripherals and accessories; it also offers car audio, domestic appliances, games consoles, and accessories.
The company later developed a website coupled with 13 stores and a showroom based in Canada. It also operates in the US.
The article notes that the head office was at:
2-3900 14th Avenue, Markham, L3R 4R3, CAN
Hoekstra, Matthew (2014-11-28). "Best in business honoured at Business Excellence Awards". Richmond Review. Glacier Media. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
The article notes:
Business of the Year (26-75 employees): NCIX

Over 18 years ago, NCIX opened its first retail store and have since grown across Canada. NCIX, recognized as Business of the Year, is a computer and electronics retailer offering a wide array of electronics and accessories. Its also the No. 1 computer component e-tailer in Canada.
“Richmond has been our home for the past 19 years, and we feel proud of this,” said Sam Li, marketing manager. “We appreciate everyone’s business.”
NCIX isn’t a typical computer store. Its YouTube channel delivers how-to guides, product reviews, and all the latest tech news in the show Netlinked Daily. The channel is part of the top one per cent of all technology channels with over 70 million views.
Hinks, Aaron (2017-01-26). "Surrey man's tech-tip series achieves YouTube success". BC Local News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
The article notes:
Surrey’s Linus Sebastian, 30, appeared in his first YouTube video for NCIX Tech Tips back in 2007. In that video, he describes and installs a computer processing unit (CPU) cooling system.
At the time, Sebastian was working for NCIX, the Richmond-headquartered computer company. He started as a sales representative, but was eventually promoted to a management position. One of his duties was to make product-information videos.
Sebastian started Linus Tech Tips, an arm of NCIX that would allow him to publish at a lower-production cost. The new channel, Sebastian said, allowed him to publish videos more frequently and would “absolve the company of some of the responsibility for whatever it is I might say.”
The Linus Tech Tips YouTube channel started to gain followers, but the NCIX channel was still dominant.
In 2013, Sebastian decided to leave NCIX, through an agreement, and brought the Linus Tech Tips channel and its trademark with him.
Synek, Greg (2017-12-02). "NCIX files for bankruptcy after closing all retail stores". TechSpot. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
The article notes:
Founded in 1996, NCIX primarily served western Canadian residents. After building a sizable online presence and looking to expand, the company opened brick and mortar stores in the Vancouver area and later added additional locations in Ontario. Once the Canadian market was well covered, NCIX set up a distribution center in the United States in 2011.
Moving forward to July 2017, NCIX shut down several of its retail stores in eastern Canada and closed its office in Markham, Ontario. Then in November, five more stores were shut down. At this time, customers were told to file chargebacks with financial institutions for orders that were not fulfilled.
Now, all NCIX retail stores have been closed and show no signs of returning. The Supreme Court of British Columbia will hear the bankruptcy case filed by NCIX. At this time it is advised that no orders are placed due to the possibility of not receiving a product and being unable to obtain a refund.
Where exactly NCIX went wrong is still open to debate. Competition from Amazon, Newegg, and other online sites may have been too much. Regardless of the reasoning, costs clearly have outweighed revenue for some time now. For those interested in hearing more possible reasons of failure, listen to some insight from two well known former employees.
Shilov, Anton (2017-12-04). "NCIX NCIX Files for Bankruptcy After Restructuring Attempts". AnandTech. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
NCIX filed for bankruptcy last Friday after closing down its last walk-in retail store. The exact reasons why the company had run out of money are not disclosed officially, but chatter indicates that NCIX spent too much on retail stores and too little on improving the efficiency of its online business.
NCIX (or Netlink Computer Inc.) was founded in 1996 by Steve Wu in Burnaby, British Columbia. Initially, NCIX was a walk-in retail outlet, but in 1997 the company began to sell products online, attracting customers both from Canada and the US. Over the years, NCIX established multiple walk-in stores in Canada and expanded its online business in North America to a point when it had to build a distribution center in California to serve its customers from the US. faster and cheaper. For years, the company has competed both against traditional retailers as well as against online rivals like Amazon and Newegg. NCIX survived multiple PC retailers in Canada, which encouraged it to focus on “real” stores. So instead of investing in online sales assets (such as warehouses, distribution centers, and delivery methods), the company invested heavily in large walk-in retail outlets in the recent years, its former employees say. In total, the company used to have about a dozen of retail locations in Canada, all of which were expensive to run.
Lilly, Paul (2017-12-04). "PC parts retailer NCIX files for bankruptcy after closing physical storefronts". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
Last Friday, Netlink Computer Inc., better known to DIY system builders as NCIX, filed for bankruptcy in Vancouver, Canada, after shuttering the last of its brick and mortar stores. It's not clear what exactly led to this point, though it's quite possible the company focused too much on its physical stores and not enough on its web business.
Some companies have had a hard time fully embracing the online sales model after thriving for some time with physical storefronts. It didn't seem likely that NCIX would make that mistake. It began as a walk-in retail business when it was founded in 1996 by Steve Wu in Burnaby, British Columbia, but started selling products online a year later.
Over the years, NCIX expanded by opening several physical stores. It also built a bigger presence in the United States, though it faced stiff competition from Amazon and Newegg. According to Anandtech, that's the reason why NCIX poured more resources into opening offline stores, rather than investing more in warehouses and distribution centers for its online business.
That said, NCIX did set up a distribution center in the US in 2011. However, it hasn't been nearly as aggressive as Amazon or Newegg in the online space. Linus Sebastian from Linus Tech Tips stated in a YouTube video that this is one of the reasons why he left the company several years ago, after advancing about as high as a person could. He also criticized upper management. Skip ahead to the 41:40 mark to hear all of what he had to say:
Chan, Leon (2017-12-04). "Computer Hardware Retailer NCIX Files For Bankruptcy". Tom's Hardware. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
North American shoppers, especially Canadians, have probably heard of or used the popular online and brick-and-mortar retailer of computer hardware NCIX before. Founded as Netlink Computer Inc.in Burnaby, British Columbia, the retailer was a brick-and-mortar store before becoming the online giant it’s better known as today. Before bankrupting, NCIX operated several retail stores in British Columbia and Ontario and a distribution center in California.
We don’t know what caused the bankruptcy, but signs of trouble had already begun appearing in July when NCIX closed all its retail locations in Ontario. Shortly after, it closed a bunch of retail stores in its home market of British Columbia as well. By the end of November, all NCIX retail outlets had closed. The company also stopped fulfilling online orders around the same time and opened a thread on its forums for users to request refunds and cancellations.
Mooney, Harrison (2018-09-21). "Richmond Mounties seize database servers allegedly being sold on Craigslist and containing private data". Vancouver Sun. Postmedia Network. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
The article notes:
Vancouver-based tech retailer NCIX filed for bankruptcy late last year, closing more than a dozen stores and auctioning off most of its remaining goods — hardware and software.
According to an article posted online by Vancouver cybersecurity expert Travis Doering, NCIX compromised security for hundreds of thousands of customers, whose private data — including IP, home and email addresses, passwords, credit card information and social insurance numbers — was being sold to the highest bidder on Craigslist.
...
By failing to secure their customer data upon bankruptcy, Doering explained, NCIX potentially allowed millions of confidential records to be sold anonymously and without any oversight at all.
Ilascu, Ionut (2018-09-21). "Unwiped Drives and Servers from NCIX Retailer for Sale on Craigslist". Bleeping Computer. Archived from the original on 2018-09-23. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
Servers and storage disks filled with millions of unencrypted confidential records of employees, customers and business partners of computer retailer NCIX turned up for sale via a Craigslist advertisement.
Up until December 1, 2017, when it filed for bankruptcy, NCIX was a privately-held company in Canada in the business of selling computer hardware and software. It competed with Amazon and Newegg but its focus on walk-in outlets rather than online sales brought the company down.
Security consultant Travis Doering of Privacy Fly decided to act on a selling offer on Craigslist that promised two NCIX database servers for CAD 1,500, but he later found that the seller, identified as Jeff, actually had "NCIX’s entire server farm from the east coast."
...
One he's analyzed includes 3,848,000 order details between 2007 and 2010, with names, company names, items purchased and their serial numbers, addresses, phone numbers, and payment data. In an updated version he found corresponding email addresses.
Kan, Michael (2018-09-21). "Unwiped Servers With Data on Millions Sold on Craigslist". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
When a company goes bankrupt what happens to the customer data? In one case, it ended up for sale on Craigslist.
That's what a system analyst in Canada recently found: A shady Craigslist dealer was offering access to millions of customer records taken from unwiped servers used by the electronics retailer NCIX, which went bankrupt in 2017.
"It sounds crazy how negligent this company was," said Travis Doering, who uncovered the sale and was once an NCIX customer. "I personally feel so betrayed by this."
This week, he wrote up the incident in a blog post, which appears to have sparked a police investigation into the sale. According to Doering, at least some of the data goes back 15 years and was entirely stored in plain text. It included customer addresses, phone numbers, credit card payment details, and details about items people bought.
Chirgwin, Richard (2018-09-21). "Dead retailer's 'customer data' turns up on seized kit, unencrypted and very much for sale". The Register. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
Servers that once belonged to defunct Canadian gadget retailer NCIX turned up on the second-hand market without being wiped – and their customer data sold overseas – it is claimed.
Those boxes, allegedly, stored plaintext credit card data for approximately 260,000 people, and purchase records for 385,000 shoppers.
...
Since NCIX is nothing but a corpse now, those whose privacy has been breached – any customer or employee – have little chance for any redress, we fear.
Cimpanu, Catalin (2018-09-21). "Canadian retailer's servers storing 15 years of user data sold on Craigslist: NCIX did not wipe or encrypt servers when it closed down and filed for bankruptcy in 2017. Their customers' data is now peddled online by Richmond-based individual". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
A security researcher has found customer and employee data belonging to one of Canada's biggest PC hardware retailers on servers put up for sale on Craigslist. The data, believed to go back as far as 15 years, belongs to NCIX, a PC retailer that filed for bankruptcy and closed shop in December 2017.
The massive privacy breach appears to have taken place after the retailer closed its stores last year and retired old servers and employee workstations.
It's unclear how these servers ended up advertised on Craigslist, but they did. Travis Doering of Privacy Fly discovered an ad for two servers in August.
Paterson, Shannon (2018-09-21). "Mounties investigating claims servers with personal info for sale online". CTV News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
A defunct Metro Vancouver computer retailer is at the centre of an RCMP investigation due to concerns the private information of former customers could get into the wrong hands.
Richmond-based NCIX had five locations in the region before declaring bankruptcy last December.
...
CTV reached out to NCIX owner Steve Wu, but he didn't respond. Doering said he'd heard from employees that Wu went to China.
Marshall, Joan (2018-09-21). "RCMP and privacy commissioner probe alleged NCIX data breach". CBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
Technical expert Graham Williams says he was shocked at reports of the breach and worries how much information may be out there.
"Looking at other breaches of Canadian retailers, we haven't seen this scope of information of user data, this amount of unencrypted data."
NCIX was a British Columbia-based computer seller that filed bankruptcy papers on Dec. 1, 2017.
The retailer closed its outlets in both Vancouver and Richmond.
Dhillon, Sunny (2018-09-23). "B.C. privacy officials look into data breach involving bankrupt computer retailer". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
Privacy officials in B.C. and Ottawa are looking into a reported data breach involving former Canadian retailer NCIX, with millions of records – including customer names, addresses, phone numbers and payment information – said to have been made available through a Craigslist post.
Travis Doering, who runs a small cybersecurity firm in Vancouver known as Privacy Fly, in a post on his company website said he noticed last month that NCIX database servers were being sold online.
...
David Shipley, chief executive officer of cybersecurity firm Beauceron Security, said if the information in Mr. Doering’s post is correct the incident would rank “among the worst privacy breaches in the private sector that I’m aware of in Canada.
“It’s almost the digital equivalent of an oil spill with a bankrupt company,” he said. “Because who then pays for the clean-up? What recourse do victims truly have when a company no longer exists?”
Solomon, Howard (2018-09-24). "Data on hundreds of thousands of Canadians left on bankrupt retailer's hard drives for sale". IT World Canada. International Data Group. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
“It’s just appalling,” Ann Cavoukian, head of Ryerson University’s Privacy by Design Centre of Excellence, said of the NCIX data discovery. “It just goes to show how poorly companies protect data, especially when they’re getting rid of their hardware devices. Of course the data wasn’t encrypted, but they could at least take the time to destroy the data before getting rid of the equipment.”
“When you are preparing to apply for bankruptcy you have an obligation to your customers to destroy the personal data … The data doesn’t belong to you. You may have custody and control over the data, but it belongs to the data subject.”
Richmond, B.C.-based NCIX, which had about a dozen stores in B.C. and Ontario, filed for bankruptcy in December, 2017.
Eight months later, Travis Doering, owner of Vancouver security consultancy PrivacyFly, discovered the data hoard after spotting this ad on Craigslist: “NCIX Database Servers – $1,500,”
Hopping, Clare (2018-09-24). "Unwiped servers and drives from NCIX appear on Craigslist". Cloud Pro. Dennis Publishing. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
“Both sellers and buyers of the customer records, allegedly belonging to the retailer, can face harsh legal ramifications,” High-Tech Bridge's CEO Ilia Kolochenko commented. “Under certain sets of circumstances it can be a serious criminal offense, however, it is too early to make any decisive conclusions prior to thorough investigation of the incident.”
But, as NCIX has gone bust, compensation claims are unlikely to fly as there's no one to pay them except those selling the equipment and it's unlikely they'll have the funds to cover any costs like that.
“Nowadays, such negligence is unfortunately not all that uncommon, even amid operating and profitable companies, let alone bankrupt ones, Kolochenko added. “Many large organisations have been exposed for throwing away plaintext PII and other sensitive data of their customers on paper, hard drives or mobile devices.
Proctor, Jason (2018-09-25). "Proposed class action lawsuit claims data breach exposed personal information of 258,000 people: Civil claim says bankrupt computer retailer NCIX failed to properly encrypt information". CBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
A Vancouver software engineer has launched a proposed class action lawsuit in the wake of an alleged data breach involving personal information belonging to former customers of bankrupt computer retailer NCIX.
...
Warner claims NCIX failed to properly encrypt the information of at least 258,000 people. And he claims the auctioneer failed to take "appropriate steps to protect the private information on its premises."
...
NCIX was a B.C.-based online computer hardware and software retailer.
The company, officially known as Netlink Computer Inc., had retail outlets in the Lower Mainland as well as Markham, Mississauga, Scarborough and Ottawa before filing for bankruptcy last year.
Perron, Frédéric (2018-09-25). "Vous Avez Acheté Chez NCIX? Gare À La Fraude!". fr:Protégez-vous. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
From Google Translate:
NCIX, a company specializing in the sale of computer equipment online, went bankrupt in December 2017. Its servers and data from the BC-based company would then have passed into the hands of an unscrupulous seller.
This was discovered by Privacy Fly security consultant Travis Doering, who conducted his little investigation after seeing the servers in question for sale on the Craigslist classifieds site.
Banerd, Walker (2018-10-17). "Data Breach of the Month: NCIX". D3 Security Management Systems. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
Before declaring bankruptcy, and ultimately closing its doors in December 2017, NCIX was a major Canadian computer retailer, with stores across British Columbia and Ontario. In recent weeks, NCIX servers containing terabytes of unencrypted data have appeared for sale on Craigslist. The seller was located in Richmond, BC, a suburb of Vancouver, and was offering servers for $1500 apiece. The seller claimed to also have access to hundreds of computers from NCIX offices.
Travis Doering, owner of cybersecurity firm Privacy Fly, investigated the sale, and found that the hardware contained massive amounts of private data, including names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, IP addresses, invoices, photos of customer ID, unsalted MD5 hashed passwords, hundreds of thousands of plain-text payment card details, and millions of customer orders.
...
The mistakes made by NCIX are so glaring that this is a pretty simple one to avoid. Sensitive data should always be encrypted in storage, hard drives should be destroyed or securely wiped when decommissioned, and not every record should be retained indefinitely. There is no need for NCIX to have maintained this level of detailed customer data for more than 15 years. Unfortunately, when a company enters bankruptcy and closes down, they are left with little incentive to maintain proper information security.
Lindsay, Bethany (2019-01-03). "Court blocks class action against bankrupt computer firm, citing 'unreliable' proof of data breach: B.C. Supreme Court master says proposed lawsuit cannot proceed against trustee for NCIX". CBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
The article notes:
A Vancouver software engineer's proposed class action suit alleging a massive personal data breach will not be allowed to proceed against the trustee for bankrupt computer retailer NCIX.
Late last month, a B.C. Supreme Court master described the various pieces of Kipling Warner's evidence against the defunct company as "inherently unreliable" and "bare allegations" not supported by fact.
Master Sandra Harper declined to grant Warner leave to sue the Bowra Group, the retailer's trustee in bankruptcy.
...
Formally known as Netlink Computer Inc., NCIX was a B.C.-based firm that filed for bankruptcy on Dec. 1, 2017.
...
Another proposed class action over the alleged data breach has also been filed on behalf of former NCIX employees.

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

Cunard (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NCIX has received substantial analysis from many analysts and publications about its bankruptcy and its data breach. This detailed analysis about both events is sufficient to allow the company to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. An option is to rename the article to be "Bankruptcy and data breach of NCIX" but I think it's fine to leave the article as titled "NCIX".
Here is some sample analysis about the bankruptcy:
1. TechSpot notes: "Where exactly NCIX went wrong is still open to debate. Competition from Amazon, Newegg, and other online sites may have been too much. Regardless of the reasoning, costs clearly have outweighed revenue for some time now."
2. AnandTech notes, "The exact reasons why the company had run out of money are not disclosed officially, but chatter indicates that NCIX spent too much on retail stores and too little on improving the efficiency of its online business. ... For years, the company has competed both against traditional retailers as well as against online rivals like Amazon and Newegg. NCIX survived multiple PC retailers in Canada, which encouraged it to focus on “real” stores. So instead of investing in online sales assets (such as warehouses, distribution centers, and delivery methods), the company invested heavily in large walk-in retail outlets in the recent years, its former employees say. In total, the company used to have about a dozen of retail locations in Canada, all of which were expensive to run."
3. PC Gamer notes, "It's not clear what exactly led to this point, though it's quite possible the company focused too much on its physical stores and not enough on its web business. ... That said, NCIX did set up a distribution center in the US in 2011. However, it hasn't been nearly as aggressive as Amazon or Newegg in the online space."
Here is some sample analysis about the data breach:
1. CBC News notes, "Technical expert Graham Williams says he was shocked at reports of the breach and worries how much information may be out there. "Looking at other breaches of Canadian retailers, we haven't seen this scope of information of user data, this amount of unencrypted data.""
2. The Globe and Mail notes, "David Shipley, chief executive officer of cybersecurity firm Beauceron Security, said if the information in Mr. Doering’s post is correct the incident would rank “among the worst privacy breaches in the private sector that I’m aware of in Canada. “It’s almost the digital equivalent of an oil spill with a bankrupt company,” he said. “Because who then pays for the clean-up? What recourse do victims truly have when a company no longer exists?”"
3. International Data Group's IT World Canada notes, "“It’s just appalling,” Ann Cavoukian, head of Ryerson University’s Privacy by Design Centre of Excellence, said of the NCIX data discovery. “It just goes to show how poorly companies protect data, especially when they’re getting rid of their hardware devices. Of course the data wasn’t encrypted, but they could at least take the time to destroy the data before getting rid of the equipment.”"
4. Dennis Publishing's Cloud Pro notes, "“Both sellers and buyers of the customer records, allegedly belonging to the retailer, can face harsh legal ramifications,” High-Tech Bridge's CEO Ilia Kolochenko commented. “Under certain sets of circumstances it can be a serious criminal offense, however, it is too early to make any decisive conclusions prior to thorough investigation of the incident.” “Nowadays, such negligence is unfortunately not all that uncommon, even amid operating and profitable companies, let alone bankrupt ones, Kolochenko added. “Many large organisations have been exposed for throwing away plaintext PII and other sensitive data of their customers on paper, hard drives or mobile devices."
Cunard (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Cunard, Thanks. I like that. This company, it seems to me, is not otherwise notable outside of its bankruptcy (trivial coverage anyway) and that data breach (significant coverage). Thus, it does make sense, if keep is the result, to rename this article and refactor it around the company's data breach and, optionally, about its bankruptcy, eh? Doug Mehus T·C 01:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, half of the body of the article is already about the bankruptcy and data breach. So a renamed article could have a condensed introductory section about NCIX's history and background and then the primary focus of the article would be about the bankruptcy and the data breach. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard, Formatting-wise, can you think of some similar articles where we've focused an article on a particular event (or two) of a company? I'm just thinking of the categories, tags, and all of that, in terms of updating this article post-close (assuming keep and refactor is the result). Doug Mehus T·C 01:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here are some examples of articles about data breaches: 2014 JPMorgan Chase data breach, Anthem medical data breach, 2018 Google data breach, and Ashley Madison data breach. There are more examples in Category:Data breaches and its subcategories. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard, Thanks! That's great. I was also going to add it to an article that includes a chronological list of company data breaches. Doug Mehus T·C 16:37, 11 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 13:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Play

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

Does not have a single reliable source which is independent and the sources cited in the article are not reliable or independent. Andrew Base (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My new article Honor Play is all legit with relevant & genuine citations, then why my "Honor play" article page has been nominated for deletion?. If I something violates any Wikipedia guidelines unintentionally then please guide me. Steffy1990 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No significant independent RS coverage. Eagleash (talk) 16:01, 10 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Prior

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

Article about a child actor which does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not clear she has appeared in any notable productions. Even that would still require her to have a significant role, but that article mentions exactly zero roles. This is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find reliable sources for covering her award on Hollywood. That award was only reason for establishing her notability that hasn'tbeen covered by reliable sources. Alibilbao (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES: we have tended to delete barely notable child actor articles about those who have not had a starring role. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above Ceethekreator (talk) 09:46, 13 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qalandars (team)

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

Non notable team of a minor tournament. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Human (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Human (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Team is non notable and has no real presence in the sports world, not conforming to WP:GNG Dellwood546 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable team, fails WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines. StickyWicket (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AA. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:57, 9 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 Brutus the Younger#Fiction. czar 03:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Junius Brutus (Rome character)

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

Article fails to establish notability. Plenty of OR in the "Comparison" section. TTN (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brutus_the_Younger#Fiction. I'm not finding much outside of plot summary or standard casting info for this particular version of Brutus. The best I found was this book that spends a chapter comparing the HBO show to the works of Shakespeare. But even that doesn't spend a whole lot of time talking about the HBO version of the character in specific. At the very least, though, this should be redirected to the appropriate place in the historical Brutus' article, where this version is already described. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 8 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 Bhat, Daskroi. There is only one reasoned "keep" opinion. Otherwise it's a split between merge and delete. Redirect is a compromise as it allows editorial consensus to determine what, if anything, to merge. Sandstein 13:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lakkadiya Hanuman Temple

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

Not notable. Sources are primary. Fails WP:GNG and has no more coverage in secondary reliable sources. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. or Merge' to the article on the town The sources listed are secondary, not primary. The links do not work, but that does not mean that plain information such as this is not sourceable. We do not remove articles because of dead links unlesswe are sure there is no other possible source . DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG before taking part in deletion, please check reference. First one is government site of district administration and has no mention of this temple except name of village. And second one is related to ISKCON organisation, not to this temple. Third, name of lakkadiya hanuman is present in every 2 out of 5 villages of Gujarat. Wiki must not have articles on each temples. And as per Wikipedia’s policy of verifiability, all content must be verifiable.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’m pinging locals @Nizil Shah and Gazal world: for their comment about place and pinging @DBigXray, Ms Sarah Welch, and Winged Blades of Godric: who’re active participants in Wikiproject Hinduism.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harshil169 what does this translate to ? Wooden Hanuman Temple ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes loosely. Temple made up from wood.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bhat village. --Gazal world (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after Merge into Bhat village per DGG and Gazal world. Not notable on its own, and would be prone to content forking if left alone (I did a quick source checks on google scholar/books/news/jstor/etc). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a (admittedly quick) gsearch has not brought up any indepth sources that give this any significance, no problems with having it mentioned at Bhat, Daskroi. ps. i note that the article creator appeared to have made lots of Bhat related articles (including the village), this one is just not wikinotable enough for a standalone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass my standards for houses of worship. There's no evidence of when it was built or its Architectural style: much less its significance as a pilgrimage site or house of worship. Just to be sure, I did an online search and found 14 blogs and mirrors. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian thanks for your searches, [3] that you linked is a wikipedia mirror.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Bhat village. It exists and we should WP:PRESERVE Wm335td (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wm335td: you know you didn’t read the PRESERVE before commenting. This temple doesn’t meet WP:V. Isn’t that clear for you? How can unverifiable information can be tolerated on Wikipedia?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bhat, Daskroi.4meter4 (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the last re-list, we have a Keep, Delete and a Merge. Try another re-list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems appropriate at this time. This does not appear to be a notable temple and the village article is not so big that merging will be an issue. Guy (help!) 13:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Details are not verifiable. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are WP:V and WP:OR concerns with this one. Dee 03 16:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDIA contributor here. There are WP:V and WP:OR concerns and there is absolutely nothing worth saving in this article, so the merge or redirect options are not viable. The temple in itself fails WP:GNG.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:54, 14 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 13:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Gold bus route S4

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

Route not notable enough to warrant it's own article Commyguy (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing out of the ordinary other than a run of the mill bus route. Ajf773 (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MILL is just an essay. Sources denote GNG. WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook example of indiscriminate information. Guy (help!) 13:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this bus route seems to generate no notable coverage besides timetable listings and is just indiscriminate information. Hog Farm (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable route. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 19:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not notable enough to sustain own page but surely a merge to Stagecoach in Oxfordshire is an appropriate alternative to deletion? The article is sourced and it seems a waste to just delete the whole page. Bookscale (talk) 09:33, 9 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 23:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Gold bus route S5

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

Route not notable enough to warrant its own article Commyguy (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing out of the ordinary other than a run of the mill bus route with local coverage only. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MILL is just an essay. Sources denote GNG. WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four sources, two are from Stagecoach, one is from Wikipedia Commons (not a source) and one is a bus fansite. So I don't believe GNG is passed. Ajf773 (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook example of indiscriminate information. Guy (help!) 13:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 19:58, 8 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 13:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Gold bus route 7 (Oxford)

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

Route not notable enough to warrant its own article Commyguy (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing out of the ordinary other than a run of the mill bus route with local coverage only. Ajf773 (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MILL is just an essay. Sources denote GNG. Lightburst (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Coverage consists of routine announcements which is trivial coverage. User:Ajf773 did not link to that "run of he mill" essay as part of their argument. It appears they are saying it fails the criteria for notability by using the phrase "run of the mill." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook example of indiscriminate information. Guy (help!) 13:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what about my suggestion below? A viable alternative to deletion. Bookscale (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 19:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what about my suggestion below? A viable alternative to deletion. Bookscale (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Stagecoach in Oxfordshire - the route is not notable enough for its own article but the local article can easily encompass those sources in the article itself. Bookscale (talk) 09:37, 9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srijan Swaraj

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a student politician. GPL93 (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks WP:INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV in reliable source as per WP:RS. Celestina007 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being president of a student political organization is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia, but this is not referenced even close to well enough to make him special. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Leaders of student governments and young party divisions are not automatically notable and are almost always ordinary. I was two-time president of the RHSA, and a party committeeman at the age of 20, but that does not make me notable. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. No elections won. No major public posts held. Nothing notable done. Student leader is not notable enough to have its own article. This may be created if he wins an Assembly or National election. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:03, 14 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 13:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Glogauer

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing anything that suggests he passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 11 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. Can be transwikied after deletion by an admin if a fan wiki wants this content. Sandstein 13:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deities in the Elric series

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

Collection of in-universe minutia. There doesn't appear to be anything worth merging elsewhere. It's content better left to Fandom. TTN (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely in-universe with no sources beyond the books themselves, nor any evidence that the topic is notable. WJ94 (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is terrible. It can't—and shouldn't—be retained in its current form. But. With some of these fiction topics, the problem is that the article authors sliced big-picture topics too deeply (and didn't source, although in 2006 when this was created that was hardly an ironclad expectation), obscuring the fact that there are legitimately notable aspects of some fictional works. Outright deletion compounds the problem, by reducing our coverage of fictional topic spaces to articles (often poor themselves) about the physical sources and their authors alone. Here, for example, the notable topic is almost assuredly not the list of named deities in Moorcock's writing, but rather something akin to Cosmology of the Moorcock multiverse (the exact name is an editorial issue, would depend on precisely how the sources present the matter, and is wholly beside the point). More than one book has been published about Moorcock's works and their themes, and the first two I found both consider the religion and cosmology of the setting in some detail (Scroggins, Mark (2015). Michael Moorcock: Fiction, Fantasy, and the World's Pain. McFarland. ISBN 978-1-4766-2417-4. and Gardiner, Jeff (2015). The Law of Chaos: The Multiverse of Michael Moorcock. Headpress. ISBN 978-1-909394-19-3.). Other sources for such an article are likely also extant; I'm not a Moorcock expert, and gave this a relatively cursory search. I don't pretend that such an article (which could also clean up Law and Chaos and several other Moorcock-related topics) is going to be written during the 7-day AFD window, nor even a more expansive time frame allotted by relists; certainly, my hands are full elsewhere, and I don't have time to do it. That's the outcome the project should desire here. But the article we have instead is unsourced, over-focused, and tonally inappropriate; it absolutely meets the standards for deletion, so that's what I fully expect we'll do instead. And then on to the next one... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I feel a full TNT and building from the ground up once someone has drafted a proper article is the best course of action. There might certainly be a few FA potential articles from such a series, but the amount of work needed means that will likely never happen without a set of people truly interested in the project. Paring it down to a few essential pages and leaving the building blocks on the talk page would help. TTN (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with TTN on this one. I can accept that a Cosmology of the Moorcock multiverse article could be notable; however I can't see how much of the present article would realistically be appropriate to include. I don't think that such an article would warrant the minute details of every deity, as is present in the current article and I don't see much else which is worth saving. If you want to save the history here, then I see no problem with you saving a copy in your userspace — but I'm not convinced the article as it stands would be helpful to anyone wishing to write the article you suggest. WJ94 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Things like this can be helpful as research tools insofar as they provide viable search terms for the development of a better article, not because a better article would resemble this in any real sense. That said, please don't draftify this one to my user space. I wish I could help, but I'm trying to source and fix pretty much all of the D&D articlespace, and I only have so much time. That said, I think my preference here would be redirect to Elric of Melniboné to preserve this in article history for later editors. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable cruft that hasn't been changed much since 2006. There's no real reason to hope someone will make it encyclopedic now._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki then delete. Please first copy this to https://stormbringer.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Search?query=deities then delete. Fails WP:GNG and such, but we can preserve it on the wikia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 11 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 The History of the Runestaff. Consensus exists not to retain this as a standalone. As suggestions have been made to export to a fandom wiki, or to potentially merge the content elsewhere on-wiki, I am redirecting to The History of the Runestaff without deletion. No prejudice against retargeting the redirect to a "list of characters" type article if one gets made. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Hawkmoon

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC are working on a televised version of the Runestaff series and Hawkmoon is the hero so we'll be hearing a lot more about him. Policies which mandate retention include WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. There are plenty of shows where none of the characters receive any attention whatsoever. The series would need to be GoT-level to automatically expect notability to be established for major players. If there happen to be enough non-clickbait articles about it, it can be recreated at that time. TTN (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Andrew Davidson: - a viable option may be to create a list page for the characters or creating a list section on the main page for the series. This could redirect there and when/if the coverage comes about, it can be restored. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantive sources establishing notability of the topic, perhaps some can be merged to The History of the Runestaff. Fun fact! WP:NOTPAPER doesn't "mandate retention", it actually says "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". WP:ATD also doesn't mandate retention, it allows for merging and is on the page that explicitly says "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is grounds for deletion! Reywas92^Talk 19:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. If he becomes notable, we can restore it. For now he fails WP:NFICTION. But our entry seems better than https://stormbringer.fandom.com/wiki/Dorian_Hawkmoon ; please consider copying content there first before nuking this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to The History of the Runestaff - The character currently does not have the coverage in reliable secondary sources needed to sustain an article, and suggesting we keep it because he might become notable later due to the upcoming show is pure WP:CRYSTAL. I was initially going to suggest that redirecting to the article on the series he was the main character of was a sensible solution, but actually looking at that article and for sources on it revealed that it was pretty bare bones in terms of notable coverage itself. So, in the end, I am fine with either option. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until enough RS is collected to move into main space.4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 17 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. The extent of the significant coverage hasn't really been addressed directly by those favoring delete, but there seems to be disagreement as to whether/how BLP1E is applicable. Given this has already been re-listed, I'm closing as no consensus. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Y. Vuelo

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

Non-notable state district court judge; does not meet criteria for judges under Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_courts_and_judges/Notability#Judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction. Kablammo (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete per BLP1E. Most sources covering her are solely due to the fact that she's the first Hmong-American judge in Minnesota. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the first x-American judge in some state is not a sign of notability. With very few exceptions, the position has to make you notable or coverage of actions makes you notable. This level of judge is very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete. Reference Notability guideline for state court judges, specifically this bit: Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. In particular, state courts of appeals judges who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts in the state, by federal courts, or by state courts in other states, are highly likely to be notable. It's possible that this one could eventually receive similarly prominent coverage but we're not at that stage yet IMHO. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reference Politicians and judges which states that "[m]ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" and that a "politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles by journalists" do not meet deletion standards. There are more than enough independently published articles/news videos about her by journalists including the two cited on her page and more from KSTP, Asian American Press, Hmong Times, NBC, Mitchell Hamline School of Law, KVRR, and The Leader-Telegram. Regardless of why she is being covered, these sources discuss her life history and significance in both state and national levels of history. And BLP1E states that all three conditions must be met for a page to be deleted. Clearly, the third one ("If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented") does not apply here, as this subject has been very well documented. Sbbarker19 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SIGCOV. It's not ours to question why someone is being covered; cf. Missing white woman syndrome. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources from the Keeps have not yet been challenged/tested. Try a re-list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep meets WP:GNG was the first Hmong-American judge in Minn. The article could use an experienced editor to clean up and develop. But WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This judge is significant only because she is the first Hmong judge in Minnesota (at the time there were others, in California and Wisconsin); as a single-county district court judge, she is low profile other than locally; and the event itself is not of great significance (there are now two other Hmong judges in Minnesota). This BLP was created as an attack page, which should also weigh in the balance. As nominator, I of course vote to delete. Kablammo (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the news coverage I've been able to find, fails WP:BLP1E - don't really know how to expand the article and almost all the coverage is from when she was appointed a judge. In terms of BLP1E #3 as discussed above, I don't think becoming a judge is a "significant event," it is routine. While I wouldn't mind a keep based on the nature of her accomplishment, the sourcing does not currently support that. SportingFlyer T·C 10:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the coverage included above, which dates from 2010, 2017 and 2018, there is also coverage in earlier newspapers, such as the Leader-Telegram, Eau-Claire, Wisconsin in 2002 (this gives her original name Yeu Vue, and how she derived her current name from joining Vue with her husband's family name Lo) [4]; and the La Crosse Tribune 2004 [5]. So that is coverage from at least 2002-2018, and several are profiles of a good length (2002 [6], 2010 [7], 2018 [8]). I don't see how it could possibly be BLP1E when she was only appointed as a judge in December 2017. I will add some more sources and info. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue, and fairly strongly, that the coverage she received from Eau Claire and La Crosse was not from any "event" she was notable for, but rather simply the local newspaper interviewing a local, and that BLP1E still applies. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added sources and information to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:42, 16 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Ivanovic (Serbian footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Ivanovic has never appeared in a league which passes WP:NFOOTY - indoor soccer does not count - and does not pass WP:GNG. A before search brought up only a smattering of coverage from the blogs which cover indoor soccer and two-three announcements of his hiring as an assistant coach. Do not confuse with famous Socceroo Milan Ivanović. SportingFlyer T·C 12:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC) SportingFlyer T·C 12:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Q: Why doesn't indoor soccer count? Major Arena Soccer League is a fully professional league. Mightytotems (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's more a question for WT:Notability (sports) than here. NFOOTBALL covers association football, not indoor soccer. Still, if GNG be met, it doesn't matter - so that's the avenue one should pursue. See also WT:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 24#American Indoor Soccer. Nfitz (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We define "fully professional" as every player on the team has only one job, that of being a footballer. Internet guides are sketchy but salaries seem pretty low for the indoor league. [9] [10] It's also not in our vetted leagues list, so I nominated based on WP:GNG grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All true, but irrelevant, as NFOOTBALL is explicitly about association football, which explicitly does not include indoor (unless indoor is some massive 11-a-side dome game!). He doesn't meet NFOOTBALL because Locotomotiva Belgrade isn't professional (or even notable, given the redlink!) Nfitz (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has been A handful of editors. So I was circle back after I do more research on Indoor soccer notability. Lightburst (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFOOTY and not enough for GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:18, 9 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 Global Guardians. RL0919 (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Owlwoman

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable superhero._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Global Guardians. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic. Andrew D. (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, snarky comments parodying the nominator (which you also did here) are not helpful, and even if your comment was not a lazy inversion of what the TTN wrote you would need to demonstrate that the topic is notable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can we maybe avoid speculating on other editors motives or intentions? Or at least, take it to their talkpage instead of the deletion debate? Ford MF (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Global Guardians. Only one independent source, but we need another to meet GNG. ミラ P 23:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global Guardians. There does not appear to be enough coverage on this character for a separate article, but it is a useful search and the character is already discussed in the suggested target article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global Guardians as suggested by Aoba47. Merging doesn't appear to be necessary, as there really isn't much here that isn't already also included in the target article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Global Guardians. No actual usable content to merge but the topic is already covered at the parent article and it seems like it would be a useful search term. Reyk _YO! 20:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough, and has been glossed in several sources before this. Updated article with further refs, and added a publication history section. Ford MF (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how any of the references you added pass the mark of "significant coverage?" Each is simply a summary of her status as a minority-representative superhero, ranging from just a single name drop to a brief in-universe summary of her character. None of those provide any commentary on the character. They simply confirm she exists, which are certainly not "more than a trivial mention." TTN (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ford MF. Not exactly policy that I know of, but maintaining representation and diversity is good as well. Perhaps the adds sway ミラ? -2pou (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: First list has revealed a broad range of views
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Global Guardians. Not notable enough of a fictional character to get its own article. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 20:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global Guardians. It's all just plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and trivial appearance info. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 11 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbar Hussain

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

has not played any first-class, list A or T20 matches so fails WP:NCRIC and no sign of sigcov to pass WP:GNG. No listing on cricinfo or cricketarchive. Spike 'em (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Human (talk)
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: The subject is actually a cricketer. ミラ P 20:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ミラ P 20:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable paid for article. scope_creep^Talk 23:31, 12 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 19:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Dee

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

This is one of those musician articles that stretches fortunate connections and inherited notability in an attempt to not seem promotional. Most of the article's current sources are to social media, retail, and industry listing sites. Other sources are about events in which he merely appeared and may not even mention him by name. He has been a guest on a few releases that charted for other people and he has two minor magazine mentions: [11], [12]. Otherwise I can find nothing beyond the usual listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Article Author). Regardless of the quality of sources, he had a viral hit single in 2009 with over four million plays across YouTube, Spotify and Apple Music and many more offline. Happy to work together to improve the article if needs be. What would deleting this accomplish? --ItsLuke (contribs) 10:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Delete - I wanted to keep this one, but I'm just not seeing anything that's really WP:SIGCOV from a reliable source. The closest is the Trench Magazine mention, but even that's just a bare one. Without that this fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per FOARP. I too was unable to find enough RS to meet the criteria at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 17 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. A somewhat ... spirited discussion, but after reading it it seems like nobody has actually presented WP:SIGCOV-complying sources for this temple and thus no evidence that the topic is actually notable is presented. It seems like the problem might be that not everybody is talking about the same subject; perhaps if people plan to restore the article they should specify up front what it is about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dudheshwar Mahadev

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

Not notable. All sources are primary. Fails WP:GNG. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it stands right now deserves to be deleted per WP:TNT and someone needs to write it from the scratch. The article is full of original research linked to primary sources. Currently the article gives an impression that it is temple in Gujarat while some lines mention it belonging to Himachal Pradesh and the refs are from a primary source in Ghaziabad UP. It is possible that a temple with this name exist at all three locations. But only the one in Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh appears to be notable as per these refs[13] [14] --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray Dudheshwar literally means God of Milk and in only Ahmedabad, 3-4 temples including one famous of Epical Dadhichi Rishi exists. So, temple of this name exists everywhere in India. This temple of Bhat is not notable. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harshil169 yes I feel you are right. The article on Ghaziabad temple can be written though, since that is notable. I have no concerns if someone in future wants to write an article on the temple in Ghaziabad with the same name. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable topic, and shouldn't be too hard to properly reference. I notice that the article was never tagged but taken immediately to AFD. Just put relevant tags on the article, and eventually someone will clean it up.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: how it’s notable topic? How it passes GNG?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 23:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:DBigXray asserts it is notable implicitly by their !vote of citing wp:TNT, which should be interpreted as a "Keep" vote. See wp:TNTTNT (an essay to which i contributed), for a number of reasons why it is bad to delete an article on a known-to-be-notable topic only to re-create it. I agree 4meter4, it should be tagged for development, and/or developed right now. But wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. So, simply Keep it. --Doncram (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Are you serious? This article is misleading. It mentions three Indian states namely HP, UP, Gujarat. Do you even know what’s distance between them? It’s like making article on church situated in New york (lead), Chicago (infobox) and Texas(history). This article must be deleted because it is nonsense. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, i am serious. One or more of these are apparently notable. It is indicated above that the article should maybe be edited to focus on the one in Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. I don't know, if these are closely related then there could be one article covering several; if not, then split out separate articles and convert this to a disambiguation page. Sure, go ahead and do that. --Doncram (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 15:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 and Doncram both of you owe an explanation for !voting the way you have !voted above. I can understand why User:Harshil169 is shocked to see the way you two have !voted. You seem to have misunderstood my comment and are wrongly !voting based on it. None of you have produced any source that can establish that the temple in Gujarat or Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) is a notable one. The article is about a non notable temple in Gujarat and this was rightly AfDed by Harshil. I understand that there may be language or cultural barriers for folks that are not from India, so for them here are the main points.

The article is about a temple in Bhat, Daskroi village in Gujarat. That temple is not notable. if someone believes it is notable, then reliable source for that will be needed here.
The article also mentions a temple in Kangra (Himachal Pradesh). That temple is not notable. if someone believes it is notable, then reliable source for that will be needed here.
There is a temple with the same name at another location in Gaziabad Uttar Pradesh. But this article at AfD is not about it.
These three temples are not related to each other in any way, they are named similarly as they belong to the same diety. There is no franchise in India for this diety, like there are churches in US or UK. so the dab will not work here (not unless someone finds at least 2 notable temples with the same name).

If someone wants to make this article about the notable temple in Gaziabad, then he would need to rewrite it from scratch. There is nothing in the article at present to WP:PRESERVE. Hence I voted to Delete. Now I see Harshil has removed all the unsourced claims, but the article is still about a non notable temple, and unless someone decides to write another article at the same location, it cannot be kept. I would request both 4meter4 and Doncram to change their !vote to Delete or present hard evidence to support a Keep vote here.DBig Xrayᗙ 17:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to help build an encyclopedia? Or trying to run up some tally of articles you deleted? Just fix the article one way or another. Use sensible judgment. --Doncram (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you here to discuss the temple article or my AfD history. Doncram, at this AfD here we are discussing about the article. It would be useful for the discussion if you present reliable sources in support of your keep vote instead of attacking me. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You pinged me and were calling me out to respond, and you don't like the response. Whatever. --Doncram (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you keep talking off topic, so I reckon, you could not find anything to support a keep vote for this article. DBig Xrayᗙ 19:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still strong debate in both directions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2 weeks have passed and I would note that no evidence has been presented so far by anyone to claim that the subject of the article as it stands right now is notable to have an article. None of the content (which is basically WP:OR) is fit to WP:PRESERVE--DBig Xrayᗙ 07:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, the prior references were (1) to a festival in celebration of Shiva, not to this temple, (2) to a different temple in a different Indian state published in an WP:SPS, (3) a prayer in the same SPS, and (4) to a guru at the same temple in (2) again published in that SPS. None of this even approaches WP:GNG but there references in RS to this as a place of pilgrimage and tourism in Himachal Pradesh: [15], [16], [17]. This just squeaks over the bar for GNG notability and we determine if the subject is notable, not the article in its current state. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn appreciate your efforts but these 3 refs that you posted above are all about a temple named "Kaleshwar Mahadev Temple" that is an altogether different temple, why are you posting them in an AfD for an article about Dudheshwar Mahadev. The names are clearly different, how could you miss that ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:15, 19 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. No consensus has emerged to delete this article (and with no commentary for two weeks despite relisting, would appear unlikely to do so). (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 17:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Beytoushi

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

not Notability. Evrdkmkm (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn’t winning Miss Iran make her notable? Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have never agreed that winning any beauty title makes someone default notable. There is a need for actual sourcing of the individual, and here there is not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment usually pageant title holders on the national level at Ms. Universe get significant coverage in the media. In this case, I would presume coverage would be in Arabic. In order to verify the article we would probably need to look for sources in that language.4meter4 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually there's very little about her in Farsi. I found this, this and this. The rest is all blogs and social media. As with previous AfDs my caveat is I'm not sure how effective Google search is in Farsi, and I have some doubt as to whether the mainstream media in Iran really covers much of popular culture at all. That said, what I've found doesn't seem to make a strong case for notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Check: سونیا بیتوشی and سونیا بیطوشی on Google. for example -On the Voice of America website- She is notable. Lexy iris (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:47, 8 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 Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. Tone 19:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goldbug (comics)

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable superheroes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to either List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters or List of Marvel Comics characters: G. BOZ (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A recurring character that has appeared in numerous comics. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G Lightburst (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters, where basic info is given. Nothing from reliable secondary sources means nothing worth preserving, but reasonably viable search term. The List of Marvel Comics character pages are excuses to keep non-notable info. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The number of appearances of a character is meaningless for notability purposes if the subject has no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. And as I could not find any, and none were suggested by any of the "Keep" votes above, it does not appear that these exist. Merging primary sourced cruft to another article filled with primary sourced cruft does not actually resolve the issue, it just consolidates it into a bigger mess. Rorshacma (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters per Killer Moff. It's all just plot (WP:NOT#PLOT). I have no prejudice against expanding that LoC's character section a bit, as long as it is WP:DUEWEIGHT. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. SerTanmay (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters.4meter4 (talk) 19:00, 17 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 Crusade (TV series). Tone 19:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gideon

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

Minor fictional character that fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Deproded by User:Andrew Davidson with unhelpful technical summary. Andrew, can you tell us why you think this topic deserves its own article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crusade (TV series), in particular the semi-sourced "Fate" section. Come on, it was a 13-episode show, all character-specific real-world info can be covered in the context of the show itself. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. The article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Crusade (TV series).4meter4 (talk) 18:59, 17 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwick (Metroland)

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

Article has been unsourced for ten years, and there is no indication that the subject has any sort of real-life significance. Not a very active user (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total cruft, and non-notable per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inclined to agree that there's not much here that couldn't be in the article about the novel. Bob talk 19:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, WP:PLOT/WP:OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 11 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Cain

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

No indication this person passes WP:NBIO, also this is pretty much unreferenced, so WP:BLP is also an issue. Deprodded by User:Dennisdosestuff wiki with a non-helpful edit summary "personal life" (minor edit). ?? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since the only thing that could be a source is IMDb, which is not reliable to create articles. Script writers for TV episodes generally are not considered notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not speedy. I disagree with JPL in two ways: First, I think a reasonable number of TV screenwriters can be notable, for instance as winners of the Writers Guild of America Awards (but certainly not merely by having written episodes that were produced). And second, I think that being a screenwriter for an episode of a well-known production can be enough of a claim of notability to avoid speedy deletion. But in this case, I am unable to find in-depth coverage of her that would pass WP:GNG. And certainly giving up on screenwriting to become an English teacher at an international school is unlikely to lead to WP:PROF or any other kind of notability for that aspect of her life. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero impact on the academic world. No in-depth sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything about her in the databases I have access to. There's not enough to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:54, 12 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 Babylon 5 characters. Tone 19:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Allan

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

Minor WP:PLOT element that completely fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Definition of fancruft. Deproded by User:Andrew Davidson with unhelpful technical summary. Andrew, can you tell us why you think this topic deserves its own article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Currently without any sources and no indication that this character is notable independently of the TV series. I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of Babylon 5 characters. WJ94 (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft delete with a redirect is always preferred, so I support such an outcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a selective merge, per Sgeureka. Some of the entries at List of Babylon 5 characters are pretty long and I don't think we need that much detail. WJ94 (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Babylon 5#Regular cast. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Babylon 5 characters because the LoC didn't follow WP:SUMMARY. In it's current article state (WP:NOT#PLOT), there is no reason for a stand-alone character article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Babylon 5 characters.4meter4 (talk) 18:59, 17 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 Babylon 5 characters#Emperor Cartagia. czar 23:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Cartagia

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

Minor WP:PLOT element that completely fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Deproded by User:Andrew Davidson with unhelpful technical summary. Andrew, can you tell us why you think this topic deserves its own article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - A minor character and an article almost entirely dedicated to in-universe summary; the only reference is to one line in a book which seems to just reproduce TV credits. I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of Babylon 5 characters. WJ94 (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a selective merge, per Sgeureka. Some of the entries at List of Babylon 5 characters are pretty long and I don't think we need that much detail. WJ94 (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Soft delete with a redirect is always preferred, so I support such an outcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merge and redirect to List of Babylon 5 characters#Emperor Cartagia. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Babylon 5 characters but only because the LoC didn't follow WP:SUMMARY. There is no reason for an individual character article at this point. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:34, 11 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Clark

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

Minor WP:PLOT element that completely fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Deproded by User:Andrew Davidson with unhelpful technical summary. Andrew, can you tell us why you think this topic deserves its own article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A minor character and an article almost entirely dedicated to in-universe summary; the one non-primary reference is a bullet-point on a fansite episode summary page. I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of Babylon 5 characters. WJ94 (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic. The little piece of trivial belongs in the associated episode article, assuming it's even notable itself. TTN (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selective merge to List of Babylon 5 characters because the LoC didn't follow WP:SUMMARY. Per the lead, it's a rarely seen character with some plot impact, so I could see it go both ways for his article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:25, 11 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 Wookiee#Home world. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kashyyyk

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

Planet of the Wookies. Cool. No indication of real world significance. Appears in some lesser known SW media. No in-depth coverage, etc. Perhaps merge summary to Wookiee? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wookiee#Home world as not individually notable and basically only known for the fact that it's the Wookiee homeworld. Having an article on this does not make sense!_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wookiee#Home world, per ZXCVBNM. Coverage of the planet isn't extensive or independent enough from the broader topic of Wookies that it would make sense to split it off from that article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wookiee#Home world, per ZXCVBNM. It's barely mentioned in accepted Star Wars canon or part of any major plot points in the films. It definitely is something that someone might search for and therefore should have at least a merge, but do not believe there is a enough to justify its own article. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 20:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After over a decade we are starting to understand that we are not Wikia for star wars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Order (Star Wars)

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

Unlike the classic Galactic Empire (Star Wars) and such, the new movies faction has generated very little coverage/reception. Sure, there is a little, I mean, it's STAR WARS, but it's all just some mentions in passing/fictional descriptions. Besides the two-three sentences on writer's inspiration with Nazi apologetics/survivors, I don't think there is anything to work with, and that section can be safely merged into one about the movie this faction first debuted in. And all the fictional info and such is already much better described at https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/First_Order . _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The First Order appears in several movies and books that are notable and articles on their own. Having an article on this organization is a useful companion piece that is best on its own, and not within a single movie's article. Alaney2k (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Apearing in a bunch of media is insufficient if they are all primary (fiction) works. Which sources provide analysis of real world significance/impact of the concept? So far all we have are one-two sentences about the script writer inspiration with Nazi fans. Interesting, but even that is not in-depth in the sources cited. This is not sufficient to demonstrate this WP:PLOT element is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, the coverage isn't as broad and long in history as the Empire, but it's still clearly passes the GNG. Being not as notable doesn't mean it is not notable. oknazevad (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhere in a blow it up and start again spot; this is not how we write about fiction. Stub it out at least, and at most a redirect to Galactic Empire might be in order. --Izno (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Move it to Draft ? Alaney2k (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then it is consumed by WP:G13. Either it's notable or not; if it is, we should treat it as such and do the minimal necessary to clean it up (where minimal necessary is not nothing) rather than consign it to the garbage bin. --Izno (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page should definitely be edited and re-phrased but I believe that it is notable enough is featured in enough movies to stay. Dellwood546 (talk)
Keep The page needs a lot of work, but the topic itself satisfies gng due to being a central aspect in many notable movies. I think that the fact that it is less notable compared to the Empire is not a reason to delete. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with the above comments; article needs work but is notable and there are many reliable sources out there that could be used to improve it (as the recent edits by Alaney2k already indicate). — Hunter Ka hn 15:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do commend User:Alaney2k on his creation of First_Order_(Star_Wars)#Themes, but I still feel uneasy that this is the extent of media coverage that is sufficient for notability. It's effectively is one-two sentence analysis. There seem like nothing else we can write about it that is not in-universe. Is this really sufficient for a stand-alone article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks. I realize it's just a start. I've only tried to organize it like Galactic Empire (Star Wars) so far. I think I have some research to do on what should or should not be included. If anyone has a suggested article to follow, I am interested in continuing to bring this up to standard. Alaney2k (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to obvious notability as verified in thousands of reliable sources. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:36, 15 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. After a re-list, there was no consensus to Delete (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis E. Dec

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis E. Dec (2nd nomination). Opening an AfD rather than tagging with G4 given that:

The AfD was over 6 years ago
As a non-admin, I cannot see how similar the content is
To test phab:T231357 - see Special:Diff/923969701 DannyS712 (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As a fan of Francis E. Dec's writings, I really wanted to keep this one, but the sources I could find didn't convince me that he meets GNG. The book cited in the article is definitely substantive coverage, and this book by Donna Kossy also covers him, although I don't know to what extent. Our article on Kossy calls it "the first biography of Francis E. Dec", so if we trust that, it's probably reasonably detailed. But those two sources seem to be all there is outside of zines, fansites and blogs. So I'll have to go with delete unless more sources turn up. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kooks has a 5 page chapter on him (note that it's a large format book, 8.5 x 11). I can't access any of the content, though. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was skeptical at first, but Google turned up 70,800,000 results - among them was the book "The Technical Delusion: Electronics, Power, Insanity" by Jeffrey Sconce, published in 2019 by Duke University Press which cited Dec well over 10x. That tells us there is long term encyclopedic value in keeping and expanding the article. There is an article in Medium (website) but I'm not all that familiar with the source. There is also this book and this one, both of which cite the WP article about him, and that tells me we need to make sure the article is accurate. Just my nickel's worth. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another citation: Amiran, Eyal. "THE PORNOCRATIC BODY IN THE AGE OF NETWORKED PARANOIA." Cultural Critique, no. 100, 2018, p. 134+. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine, [18]

Medium is a blog site, and those two books seem to be generated by bots that scrape Wikipedia articles. The Technical Delusion is definitely a good source though, and I've put in a request at WP:RX for the Kossy book I mentioned above... if its coverage of Dec is substantial I might change my vote. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He might be worth some discussion in an article on the mentioned book, but he is not notable enough to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe he meets GNG based on being profiled in the Sconce book and the multiple other sources noted by Sconce. This is one of those folks who falls into the pre-Google age as far as sources go, but he definitely was a high profile lunatic in his time. I’m finding limited caselaw on him, but google scholar popped up two appeals that were denied, can’t find the lower court cases, though: [19] Someone transcribed his legal appeals here. I don’t have access to paid legal databases, but he did seek cert at the US Supreme Court in 1961-62 and it was denied twice. There’s an off-wiki article on him that might have been a previously deleted one here that maybe folks can check the sources on. He seems to have had a brief cult following noted here Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough on a quick Google search, I believe that more reliable sources will be found upon deeper digging. SerTanmay (talk) 16:33, 17 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes of Nazi Germany

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

A list? A disambig? A notable topic? A mess-in-making? A WP:POVFORK of Nazi war crimes (which doesn't exist and is just a redirect to a subtopic, War crimes of the Wehrmacht, so maybe this should just be moved there; but also note it lists issues that are predating the WWII, so can hardly be war crimes...)? A tough one, at the very least. What should we do with this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We do have Nazi crime as a viable redirect target, and a whole category for Nazi war crimes. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nazi crime. Delete, changing per Kusma's rationale. It's a POVish list mixing up war crimes, breaches of international law, immoral behaviour, and simple repressive government. SpinningSpark 01:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think Nazi crime is quite a bit more specific, as it is an article about a Polish legal concept. As a list article, it would need a precise definition of "crime", and a precise definition which crimes are to be ascribed to "Nazi Germany". In its current state, it is a poorly defined WP:POVFORK of Nazi Germany. Alternatively, this and Nazi war crimes could redirect to Category:Nazi war crimes. —Kusma (t·c) 10:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no justification for this unsourced stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unclear what purpose it serves in addition to Nazi crime, War crimes of the Wehrmacht, and Category:Nazi war crimes. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above and my comments at the article creator's talk page. It is disconcerting that a new page reviewer would create something such as this in mainspace. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is interesting that User:Fiamh justified the page to you as a disambiguation page, but made no attempt to add a dab template even after you pointed out that it was not listed as a dab. Most of the entries are not valid dab entries in any case per WP:DABRELATED. Fiamh, if you don't wish to defend the article here (I see that you have already been editing today), why don't you save everyone time and request speedy deletion? You can do that either by a statement here or by adding {{db-author}} to the page. SpinningSpark 09:36, 11 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017 South African Cabinet Reshuffle

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NOTNEWS. This article should not be included since it has failed to enlighten me/other visitors of the reasons why the cabinet reshuffle occurred or the reactions from media/public, or even the aftermath of this event. It is written in a very basic manner. Also, every South African cabinet reshuffle is a BIG thing, so I don't understand why this specific one has been singled out. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see why this can't be included in Second Cabinet of Jacob Zuma. I see some inconsistencies and updates that need to be made though. Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG --SalmanZ (talk) 18:02, 9 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. No desire to delete, and a reasonable consensus to Keep; possible candidate for a future merge. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Nick

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Some mentions in passing but the only somewhat in-depth source is the cited open access academic article - but it's a two-page essay, and not very in-depth if one cares to read it. If that source is the only one providing a shred of notability, a case could be made for merging his entry with Dr. Hibbert. But really, both should be merged to List of recurring The Simpsons characters, which can easily accommodate a short bio and the current two-three sentences of 'reception'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is that way. Regards So Why 10:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy, SK#1 was modified to add "or redirection" some time in the last few years. Per that change, it's fine to bring a merge argument to AfD now because SK#1 does not apply. czar 17:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: It still reads perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging (emphasis added). Last I checked, Wikipedia:Proposed mergers still exists precisely because AFD is not for merger discussions. Regards So Why 19:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy, on paper, agreed, but SK hasn't been the impetus for such a venue change in a long time, in my experience. PM is preferred, but once someone takes it to AfD, SK is not the route out. czar 20:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE & WP:SNOW. Cheers Vs⁶ ₅⁰⁷ 13:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters as not individually notable. He is no more notable than Chief Wiggum, etc. Most of the non-inuniverse sources are just listicles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless notability can be shown. TTN (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or speedy keep. AfD's not for considering merging; this never should have been nominated for deletion. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per SoWhy. 23.16.167.50 (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Default keep as no intelligent or honest reason exists for deletion. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC) — 131.123.51.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment to closer "Speedy keep" is not a valid rationale, since it only applies if no one else has voted to merge or delete. So far, two people including myself have, meaning that it was not a spurious/invalid nomination._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per WP:SK it applies unless someone argued for deletion or redirect. Merging is explicitly mentioned as an alternative that qualifies for speedy keep. So in fact there is only one !vote that spoils SK. However, the nomination was still incorrect because the nominator did not provide a reason for deletion but instead for merging and AFD is not the place for that. A later delete or redirect !vote does not mean the nominator did the right thing to bring it here. Regards So Why 21:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Seems to fail GNG" appears to be a valid rationale._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable by any reasonable standard. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's pretty clear this AfD has been targeted by some SPA/CANVASSING group. Perhaps it has been linked in an off wiki forum for Simpsons fans? I think there is a template to tell people AFD=/=vote etc... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's also pretty clear that the nominator either doesn't like or is ignorant of the topic. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "List of recurring characters".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This needs expansion and not merging. Passes WP:SIGCOV. See the following sources which have non-tangential coverage of the character, including several peer reviewed journal articles in highly respected medical journals:

Ellis, Nick (September 2008). What the Hell is That?': The Representation of Professional Service Markets in The Simpsons. Vol. 15. p. 705-723. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Coyne, John D (December 2012). Surgical Pathology and The Simpsons. Vol. 20(6). p. 599. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Kurtz, Michael P ; Nelson, Caleb P. Urology mythbusters: The 5:1 ratio in ureteral reimplantation. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Gardner, Karen (March 2008). Doh!. Vol. 61(3). p. 2. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 17 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Ballout

AfDs for this article:

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

Not seeing what makes the subject pass WP:NBIO. Prior AfD cited two sources, one is dead, the other reads like a rewritten press release about him changing his jobs. No indication awards or in-depth coverage. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even approaching 3rd party reliable secondary sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 10 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check It!- The EP

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

Fails WP:Music, the only source is a Discogs entry. Search results only turn up with a few blogs, a Sputnikmusic entry, and a few other user generatored websites. Mysticair667537 (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mysticair667537 (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mysticair667537 (talk) 07:53, 8 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione Granger and the Quarter Life Crisis

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

One of countless Harry Potter fan shows. No claim to notability. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 07:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 07:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of coverage, passes GNG. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the article meets the Notability criteria. There are quite a few articles about it from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. If other fan shows have similar coverage they may also deserve pages; I haven't looked into them in detail but I have looked at this one closely and I believe it fits the criteria for having its own page. Spartycat (talk) 06:49, 9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Rehman School of Alpha Studies

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable high school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found only sparse, possibly reliable evidence of this school's existence: sheikhupura.pk and palostaneo.com. Disparate passing rates are reported on lists of schools' perfomance on standard exams, from 35/68 (51.5%) 9th grade passing rate in 2018, to 45/61 (73.7%) "Institute wise (?wide?) passing rate" in 2019: sedinfo.net and e.jang.com. It is one of two blue-linked educational institutes in Safdarabad out of a long red-linked list. Without easily accessible (i.e., online) sources, there is just an absence of reliable, independent secondary sources on most of Pakistan's schools, and it is difficult to judge the reliability of the sources that Google does turn up. This one fails GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:42, 13 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Light English Model Secondary School

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need something more than the school's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 9 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanabil Educational Complex

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in news outlets iinsufficient to demonstrate notability—consisting only of passing mentions—and coverage in the literature—which consists of this article and works of fiction—is effectively non-existant. ——SN 54129 17:22, 16 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mudarsa

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Searches didn't turn out any information about this school. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per what Nnadigoodluck said. Almost as though the school is made-up/fictitious. @Störm A speedy delete may even have been appropriate here. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 13,November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Secondary School, Malakwal

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

Started by SPA, User talk:Shehryar255. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable school entirely lacking sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnbod. ——SN 54129 17:24, 16 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sialkot Headstart School

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

COI, started by User talk:Rana Farasat Ali, school founder. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete schools that do not have at least teenagers are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnbod. ——SN 54129 17:24, 16 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazali Public School Amana Abad

AfDs for this article:

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

Started by WP:SPA User talk:Chehticham. No coverage in WP:RS found. Fails WP:NORG and WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find coverage in reliable sources. See lack of mainstream media coverage here. fails ORG, NSCHOOL, GNG. Also, the text of the article is most likely copyrighted material that is copied verbatim from somewhere, based on how it is written, although I am unable to find the publication from which is has been copied. Too many mirror sites carry this content for me to find the original. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time we require actual shows of notability and not just that the place has high school students to keep an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 9 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. There was no consensus to Delete with a leaning to Keep (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henley Brook bus station

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

Fails GNG. Sources consist of routine announcements in primary sources, a map, and bus route timetables. Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information, is not a platform for promotion, and is not a directory for local bus stations, local train stations, and local bus routes (see sources for this last one).

The Henley Brook bus station page was previously redirected per WP:ATD-R (see diff here). Redirect was reverted with a seemingly specious rationale (see diff). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same rationales noted above. These are similar pages using similar types of sources:

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with Steve Quinn. Delete all. --Bduke (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glendalough railway station shouldn't be included in this nomination, being a railway station with considerable physical infrastructure, and part of a railway network. It's dissimilar enough from the bus stations that it should be considered separately. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - proceed per nom and Bduke. But you have to concern Glendalough railway station as mentioned by Mackensen because railway stations normally pass GNG unlike the bus stations. Abishe (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about removing Glendalough railway station from this deletion discussion. --Bduke (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom. I appreciate the feedback about Glendalough railway station. I am striking Glendale railway station from the discussion. I have to see how to remove the AfD tag on that page without screwing things up because it's all connected to this AfD. Thanks. --Steve Quinn (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed it. I do not see any problems. --Bduke (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Merge to their local area articles or alternatively Transperth~~ as a viable alternative to deletion that is not being considered here - some of these articles do contain sources about the establishment of the infrastructure, which ~~while they may not be notable enough for their own page,~~ are appropriate for local or transport company articles. Deleting these pages is just a waste of the work done on them. Bookscale (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and the comment about it not being a platform for promotion is just ridiculous. How does it violate that policy? Bookscale (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These bus stations are (or were) a significant part of the public transport system, and easily able to be fixed up and expanded with some work: for example, Karrinyup bus station is the public transport hub for that entire area of the city, with the sources that come with that - though I'm not surprised that someone who doesn't know that Glendalough is a train station and calls it "Glendale" might not be aware of that. Suggesting that articles on public transport infrastructure is "promotional" is comical. There is nowhere that these articles could be merged in a way that wouldn't lose their content - it would be a massive undue weight issue in Transperth, for example, which is the entire city transport network, and there is no harm in keeping them where they are. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the nom. I know very well Glendalough is a train station, and knew when I nominated it for deletion. Unfortunately, that article is very poorly sourced per multiple secondary, and independent sourcing, that is why I added it to this AfD. Regarding the other pages, notability has nothing to do with expanding or fixing up by adding some content. There are not multiple, independent sources that significantly cover theses topics as described in WP:GNG. Please provide the sources, if they exist. All sources appear to be quite related to the subject (lacking independent coverage). Therefore, part of the function of all these pages is promotion. By failing notability criteria, these pages publicize and benefit the bus stations and bus routes. I'm not saying this is intentional. I'm saying promotion is a result. And the main point is, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Steve Quinn, with respect I think that argument is not correct at all. If you read WP:NOT, the part of the policy that refers to promotion doesn't refer to anything of the sort that you're discussing here. It talks about advocacy, propaganda or recruitment (which this is not), opinion pieces (which this is not), scandal mongering (which this is not), self-promotion (which this is not), and advertising, marketing or public relations (which this is not). Most of the articles have a couple of sources from the West Australian, or Government web sources that talk about the specific projects about building the relevant bus interchange. They are not unsourced articles. Bookscale (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This set of articles are a form of advertising and marketing - Wikipedia is giving free publicity to each of these stations. Which is unearned because they fail notability. Please produce secondary independent sources that have significant coverage that demonstrate this set of articles merit inclusion on Wikipedia per WP:N. Also, focusing on WP:Notadvertising is not going to win the day. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having articles on significant public transport infrastructure is not "free publicity" or "marketing". The lack of sound policy-based reasons to support deletion is leading some people into the logically absurd. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Drover's Wife - I take your point on Transperth. I'm open to these being kept, and have changed some of my !vote above. Bookscale (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those sources are mostly available from the government website, as there's of them are the historical infrastructure back to 1970s, which may not available from the web, where those may be crucial for those pages. Let see if I can find those information from the state library if those are available (needs reservation to get those resources) and if possible I would be add them onto there as well. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 02:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please note I find being drawn into chatting on afds a very mixed blessing, I would prefer not thanks. The big problem with setting up such a programme (sic) of deletions could in turn be applied to railway stations, and I do not support such action. Defaulting sourcing to any one method is fraught and short sighted, there are always ways of adequately finding material for WP:V if their is enough interest JarrahTree 09:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per comments by The Drover's Wife. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Drover's Wife.4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 17 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 2019 North Indian Ocean cyclone season. Tone 19:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Maha

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

This cyclone hasn't caused any damages or deaths and is not expected to cause any, thus not meriting its own article; a section in the cyclone season's article will suffice. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep. While I agree that it could become a section in 2019 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, its still transpiring, and it has gathered some fairly significant coverage. Latest alerts classify it as a supercyclone, and while Wikipedia isn't a news site, I think merging/deleting should wait until its declared over. ƒin (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep The cyclone is obviously notable. It received significant coverage in RS. It's not necessity that cyclone who did most damage should be here. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has been mentioned multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent from one another, therefore in the absence of other considerations (which I don't see) it passes the general notability guideline. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Im sorry, but the general notability guidelines on secondary coverage do not really apply to tropical cyclones in regards to whether or not they deserve article. Literally every cyclone, whether it causes damage or not is featured in the news. I see absolutely no reason that an article should exist at this point as this is a pure fishstorm. Coverage in the season article is sufficient for storms of this nature. I hereby say this should be draftified and the main space should redirect to the season article. Noah^Talk 03:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fin 22, John M Wolfson, and DelwarHossain: Might I clarify here that every cyclone indeed deserves mention in Wikipedia. The appropriate place for that to occur is on the season article initially. If there is enough content (without bloating the section), an article may be created for the storm. Just because this passes GNG doesn't mean it gets an article. There were many articles deleted back in the day as it was decided that not every storm would get one. While in this case, I feel the AfD is unwarranted, I also feel an article is not warranted. This needs to be a draft until it has some resemblance to an actual tropical cyclone article. The Meteorological history section is full of statements from unofficial sources. The only sources there right now should be the Indian Meteorological Department (the regional specialized meteorological center as designated by the World Meteorological Organization) and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (An agency operated by the United States Airforce and Navy, used for the 1-minute sustained wind information). The lead is also very poor right now. Note the article lacks an infobox and anything relating it to the season it is a part of. Basically, the whole thing needs to be scrapped at this point. As this storm is likely to become notable after making landfall, I would like to request that this be moved to the draft space until such time it is sufficiently developed. Additionally, the main space should be redirected to the season article section. Noah^Talk 16:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Because of Contonius Issue. --— Delwar • 07:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge because it's better suited in the season article. Not sure the point in this AFD when this could (and the OP recognizes this) be handled with a merger. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems that the cyclone is eventually going to make landfall after all. Even then, I think that it's still worth it to merge this article back into the season overview page and re-create it with the proper expertise nearer to then. The article as it currently stands looks nothing like those of other cyclones (e.g. Cyclone Kyarr). Not quite WP:TNT, but close. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cyclone is projected to make landfall in Gujarat and will likely cause damages. The system has already caused agricultural damage in Gujarat and will likely do more. So better wait for a week to see the overall impact. Like Cyclone Vayu this year, it is going to be major cyclone. Not WP: CRYSTAL but meteorological prediction. -Nizil (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nizil Shah: Can we at least make this a draft until it is more presentable? Noah^Talk 03:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah:, I have no problem if it is moved to draft but keep in mind that the article is going to read by thousands in coming days. So it is better if we have the article ready.-Nizil (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – though impacts worthy of keeping it will likely arise by the time the AfD is closed, it isn't a noteworthy storm as of this writing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's already a ton of coverage about this (one, two, three, four, etc). Just wait until this bad-boy hits for more. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but keep a draft. The storm is being widely covered by the Indian media. It is too soon to decide whether to keep or not, so keep a draft and redirect for now. We'll wait and see the full extent of the damage before making a final decision. --JavaHurricane (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/redirect - the storm could always dissipate over water and not cause major land impacts, so it might eventually be worth merging. As it stands, the article is pretty short, but it's also active. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Even though it's notable and it passes WP:GNG, it doesn't have a long lasting effect. All Maha is is a decently powerful tropical cyclone in the North Indian Ocean that will dissipate once it reaches the western Indian coast. Minor damage does not warrant an article because of the same issue, WP:EFFECT. INeedSupport ^:V 00:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cyclone does not have any record for itself. It does set some records for the Indian Ocean cyclone season, but that can be put at the 2019 North Indian Ocean cyclone season article. INeedSupport ^:V 00:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone dead and no impacts to land. Good to be deleted now. 104.187.148.226 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It is very unnecessary to have a article for such a minor cyclone with little information. It may've been strong, but has shown little to no impact to land whatsoever. It's just like Cyclone Hikaa, it hit land as a depression but really doesn't deserve an article for it. Maybe if there's more info on the storm (which there won't be) THEN it will deserve an article. Hurricaneboy23 03:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Based on strength of arguments there is no overall consensus. As this is still an on going event, I'm relisting this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the season article. Just because it has been reported in the news does not mean that it should have an individual article per WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing about this cyclone that indicates it will have lasting notabiity. One can never be totally sure of that, but right now it is WP:TOOSOON. SpinningSpark 00:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into season article per SpinningSpark. The cyclone in question has dissipated with little to no land impact, which means lasting notability is no longer possible to be established. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into season article per SpinningSpark. As long as the cyclone has caused no significant impact it is unlikely to get further coverage. SerTanmay (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SpinningSpark.4meter4 (talk) 18:04, 17 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. Potential for relatively quick recreation if he wins the upcoming election. RL0919 (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Simmonds

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

Subject is a politician and fails WP:NPOL. Subject is a Hillingdon Councillor of a population of HERE-1 - 2018 June 30 - 304,824, who has a record of 2 failed parliamentary elections, and is contesting again for the Conservative seat in for the Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner constituency - see HERE-2. Local coverage from newspaper of the campaign does not apply for politician under WP:BASIC. Candidate needs to be elected in national political position to pass WP:NPOL and not prior. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, He isn't very well known right now but he is an elected member of Hillingdon Council. I can pretty much guarantee you that he will be elected next month, because its an extremely safe Conservative seat. I don't think there's much point in deleting the page, only for it to be recreated on December 13th, which, in the almost certainty that he is elected on December 13th, he will, because all UK Members of Parliament have pages. See the RNP page to see the majorities held by the Conservative party candidate in the seat. If the page is deleted I will of course respect the decision, and will remake the page as soon as possible if and when he is elected on December 12th, as by that point he will definitely have qualified for a page.Comrade TruthTeller (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC) creator of the page[reply]

Delete, Cassiopeia is correct. I can only promise that my creation of this article was not in bias (I am not a member of the party of the candidate), and I apologise for appearing to be biased.Comrade TruthTeller (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC) creator of the page[reply]

Comment. Comrade TruthTeller As the creator of the article, your guarantee plays not part in the variable in the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Politicians is deemed notable "only after" they are elected and "not" prior. To have a non elected politician in Wikipedia is like having well-known, heavy traffic platform to promote/advertise the political campaign for the candidates which is WP:What Wikipedia is not. Page can be recreated when the ballot is counted and "if" the candidates is elected and not before. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Comrade TruthTeller I restored your edits above and striked them out for the reason that my message above would not make sense and seemed I was accusing you of something, "your guarantee......" , which came out of nowhere. It is also a norm to strike thought our vote if we change our mind after some new evident/understanding. Thank you for your understanding. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CASSIOPEIA Apologies again for the inconvenience.Comrade TruthTeller (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Comrade TruthTeller, No worries and cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins. People don't get articles just for being candidates in future elections they have not yet won — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. Predictions about his likelihood of winning don't count for anything either: in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL, we are not in the business of publishing advance electoral projections. But there's no other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons here, and serving on a local borough council is not an "inherently" notable office that gets a person into Wikipedia either. Obviously this will be recreated in due time if he wins, although even then the format and sourcing will have to be different than this, but simply being a candidate is not already enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unelected candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates are not noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. While I see no sign of bias by the article's creator, the fact is at the moment the subject does not seem to meet notability standards. Being a current parliamentary candidate, even for a seat the candidate is favoured to win, is not enough. If he is elected, then it would of course be entirely appropriate to recreate the article and this is an approach I would favour in any similar cases to avoid any suggestion of bias. Dunarc (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass the WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON. Ralbegen (talk) 15:36, 14 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 11:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Assassins (The Hardy Boys)

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

Minor WP:PLOT element that completely fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Definition of fancruft. Deproded by User:Andrew Davidson with unhelpful technical summary. Andrew, can you tell us why you think this topic deserves its own article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much like the other Hardy Boys related articles that were unnecessarily de-PRODed, there is essentially no coverage on this fictional group in reliable, secondary sources. A few mentions in primary sources, an entry in the fan-wiki, and a couple of plot summaries, and that's about it. Rorshacma (talk) 20:22, 8 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. MER-C 10:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EAS Pollux

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

Minor WP:PLOT element that completely fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Definition of fancruft. Deproded by User:Andrew Davidson with unhelpful technical summary. Andrew, can you tell us why you think this topic deserves its own article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of non-universe sources establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 06:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of starships in Babylon 5, where this ship is covered with WP:DUEWEIGHT. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that Delete or merge to List of starships in Babylon 5, where it's currently not listed, indicating its either really non-notable, or the LoS is missing it. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is completely unsourced, and searching for some comes up with not a single mention in any reliable secondary source. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 15 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EAS Hyperion

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

Minor WP:PLOT element that completely fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Definition of fancruft. Deproded by User:Andrew Davidson with unhelpful technical summary. Andrew, can you tell us why you think this topic deserves its own article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources. TTN (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of starships in Babylon 5, where this ship is covered with WP:DUEWEIGHT. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely in-universe plot summary with not a single source being used. Searching for sources turns up nothing in any reliable secondary sources. Just being already listed in a crufty "List of" article isn't an automatic free pass for completely non-notable subjects to survive as a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:56, 15 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EAS Alexander

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

Minor WP:PLOT element that completely fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Definition of fancruft. Deproded by User:Andrew Davidson with unhelpful technical summary. Andrew, can you tell us why you think this topic deserves its own article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of starships in Babylon 5, where this ship is covered with WP:DUEWEIGHT. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely in-universe plot summary with not a single source being used. Searching for sources turns up nothing in any reliable secondary sources. Just being already listed in a crufty "List of" article isn't an automatic free pass for completely non-notable subjects to survive as a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 15 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. OK, subjects of an article are allowed to comment in deletion discussions about that article. That said, the consensus here is strongly leaning towards the topic and subtopics not meeting WP:SIGCOV criteria. I see some merge arguments but they have not really indicated how GNG/SIGCOV would be met even after merging; thus delete all it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael E. Arth

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is not notable, most sources are self-published, multiple COI editors have been involved in this page and those related to the subject, and the whole article reads like an advertisement for the subject. I am also nominating the following related pages, as they have the same issues:

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

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

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

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

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

WMSR (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt all. Promotional blurb for failed politician: nothing more. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all of this walled garden. If there's any actual notability here, WP:TNT still applies, because it's buried so deeply under piles of promotion, puffery, and primary sourcing that it's impossible to discern. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think he is notable for being a land developer, as well as for his candidacy in the Florida campaign, which although it had no chance of succeeding, may have been similar to candidates like Vermin Supreme. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 07:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Obvious self-promotion, insufficient independent reliable sources to establish notability. - Donald Albury 14:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ Merge. I've been attempting to look for any valid, verifiable source in these articles and it's quite difficult. Many are simply dead, many don't reference what they claim to, and many are self-published. Not notable, no sources available to improve with, etc. —Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Change of opinion: Could merging the articles create one main biographical article with strong enough sourcing to be notable? Is this worth an attempt? It seems that we may be able to take a worthwhile preliminary step in doing so. I'm shifting my opinion here toward merging the articles into the main Michael E. Arth page, while still acknowledging that its POV and sourcing are problematic as it currently stands. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I honestly don't think so. All of these articles pretty much exclusively reference self-published sources. I am not convinced that the subject is notable and his offer to on this page to provide outside sources is somewhat concerning. WMSR (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all land developeras are almost never notable for such, and he is no where near reaching the very rare case when they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the theory/book/film articles, per David Eppstein; neutral on Mr. Arth's biography. gnu 57 05:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I am the subject of the article in question, but my personal interest in this discussion does not change the facts. It seems that Naddruf’s nearly two dozen edits have addressed the various issues others have brought up with the article. On the notability issue, it seems odd to hear this being questioned, especially since the article has been up for over 12 years. Whatever you may think of the 358 edits made by 147 editors to the article--whether glowing, glowering, or anodyne--please consider the bare facts of my curriculum vitae at ^[1], which also has dozens of links to my articles, books, interviews, and films. Here are some of the items on the CV or its links:
- I have made or was the subject of five, feature documentary films that have been in many film festivals since 2007.
- New Urban Cowboy: Toward a New Pedestrianism^[2], has a 9.3 IMDB rating, was in 12 film festivals, won an audience favorite award, and had a number of positive reviews.
- The above film documents me rebuilding an inner city drug slum into the award-winning “mixed-use, mixed-income, mixed-race” Garden District neighborhood in DeLand,Florida.^[3]
- My 2011 documentary on homelessness, Out of the Woods: Life and Death in Dirty Dave’s Homeless Camp, has had some 673,000 viewings on YouTube ^[4], and led to the building of a homeless shelter near Daytona Beach.
- I am a widely published artist with many original prints and reproductions still in circulation (just search images for “Michael E. Arth etching”), and a large format art book, Introspective, which came out in 1983.^[5] I was also a member of the “Armadillo Art Squad” as a poster artist for the Armadillo World Headquarters in the Austin music scene in the early 70s. My etchings can be seen in the Harold Pinter written film, Betrayal, Will Farrell’s Semi-Pro, and the TV series, Stranger Things. I was also the subject of various one-man shows and my work is in several museum collections.
- Have had two books published with at least two more forthcoming, and have written many articles.
- Designed and/or constructed over 60 building projects in TX, CA, and FL.
- Recognized internationally as an urban designer. I have given talks on my New Pedestrianism in the US, Canada, Sweden, and the Netherlands. For example, see this Dutch interview ^[6].
- Ran for governor of Florida and was the subject of a documentary about it titled Gov’nor)^[7]. There were also four cover stories. These appeared in the Daytona News Journal, Orlando Sentinel^[8], DeLand Beacon, and the Orlando Weekly. ^[9] The Orlando Weekly followed up in another article with its endorsement.^[10]
- Ran for president and is listed on Wikipedia as a “notable” presidential candidate at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
- Featured in various print, TV and radio articles and interviews over the years, as cited in Michael E. Arth.
- My UNICE/LOGOS public policy wiki ^[11] is the subject of two academic papers and is already existing as a proof of concept.
- Now working on a 13-part docuseries, The Labors of Hercules: Modern Solutions to 12 Herculean Problems.^[12]

MichaelEArth (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.michaelearth.org
^ https://www.newurbancowboy.com
^ http://www.michaelearth.com/garden_district.htm
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R49fi-rHhAM
^ http://michaelearth.com/introspective.htm
^ https://vimeo.com/30224500
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhRAVDn2HQY
^ Ludmilla Lelis "Michael E. Arth: Dark Horse Candidate for Governor Has Eye on Reform," Orlando Sentinel. 11-24-09.
^ https://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/reality-check/Content?oid=2255426
^ Jeff Gore, Billy Manes and Erin Sullivan, Happytown Editorial Board Endorsements Orlando Weekly, Vol.26, no.43,10-27-10. [1]
^ https://www.LOGOSwiki.org
^ https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/michael-e-arth-ends-presidential-run-endorses-elizabeth-warren-300950776.html

@MichaelEArth: That is inappropriate. I am aware that my edits, while reducing the self-promotion, have not solved most of the problems. It is unacceptable for most sources to be your own or interviews you took part in. For them to be notable, someone else must have discussed them. The fact that you published certain books isn't enough for them to be notable. The books must have been discussed by others. If you want to keep these articles, the best thing for you to do would probably be to remove your own sources and the paragraphs that they reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't encourage him to edit this as an autobiography. Doing so is against Wikipedia guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Naddruf I'm sorry I overstated your edits. Also, I did not take your comment as suggesting I directly edit the article. I know that is against the guidelines. However, I will soon find and list outside sources as you suggest here in this discussion. Then you or others can do with them as you like. MichaelEArth (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - MichaelEArth, Finding and listing sources for others to insert into an article about you is equally problematic. WMSR (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Sources Ok. No problem. No need to list here. There are many pages of independent sources/citations on my CV: http://www.michaelearth.org/pdfs/Michael%20E.%20Arth%20Curriculum%20Vitae%20(2019)-NEW.pdf MichaelEArth (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @MichaelEArth: you don't seem to be getting it; your very presence on this page is itself problematic. Wikipedia is not your CV, it is not a forum to promote your ideas, and it is not a means to promote your political campaigns. Your CV consists entirely of self-published sources, and the fact that we would need to use your CV to find references demonstrates that you don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. WMSR (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if my presence on this page offends you, but I have declared my conflict of interest and others can judge for themselves if it is problematic. While my CV does have self-published sources, it consists mostly of non-self-published sources that can be independently verified by anyone editing the article. I'm no longer conducting a political campaign here or anywhere, unless it's to support a Democratic candidate who will oust Donald J. Trump. MichaelEArth (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:TNT. It's possible that enough reviews could be scraped together to make a wiki-notability case for something in this walled garden, but even in that hypothetical case, writing non-promotional material would require starting from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I agree with User:XOR'easter that there might be some notability hiding somewhere there, and also WP:TNT. I further comment that it is apparent that any article would need to be monitored for promotional editing, and that the maginal (if any) notability probably doesn't justify the effort required at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:TNT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since there is definitely something worth preserving, although the main article should probably be trimmed to a well-referenced stub or start. Maybe the movie is notable as well? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:01, 13 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Soldier

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT: the one current reference is a promotional interview hosted on Mr. Soldier's personal website (NSFW). Looking for new ones, I found that he had also worked as a drag performer under the name "Precious Moments"[20][21][22] and performed in the rock band "Pepperspray"; however, I was unable to find in-depth biographical coverage (the three links above are brief and run-of-the-mill.) I don't believe his porn industry awards count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. Cheers, gnu 57 03:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator is correct about the subject's lack of non-trivial reliable source coverage. Gets local mentions as a minor San Francisco celebrity. The subject would not have passed any version of WP:PORNBIO in use since 2012. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT without substantial RS interest. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even come close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 10 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 Discworld characters. There was consensus that this fictional element shouldn't have a stand-alone article, but I see that Discworld characters {{main}}-links to two characters that are only summarized in History Monks (i.e. WP:SUMMARY wasn't followed in the LoC.) It is for this technicality that I close this AfD with a merger instead of deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History Monks

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Discworld characters as an alternative to deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks sourcing, let alone sourcing giving context beyond the fictional works they originate in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sourcing, and no reliable sources have been located since the citations needed tag was added in 2009. ParticipantObserver (talk) 15:48, 8 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola Razr foldable

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

All of the information are based on rumors. I propose that this article is deleted until Motorola officially announces the phone. jaclar0529 (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move Perhaps this article should not be deleted rather moved to draft space until the subject is more notable. EvilxFish (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what this editor's point is in mass creating poorly referenced stubs about new android phones, with numerous spelling and grammar issues. Please ping me if this goes to ANI or something. That said, phone is notable, easily passing GNG and SIGCOV with breathless non-stop coverage. Even if it doesn't actually get released, this doesn't violate CRYSTALBALL. The only reason to delete would be to motivate another editor to recreate a better article.Hydromania (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The phone is now announced and confirmed officially as of today, meaning that the argument for deletion is no longer valid. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Motorola Mobility/Lenovo has officially announced the phone and also released a video. So has Verizon. It has received significant coverage from the press. Even on the date of the nomination, it should have qualified to stay. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing as the phone is now confirmed and received a considerable amount of press coverage already the article should be kept. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cnet has already released material about this device. That means that people outside motorola have touched it and that the phone actually exists. Pancho507 (talk) 02:07, 15 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 23:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Action Pack (comics)

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Avengers: The Initiative. BOZ (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE was fruitless, and even by the articles own text, "Little is known of the Action Pack,", and even the members "appear" to be members. I dont know how any GNG sources would really even be found with that factoring in. I guess we could redirect, but even if it's WP:CHEAP, I dont see much value given how generic the term is; it would probably just WP:ASTONISH people. -2pou (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 2pou - There is very little information available about this group, even in this article itself. The group just isn't notable at all, and does not even really need to used as a redirect, considering how minor they were and how unlikely a search term it would be. Rorshacma (talk) 17:04, 15 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 Challengers of the Unknown#Fictional group history. czar 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Morgan

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Challengers of the Unknown. His entire fictional history is tied to that comic/group, and any and all coverage on the character is in regards to that fact. So, definitely has no independent notability, but should certainly be redirected to the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Challengers of the Unknown. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:36, 14 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 Nandamuri Harikrishna. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Telugu Desam Party

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

Unclear existence of the party. Never elected a candidate. According to our article, the highest they got to was 1% of votes. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Parties are not automatically notable for running losing candidates, lack of substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 20:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now WP:NORUSH. The lack of sources in the article is not a reason for AfD. Sources exist.

Seems like Nandamuri Harikrishna or 1999 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election would be appropriate merge targets then. Again, just because a state-level party failed miserably in a single election doesn't mean it needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 23:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the founder Nandamuri Harikrishna. In line with WP:5P where WP works as gazetteer, i would prefer to have mention and information of every political party, successful or not, to be included in Wikipedia. They have interlinks with so many election related articles and general politics. For example in here, 0.3 million people did vote for this party. They had 191 candidates in arena. The info is worth mentioning somewhere. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:59, 13 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) 01:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tobiloba Ajayi

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

Subject of article fails basic WP:GNG notability guidelines & lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable source. The subject of article is allegedly a writer but references provided mainly speaks of her illness & does not establish her notability as a writer. A thorough WP:BEFORE shows she is only discussed in unreliable media as a patient of cerebral palsy & nothing more. A !delete vote is quite applicable here. Furthermore this article has a promotional tone. Celestina007 (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep She met WP:GNG for enjoying significant coverage on reliable sources like Vanguard, The Nation (Nigeria) and Huffington post. and also as fellow of Madella Washinton WP:ANYBIO Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: several independent sources about her, plus the Mandela Washington Fellowship, add up to notability. Article needs some tidying-up, but have added another couple of sources. PamD 23:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:53, 12 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. A renaming discussion can take place on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 17:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ontheroofs

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

The topic of the article is generally personal and doesn't meet general notability WP:GNG. The article's subject didn't draw much of public attention of the media. Given the pretext of arts and exploration neither of the sources discuss the arts:

Fails WP:ARTN: Only a few reliable and independent media were cited. Total 4 of 10 sources are primary, the rest are personal:
1. The Guardian^[1] — Very short mention of climbing of one building.
2. the The Huffington Post^[2] — An interview, which may not be considered as independent
3. dailymail.co.uk^[3] — The same.
4. Rossiyskay Gazeta^[4]^[5] — Notion of the fact of climbing of the building
Fails WP:NRV: provides affiliated with subject author sources: youtube video, ~~Russia-based website rbth.com of questionable reliability~~^{[note 1]}
There is no general coverage of the project in the news (just click "Google" above)^{[note 2]} The coverage ~~seems to be~~ is short living: two sources are for February 2014, the other two are much later.
Links leading to a personal pages of subject's author which seems to be a kind advertisement which is violation of the WP:PROMO

I propose to delete the article and move it to a section in the Rooftopping article. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 11:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Loads of WP:SIGCOV cited in the article. Really don't know what the nom is thinking about with this - the Guardian and rbth.com (which is a pass for WP:NEWSORG - and anyway is just a translation of an article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, which is also obviously an RS) references by themselves are enough to sustain notability. As for the coverage being short-lived, two years passed between the Guardian and Rossiyskaya Gazeta articles, which is obviously enough to show lasting coverage. FOARP (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: and anyway is just a translation of an article [...] The original Russian article in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta isn't about Ontheroofs project (article's subject). It's about climbers and ascending achievement (it's very common for state-run media in Russia to brag about such "achievements").^[5] There are in fact two of them.^[6] Neither of them mention or refers to any ontheroofs project. They don't even discuss much about the arts or photos. The "translation" published on the rbth.com^[7] is not a translation at all.

the Guardian [...] Doesn't mention ontheroofs either.

don't know what the nom is thinking about with this [...] I think that the article was created in order to promote climbers popularity, not to recognize the project's notability. I believe it doesn't deserve a separate article, and must be removed and part of the content must be re-created elsewhere as I said it before. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 10:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That the articles do not explicitly mention the term "Ontheroofs" is completely immaterial to the notability of this article, since the are clearly discussing the Ontheroofs art project. If you wish to change the name of the article to a different title (say, the names of the two artists) then that is a subject for discussion on the article talk-page or even just a WP:BOLD edit. The motives of the people who created the article is immaterial - the notability of the article is what matters. Page-quality issues are not a matter for AFD since AFD is not cleanup. If you think the article needs editing (and it does) then WP:DIY is always worth keeping in mind. Finally, I note that your argument that this article is not notable consists of ... listing coverage in the Russian media further demonstrating notability. FOARP (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: Wikipedia is not a place for personal projects (WP:NOT#MYINVENTION), WP:ORIGINAL or WP:PROMO. Considering that majority of the sources are either personal or primary and they failed to gain significant coverage in media or books — no reason to keep it. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 13:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is great, because this isn't simply a personal project. It's a notable subject, as demonstrated by the references. If you want to clean up the article, then please go ahead and do so - but AFD is not clean-up. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: Wikipedia has rules for a reason. You may not ignore them. I suggest you to read WP:PSTS to learn more about them. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 16:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia has rules. WP:GNG for example says that where an article has multiple supporting independent references in reliable sources it's likely to be notable. This one does. You've even helpfully listed some here. Specifically, you've listed newspaper coverage of this project, which is a secondary source. FOARP (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Actually it was just a notion of the article in the Rossiyskay Gazeta (see above, discussion)
^ excluding www.businessinsider, which is not cited

References

^ "Russian daredevils scale the Shanghai Tower, China's new tallest building". The Guardian. 13 February 2014. Archived from the original on 21 September 2016.
^ "The Story Behind That Insane Shanghai Tower Climb". The Huffington Post. 23 April 2014. Archived from the original on 21 September 2016.
^ "Daredevil urban climbers reveal new pictures from dizzying heights". Daily Mail. 5 February 2015. Archived from the original on 21 September 2016.
^ Checkout the discussion about the source
^ ^a ^b Украинец и россиянин покорили самый высокий небоскреб Южной Кореи [Ukranian and Russian conquered the tallest skyscrapper in the South Korea], Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 2016-04-11
^ Россиянин и украинец забрались на самое высокое здание Южной Кореи [Russian and Ukranian climbed the tallest building in the South Korea], Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 2016-03-31
^ Gazeta, Rossiyskaya (12 April 2016). "Russian roofers climb Seoul's Lotte Tower".

Rename to Vitaliy Raskalov and Vadim Makhorov and adjust wording accordingly. The duo have received coverage that would meet the inclusion criteria. What absolutely none of the coverage have done is to describe an "urban exploration and rooftopping photography project" thta goes by the name of "Ontheroofs". The duo's web site's about page makes no mention of this being such a project. That seems to be WP:OR. -- Whpq (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to back this rename per the discussion above. FOARP (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 8 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 11:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Curtis

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

Fails notability guidelines per WP:NACTOR, and much of the information cannot be sourced. KidAd (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his roles appear to be barely supporting (mostly "newsboy" or first-name-only types) and the coverage is weak about him, rather than about the films he happened to act in. On a side note, there are many typos and unverifiable trivia that might require extensive re-writing from scratch. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 12 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.

[1] ttps://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/25/bruno-serato-reflects-as-he-prepares-to-reopen-fire-damaged-anaheim-white-house-a-year-later/

[2] ttps://www.ocregister.com/2017/02/05/support-flows-to-philanthropist-bruno-serato-after-fire-guts-anaheim-white-house/https://www.ocregister.com/2019/04/11/chef-bruno-serato-serves-3-millionth-pasta-meal-to-orange-county-kids/

[3] ttps://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/04/after-a-little-more-than-a-year-the-anaheim-white-house-restaurant-will-reopen-to-the-public-on-tuesday-may-8/

[4] ttps://www.ocregister.com/2017/05/31/anaheim-white-house-fire-30th-anniversary-party-to-raise-funds-for-1-5-million-rebuild-effort/

[5] ttps://caterinasclub.org/feeding-the-children/

[6] ttp://voyagela.com/interview/meet-bruno-serato-anaheim-white-house-restaurant/

[7] ttp://www.ncregister.com/blog/agreeley/anaheims-bruno-serato-italian-chef-extraordinaire

[8] ttps://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/02/05/gofundme-page-set-up-to-help-anaheim-white-house-after-its-gutted-by-fire/

[9] ttps://abc7.com/society/oc-restaurant-owner-resumes-charity-work-for-kids-despite-fire/1742168/

[10] ttps://www.ocregister.com/2019/04/11/chef-bruno-serato-serves-3-millionth-pasta-meal-to-orange-county-kids/

[11] ttp://www.michaelearth.org

[12] ttps://www.newurbancowboy.com

[13] ttp://www.michaelearth.com/garden_district.htm

[14] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R49fi-rHhAM

[15] ttp://michaelearth.com/introspective.htm

[16] ttps://vimeo.com/30224500

[17] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhRAVDn2HQY

[18] Ludmilla Lelis "Michael E. Arth: Dark Horse Candidate for Governor Has Eye on Reform," Orlando Sentinel. 11-24-09.

[19] ttps://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/reality-check/Content?oid=2255426

[20] Jeff Gore, Billy Manes and Erin Sullivan, Happytown Editorial Board Endorsements Orlando Weekly, Vol.26, no.43,10-27-10. [1]

[21] ttps://www.LOGOSwiki.org

[22] ttps://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/michael-e-arth-ends-presidential-run-endorses-elizabeth-warren-300950776.html

[28] Actually it was just a notion of the article in the Rossiyskay Gazeta (see above, discussion)

[29] xcluding www.businessinsider, which is not cited

[23] "Russian daredevils scale the Shanghai Tower, China's new tallest building". The Guardian. 13 February 2014. Archived from the original on 21 September 2016.

[24] "The Story Behind That Insane Shanghai Tower Climb". The Huffington Post. 23 April 2014. Archived from the original on 21 September 2016.

[25] "Daredevil urban climbers reveal new pictures from dizzying heights". Daily Mail. 5 February 2015. Archived from the original on 21 September 2016.

[26] Checkout the discussion about the source

[#rg-0-27] Украинец и россиянин покорили самый высокий небоскреб Южной Кореи [Ukranian and Russian conquered the tallest skyscrapper in the South Korea], Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 2016-04-11

[30] Россиянин и украинец забрались на самое высокое здание Южной Кореи [Russian and Ukranian climbed the tallest building in the South Korea], Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 2016-03-31

[31] Gazeta, Rossiyskaya (12 April 2016). "Russian roofers climb Seoul's Lotte Tower".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[note 1]

[note 2]

[6]

[7]