Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 January	9 January >

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 delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serxhio Kuqo

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

The subject fails General notability guidelines as well as WP:NSOCCER Less Unless (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTY, I'm not satisfy some of reference shown on article, maybe not played national team. -Nocturnal306^talk 19:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Saleem

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

As in the last AfD, the subject still fails WP:GNG, while the new wrestling commentator position fails WP:ENTERTAINER. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Casiopea. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 00:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noriaki Kumagai

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

The subject fails the General Notability Guidelines as well as Specific. Less Unless (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CHEAP, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:OUTCOMES. He has less than zero notability. Redirect to his only real band, Casiopea, which is barley notable in itself. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we cannot keep articles sourced only to a subject's own website. We are not an annotated directory of internet sites. Although to be fair we are or at least were until last Tuesday an insane indepth composite of bios of porn starts and beuaty queens and a Lord of the Rings fan site.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Casiopea per WP:NMUSICBIO: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. lullabying (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Pelayo Productions

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No significant coverage of the company itself from reliable sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and as noted. Beside the practice that party planners and producers are run of the mill, this is a huge mess that can't be fixed. Let's also note the obvious conflict of interest and spamming, since we are after all as everybody knows in 2020, a charity and not a web-host for your party favors. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lin-ay kang Antique. Sandstein 11:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lin-ay kang Antique 2015

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

Fails WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. hueman1 (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper independent, published sources offering in-depth coverage of this specific edition of the pageant can be found. The one source (currently in the External links section for some reason) is the briefest possible mention of the pageant, in an article about one of the pageant participants, so it doesn't help towards WP:GNG. The whole article is unverifiable because of lack of sources, and that is a significant problem. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it appears to be WP:CORPSPAM or PAGEANTSPAM. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lin-ay kang Antique. Much better to merge some of the important stuff to the main page. _SUPER ^ASTIG 12:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and WP:SALT. Create protection is typically for pages that have been created multiple times, but the unusual WP:SOCK behavior here (with both the creator and the nominator separately blocked) justifies unusual measures to prevent disruption. RL0919 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbir Hasan Nasir

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

Non notable singer, author haven’t receive any major award to claim notable. Failed WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, WP:AUTHOR Bbemoni (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -Nocturnal306^talk 20:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. He runs a grocery store chain. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author's Question The article is not only on music life of the figure, this is an overall article. The person is a notable figure in the business industry of Bangladesh who guided two major public limited companies towards success (Otobi & ACI Logistics Limited). The sources establishes him as an important person in the domestic retail sector and all the sourced links are from reputed national dailies & a research link been added as well. Then why it should be deleted? --Neotheone2019 (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Neotheone2019 is the creator —Bbemoni (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Though the figure has not won any music awards, still his bio fulfills notability category in terms of contribution in particular field of business. Since the used sources hail him as an "important retail personality of Bangladesh" this article should be kept.--Abdavid2019 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Vote struck as sock of NeotheoneReal (renamed from Neotheone2019).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject itself passes WP:NRV & WP:NRVE as the sources are important national dailies of Bangladesh. And there are single full-featured article on the subject and regarding his notability. Though his music career is not that ornamented but still his career in professional sector is significant. In favor of keeping the article.--Shariful Islam Badol (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Vote struck as sock of NeotheoneReal (renamed from Neotheone2019).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commment has the hallmarks of paid editing: overciting, promotional tone and the 37 references cited in an earlier version collapsed to 26 when the dupes were named.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion protect this article from socks to re-create, WP:SALT will require. A promotional content about non-notable singer, businessman whatever — Bbemoni (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT to prevent socks from recreating the article without review. Promotional article that fails GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional. Fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt promotional & fails GNG. (also, I might be wrong but this might be paid editing. We (Bengali wiki comunity) have recently found that a number of paid sock farms are active from Bangladesh.) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG. It also fails WP:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt clearly promotional. Creator and nominator are both locked. They are from rival sock farms. ~ Nahid ^Talk 12:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Innovation Institute

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

Does not seem notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. The article seems a bit promotional and it is a bit unclear how exactly this company stands out as worthy of an article. Andise1 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not confident either ways but lean towards delete, in light of the dubious history of the creator and failure to retrieve a good piece on the subject. ∯WBG^converse 15:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are a charity, not a web-host for a run of the mill health-care for-profit agency. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shudh Desi Endings

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

Little coverage/reliable sources exist. Andise1 (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a run of the mill YouTube channel, one of millions. 00:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
delete no significant coverage in reliable sources, just another youtube channel, one of millions. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom fails WP:GNG another youtube channel nothing significant.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aviva (musician)

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

While this individual has racked up lots of streams of their music and opened tours for notable musicians, they have very little coverage on the internet. I searched and could not find any reliable sources (I found a few that were questionable). Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Andise1 (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If one removes all the quotes about the subject themself from the article there is little left, and then if one removes the remaining uncited material there is nothing left? I cannot find anything in main stream or independent reliable secondary media about the subject. I am happy to be corrected. Has the subject ever charted anywhere? (Note: Not to be confused with Aviva Endean, also a musician.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - over the top hagiography by fan(s), and sourcing is terrible. A gentle reminder that all musicians both collaborate and yet want to be different from every other one. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as does have an AllMusic staff written bio here, and Forte Magazine and Orion references in the article are from printed publications that seem reliable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs more sources than those two references. The subject has almost no other reliable coverage other than what you mentioned. Andise1 (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An AllMusic bio by a staff writer is a strong indication of notability. There should be further discussion on the Forte and Orion references, for if these are found to be reliable sources then GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - have you read the re-lister's comment above? They have asked for some further discussion on the Forte and Orion references, not just a blanket additional comment that doesn't add anything to this discussion. Bookscale (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

FORTE is an interview, hence primary, and seems to be shallow depth and promotional?
ORION is about another artist, POPPY. Aviva gets an on balance positive non trivial mention, but nothing contributing to in-depth. Looks like Aviva got the coverage they did here because the main artist was a bit of a flop?
ALLMUSIC is suitable, but that is all there is?

or, have I missed something here? Aoziwe (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Does not have significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried - alas, the majority of the press coverage is from small fry publications and the Orion publication (the free press paper for Chico, California) is just a passing mention on how she was better than the headliner. Oh, the Allmusic is pretty weird, just like text messaged responses. I don't even know what to consider that. WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Don

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

Non notable rural village in Laos. There are zero sources other than a map that purports to pinpoint its location. This article could / should be a redirect to Sekong Province if not removed altogether. Michepman (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any kind of settlement on the coordinates referenced in the article. [1] Oakshade (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may be that Google's map data is incomplete, or this is another poorly executed hoax. Michepman (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there are only two decimal degrees of precision, so the village, if it exists, could be up to 1km from the listed coordinates. There is an unmarked village at 15.9143707N, 106.9519673E. And the "A" prefix is very common for villages in this part of Laos. It's listed [2] here, so unlikely to be a hoax. It's also exceptionally hard to search for. I'm officially neutral on deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 10:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per WP:V. It's no sin not to list every possible village. When sources exist, then we can list it. Quality over quantity. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails any possible SNG and GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No sources! BLP fail. Missvain (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Bergen

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

Who fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. not enough to establish notability Singer, Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG. She did won something or receive any an award. Even i didn't find any notable album or any duet song. I searched Google and found no reliable sources ~ Nocturnal^talk 21:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Nocturnal^talk 21:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ Nocturnal^talk 21:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should've had a BLP PROD. No sources or evidence of notability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per all Above Alex-h (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Wright (politician)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Subject is an unelected political candidate. RaviC (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:BIO "Failure to meet [WP:POLITICIAN's] criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included ... A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable". As such, "Fails WP:POLITICIAN" is not on its own a particularly convincing argument for deletion. In this case the subject satisfies WP:BASIC and WP:GNG by virtue of the significant coverage in reliable sources cited in the article (especially the Telegraph, i and New Statesman pieces), which goes well beyond the routine local coverage that most parliamentary candidates can expect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale for GNG has been used in multiple AfDs without success - this is a routine campaign; please see the comments for e.g. by Bearcat and Bondegezou here. --RaviC (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vix only had an appearance on a hit TV show that failed to produce GNG coverage (the appearance, not the show). Claire was the subject of three news articles in national newspapers like New Statesman and The Telegraph that talked about her being a threat to the Tory monopoly on her constituency, which even outlived every human on the planet who was living at the time she ran. ミラ P 00:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to assess the sourcing of the Vix Lowthion article, but this article is about a different person with a different claim to notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is another unconvincing argument; in fact, the inapplicability of the sort of one-size-fits-all box-ticking solution you want to employ is precisely my point above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arms & Hearts: There's a reason this exists, you know. Ask one of them there if they can email you a copy of that article. ミラ P 00:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. BIO1E does not apply because coverage has occurred from 2015 to 2019 for multiple runs. b uidhe 06:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:GNG - enough sources & references to satisfy the criteria. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither county councillors nor unelected candidates for higher office are presumed "inherently" notable on that basis in and of itself — and candidates are not automatically special just because they ran more than once, either. But the amount of coverage shown here is not enough to make her markedly more special than most other county councillors, or most other unelected candidates for office — every person who does either of those things can always show a small smattering of local coverage in those contexts, so if that small smattering were in and of itself enough to hand them a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every county councillor and every unelected candidate for higher office would always get that exemption, and NPOL itself would mean nothing anymore because nobody would ever actually have to pass it at all. For both county councillors and unelected candidates for higher office, the notability test is not merely the existence of the exact same local media coverage that every person in those roles can always show — people at those levels of political significance have to demonstrate a reason why they could credibly be deemed significantly more notable than the norm, which the sources here are not showing. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: What "small smattering of local coverage"? The keep votes are good at clarifying that Claire Wright is "significantly more notable than the norm": she was the subject of three news articles in national newspapers like New Statesman and The Telegraph that talked about her being a threat to the Tory monopoly on her constituency, which even outlived every human on the planet who was living at the time she ran. ミラ P 17:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being perceived during an election campaign as a "threat", but not actually coming through in the clutch as a winner in the end, is not in and of itself a thing that makes a candidate more special than other candidates. The bar for a claim like that is "accomplished something in her campaign that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance — something that made her so famous in and of itself that even if she never does another thing as long as she lives, people will still likely be looking for an article about her in 2029 specifically because of the thing she pulled off in her campaign, as e.g. Christine O'Donnell" — and not just "a national newspaper labelled her a threat but she lost in the end anyway". Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Yes not a "threat" as it is, but a "threat to the Tory monopoly on her constituency that outlives every human on the planet who was living at the time she ran" oughta be. I mean come on, the ERS wrote that the Tories have held her East Devon and its predecessors for 184 years - Jeanne Calment lived to the age of 122. In the meantime, I before'd the other four losing candidates and found no non-Devon coverage, which Claire Wright has unlike them. ミラ P 23:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to rephrase myself for clarity, then: everywhere I said "threat" in my previous comment, read that as merely an abbreviation for "threat to the Tory monopoly on her constituency that outlives every human on the planet who was living at the time she ran". Being labelled a contender to win an election, but then not actually winning it in the end, is simply not a notability claim that passes the ten year test for enduring significance: if the monopoly held once the ballots were actually counted, then having briefly seemed like she might have the potential to break it according to the speculation of media pundits does not make her special on anything like a permanent basis. The notability test for politicians is winning the election, not just running in it. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: WP:10YT is an essay, not a policy. While WP:BLP2E is also an essay and even makes it clear it's not a policy, it does apply existing policies like WP:BLP1E. Claire Wright ran for two elections, four years between, which is halfway across ten, so in any event there's no way in the world she fails WP:BLP1E. Therefore, the article should be kept. ミラ P 00:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I didn't say anything whatsoever about WP:BLP1E — but it's irrelevant anyway, because a person who runs for election ten times, and loses all ten times, is notable for zero things, not one or two or ten, because running for political office and losing is not a notability claim. Secondly, WP:ONLYESSAY clarifies the reasons why saying "that's only an essay" does not drop the mic or invalidate the essay: we have policies to tell us what to to and guidelines to tell us how to do it, so essays are every bit as authoritative and binding as policies. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I think you should refer to this:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if [i]t meets either [the GNG] or [an SNG]; and [i]t is not excluded under [WP:NOT]. Claire wright meets the GNG as shown by the arguments of @Buidhe and Lefcentreright:, and the closest WP:NOT thing is WP:NOTNEWS, but even that has been refuted in several AFDs that had sustained coverage for 30 days - Claire Wright had 4 years!

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage: Claire Wright is a Devon County Councillor who, while not notable just because, recieved SPC because national newspapers of prestige wrote articles about her being a threat to the you-know-what-so-I-won't-repeat-it. ミラ P 00:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to familarize myself with nothing I am not already familiar with. GNG is not, and has never been, just "count up the footnotes and keep any topic that can pass two" — if that were how GNG worked, we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who got into the media a few years ago for finding a pig in her yard. GNG also takes into account the context of what the person is getting covered for — coverage that exists in non-notable contexts, like being a candidate in an election that the person did not win, does not count as GNG-building coverage.

Campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election everywhere, so every candidate could always claim a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL if the existence of some campaign coverage was all they had to show, and NPOL would never actually apply to anybody anymore. So the inclusion bar for unsuccessful candidates is not "a handful of campaign coverage exists" — it is "the article demonstrates a reason why this person is markedly more notable than most other candidates", and "this person was labelled as a contender to win a seat she did not actually win in the end" is not evidence of that.

And similarly, local officeholders at the county level are also not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — again, the inclusion bar a county councillor has to clear is that the sourcing marks her out as markedly more notable than most other county councillors. Which, again, this article is not doing. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been explained to you several times over that the level of coverage concerning this person is significantly greater than the routine coverage most candidates receive. While it may be the case that "Campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election everywhere" (though you've provided no evidence for this assertion), it's demonstrably untrue that the level of coverage received by this candidate in these elections is received by every candidate in every election. You've repeatedly failed to address the article at stake on its own terms, and repeatedly insisted on a one-size-fits-all approach that plainly contradicts WP:BIO. Claiming that "coverage that exists in non-notable contexts ... does not count as GNG-building coverage" is not only without basis in any policy or guideline, it's also clearly begging the question – having assumed from start that this is a "non-notable context" (whatever that means), you've already ruled out the possibility of reaching any other conclusion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasons right above and both Buidhe and Lefcentreright. ミラ P 02:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The amount of coverage is not really any more than any county councilor/candidate for higher office would get. To show someone with this record is notable we need coverage at a level and with a depth more than we would normally expect for such a track recrds which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Yeah it is. Can you please read @Arms & Hearts: comment right above my keep vote? ミラ P 19:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not more coverage than we normally see. It also does not provide the depth of active searching and reporting we need to say it is truly indepdent of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Does being described by in depth articles of the Telegraph and New Statesman as a threat to 180 years of one-party rule in a constituency and predecessors count as more coverage than we normally see? Yes. It’s been explained many times here. ミラ P 19:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims of notability are sadly not reflected by the amount of coverage generated (three news articles in your words). Even Lord Buckethead received far more coverage than this during the election. --RaviC (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RaviC: But Missvain has more. ミラ P 02:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can appreciate the arguments for deletion, but at the last two elections she has had significant mention in the press as the most likely independent (excluding sitting MPs standing against their former parties) to win a seat in the House of Commons. It is also virtually unheard of in modern British politics for an Independent to finish second to a major party candidate in 3 consecutive elections. Indeed in 2019 the Sky election programme live covered the Devon East declaration because the result was notable and John Bercow and Dermot Murnaghan commented on her track record on the programme. Dunarc (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above comments suggest, no other independent candidate in recent times (bar Sylvia Hermon) has stood in three consecutive elections, nor come close to the amount of media coverage that she has had. PinkPanda272 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I improved the article a bit more. She passes general notability guidelines. Here are reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in a significant way:

Missvain (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's all routine campaign coverage for an unsuccessful candidate. Even if WP:GNG applies, there's local consensus that losing candidates who don't receive coverage beyond the fact they're candidates are WP:NOT notable. I also think WP:BLP1E applies, even though she has run multiple times, as there's little to no coverage of her previous campaigns, and we can merge any relevant information to the results page. SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: WP:ROUTINE has already been shown not to apply to people, and Buidhe has already explained that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because she has run multiple times. ミラ P 02:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect on both counts. WP:ROUTINE applies not to people, but rather to the coverage that people receive, and all of her coverage is what you'd expect of a candidate. WP:BLP1E still applies because she's only notable for her 2019 run, as I have still to see an article on her 2015 and 2017 runs. As I've noted, we can include information on her on the elections page, and put up a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 02:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that "all of her coverage is what you'd expect of a candidate" then you'll be able to show similar coverage to that enumerated above (16 pieces in reliable sources focusing primary or solely upon Wright's campaigns, five of which are in reputable national publications) for, let's say, Dan Wilson, Eleanor Rylance, Henry Gent and Peter Faithfull (the other failed candidates in East Devon in 2019). Of course, such coverage doesn't exist. I'm not sure why people keep making claims like these that are so easily disproved. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lovegrove

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

No significant coverage seems to exist for this person. The article has lots of sources, but they either mention him in name only or don't mention him at all, and many are completely unconnected to the statements in the article. The source for the award mentioned in the article is a DIY games site, and does not mention his name. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage from reliable sources. Current references are junk, to be blunt. Ping me please if you find real references. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article. No [WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]] from reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barahir

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

Barahir is only notable inuniverse. His role in the Silmarillion is not anywhere near as developed as we would need to show notability. The coverage of him is just brief mentions in works that seek to provide comprehensive statements on every named entity in Tolkien's work. There is no secondary coverage and this article has gone for nearly 8 years tagged as having no sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Barahir is not substantially mentioned in any of the plot summaries of the works the article say he is in, so we can't really redirect there. Hog Farm (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barahir is only discussed by fan websites. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no secondary coverage and this article has been tagged no source, fail WP:GNG. -Nocturnal306^talk 21:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh really? I've not taken part in these Tolkien deletions lately because I'm a sort of a fan and don't want to be accused of favoritism, but this subject is truly obscure. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Middle-earth characters#B. Goustien (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to India national racquetball team#Indian team at the world championships. Sandstein 11:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat Vejju

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Also lack of sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~ to India national racquetball team or India national racquetball team#Indian team at the world championships. WP:NSPORTS considers competition at top-tier world championships to establish notability for some individual sports. If we go by the standards for badminton, for example, Vejju qualifies for an article. However, he only appeared once at this level, lost in the first round, and has only participated in smaller regional competitions aside from his one match of world championship presence (from what I could find), and has absolutely zero coverage outside a brief mention in this article: [3]. Without any solid guidelines for racquetball, I'd lean toward him being non-notable. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 20:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Jakubowski

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

There doesn't appear to be any significant, independent coverage of this critic/author. He's got the same Guardian bio paragraph as every other person who's worked there, and this Crime Writers' Association page (again, a site hyping one of its own).[4] Elsewhere, I turned up brief namechecks of a few of his little-known books (nothing specifically about him), generic database listings, regurgitated press releases, and interviews with minor sites - hardly "significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" (WP:GNG).

Jakubowski is a prolific writer, but not a notable one. That he felt the need to largely write and puff up his own Wikipedia article[5][6] says something about how famous he is. No harm to the bloke, but he shouldn't have an article. Shadikk (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crime Writers' Association does not appear to be a major organization (the article has notability problems itself), and neither does its award seem to be major. I don't think it is sufficient. Not seeing media coverage of him, not too mention literary analysis and like. I think this is the case of an author that can merit a Wikidata entry, but not a Wikipedia one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. You know, WP:BEFORE is a thing, as is WP:COMPETENCE, neither of which is much in evidence here. It is a moment's work to discover that, for example, the Crime Writers' Association is a highly notable national writers organization, or that Jakubowski's books are regularly reviewed, some rather widely reviewed, or that he has a relatively lengthy entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, or that the positions he holds in various literary associations demonstrate his stature and the esteem he is held in in various fields. The article is less than adequate, but the comments here are remarkably poorly informed and thoroughly nonconstructive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Care to point to it? Shadikk (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He easily meets WP:NAUTHOR#3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a ... collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There are reviews of his work dating from 1980 in UK, US, Canadian and Australian newspapers like the Atlanta Constitution, The Age, The Los Angeles Times, The Ottawa Citizen, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, etc, etc, plus journals like Journal of Social History and The Times Literary Supplement. There are articles about him and his bookshop in The Daily Telegraph and The Times. They could easily be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria. His work is reviewed. Wm335td (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject easily meets WP:NAUTHOR. Google has some news coverage.-Nocturnal306^talk 21:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Good sourcing. Notable work within his field.BabbaQ (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cinemania (film). Sandstein 20:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Hill

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

no claim to fame except as one of five characters in a documentary and present there merely for being some sort of cinema fanatic. No source establishing notability Sirlanz (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nom says has only appeared in one documentary, any sources I could find were related to that documentary, so doesn't pass WP:GNG, sufficiently covered in Cinemania (film). Achaea (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cinemania. Almost all sources relate to the film. There is more info about her in the sources which discuss the film - either reviews of the film ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) or a couple of books (eg Guiltless Pleasures: A David Sterritt Film Reader [15], Magnificent Obsession: The Outrageous History of Film Buffs, Collectors, Scholars, and Fanatics [16]). They give her former employment (she was a mail carrier), and clarify that she was a collector of cinema-related ephemera. The article on the film has no references, so these new sources could usefully be added there. Apart from sources about the film, I found one other source - an article in the New York Daily News from 1997 about people who walk over the Brooklyn Bridge [17] - Roberta Hill was crossing it between 9.45-10.15 pm after attending an Asian movie festival at a Brooklyn Heights cinema.

The sources in this article provide additional info about this person, including that her grandfather was also a collector, so it would be useful to merge the info and sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of the content to Cinemania. She appeared in one documentary as a film fanatic. The current stand-alone biography article for her doesn't pass WP:GNG. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cinemania (film). The subject is not notable outside the context of the documentary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above discussion, but at least redirect it per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Salvatore

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The one possible claim to notability failed verification. The DJ's name is not mentioned on Billboard Chart. There is not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The references listed are press release generate churnalism. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there's some amounts of coverage on EDM websites, most of it is either trivial or not clearly independent. It's also worth noting that this article has been repeatedly resubmitted by its creator, who appears to be a SPA. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has had a charting release on one of Billboards genre-specific charts and has coverage in electronic music reliable sources such as Your EDM and Dancing Astronauts as defined by the Electronic Music WikiProject, he also has been signed to imprints of major labels such as Sony, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, do you have a source for the charting claim? The one used in the article does not credit AJ Salvatore _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find much be he is credited at the Amazon listing here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the same song though? It's not uncommon for a song to be released, chart, and then be remixed by someone else. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306 (and AuthorAuthor, similar below) I think Rosguill is right, this seems to be a different song. There are over a dozen remixes of Monster, and all of them are named something like Monster (Dave Aude remix); Salvator's is named Monster (A J Salvatore remix) and that's not what listed at billboard. This guy does not appear to have any song that has appeared on any chart. --valereee (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject's work has hit Billboard and Spotify charts and, as pointed out by ~~Rosguill~~ Atlantic306, has signed with major labels. The subject has had wide coverage by the music media. Passes WP:MUSICBIO and meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AuthorAuthor, I think you've confused my comments with Atlantic306's, I voted delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, Just corrected. Thank you for the heads up. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AuthorAuthor, the subject's work has not hit Billboard. He remixed a song that hit the Billboard. There are 7 different remixes of the song. His remix is only 1 of them. There are no sources that his remix was the one that caused the song to chart. The article also does not meet GNG. There is only coverage quasi-reputable music blogs. For example, Earmilk often focuses on up-and-coming artists that are usually WP:TOOSOON for Wikipedia. Even the Earmilk article is not significant coverage. It is basically, "Look so-and-so released a track!" The HuffPost Contributor platform has long been understood to be a pay-to-publish shill publication. All the press coverage he has generated can be purchased. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your EDM, Earmilk, and Dancing Astronauts are reliable websites not blogs, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reliable source coverage. Meets GNG Lightburst (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the apparent confusion caused by the incorrectly included charting song, this DJ has not hit a chart. I'm going to remove that chart reference from the article pending someone verifying it. --valereee (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Billboard has for "Salvatore": Salvatore on Billboard He's not there. He does NOT have a billboard chart appearance. --valereee (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:MILL. Not the same person as Salvatore Licitra, the late opera signer, graphic artist, and sometime DJ. We typically delete articles about DJs - AfDs are filled with them, because they are so run of the mill. There's nothing to indicate this person has DJ'd at a large festival or charted in any way. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a WP:BEFORE. The DJ is not notable. We may has well delete some of the fiction in the article. Does not meet our guidelines for WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG Wm335td (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The confusion over the charts has been cleared up in comments with previous delete votes. The major label connections appear to be usage of label owned distribution services; it's not the same as the criteria of recording for a major label. Coverage cited is of the run of the mill "new release" and interview/promo variety. Whether or not it appears on websites that otherwise contain RS content (EDM, Earmark,etc.), the coverage for this artist is not significant, rather, it is routine. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MacFarlane's bear

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

There is insufficient RS coverage to establish notability as a proposed species. Although events described in the article seem to be factual, it has received practically zero notice from the scientific community aside from classifying it as a misidentified grizzly. If this were of any interest at all, one would expect a biographical entry on MacFarlane and a Smithsonian newsletter about the MacFarlane Collection to at least mention the bear specimen. A BEFORE search returned almost entirely fringe cryptozoological sources. –dlthewave ☎ 23:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The genus Vetularctos and species Vetularctos inopinatus were described, but they are now clearly considered synonyms of Ursus and Ursus arctos horribilis respectively (see here and here). They thus perhaps warrant a mention on a list of synonyms, but nothing more without some better sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grizzly–polar bear hybrid, which this specimen almost certainly was. Eostrix (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source for that? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 1864 specimen is described in various papers, e.g. Journal of Mammalogy in 1954. The Guinness World Record book (yes, not a great source) gives the hybrid explanation as most likely: [18], as does this ABC-CLIO book on Cryptozoology. Eostrix (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ABC-CLIO book on Cryptozoology is a fringe source, not at all reliable. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Requesting more opinions on redirecting the article to Grizzly–polar bear hybrid
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 09:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finding a few mentions, it may need work. "Guinness World Records 2016" "Lives of game animals 1953" "Secrets of the natural world

Reader's Digest 1993" and others.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dufresne, Frank (1991). No room for bears. p. 121. has an interesting single paragraph. They [Canadians] remember well the case of the "Patriarchal Bear" named in 1918 by our C. Hart Merriam on the basis of a single, unique lower second molar found...was for many years hailed as a valuable scientific contribution about an exceedingly rare creature...following scrutiny...cross Vetularctos off... Content for an article somewhere, how much is needed to go against WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES for standalone? Some background and references here—eric 22:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft It is probably worth mentioning that the type specimen has been confirmed to be a grizzly. It would be a very short article, but i think putting good information in place of cryptid articles is worthwhile.—eric 06:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Not worth a redirect to Grizzly–polar bear hybrid; the bear is mentioned there but in a speculative fashion and without any sources, as in:

It has been suggested that...
If the remains of MacFarlane's 1864 specimen...

Should be removed from the "hybrid" article also. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Grizzly–polar bear hybrid, which this animal almost certainly was. The target article already has sections for individual animals, so a selective merge would fit well. Reyk _YO! 17:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two reliable sources which state it was just a grizzly.—eric 19:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable secondary sources don't seem to be there for this. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Grizzly–polar bear hybrid - no reason for complete deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources describe this as a hybrid? It's currently understood to be a normal grizzly specimen. –dlthewave ☎ 13:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found In Guinness World Records 2016 Page 182 of the bookRumors of Existence: Newly Discovered, Supposedly Extinct, and Unconfirmed Inhabitants of the Animal Kingdom by Matthew A. Bille. and many more. WP:BARE. WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Outreach

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

For-pay spam. Fails WP:NCORP comprehensively; near nothing about the subject in reliable sources. ∯WBG^converse 09:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a laudable, but ordinary organization and it's just not yet notable. I also note we have our own mission that does not include providing a soapbox for others. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Broude

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

I'm not seeing citations, or for that matter notability here. Listing for deletion, and would suggest a possible salt since this has been recreated before. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why WP:SALT? It was speedied in 2008 then has had an article continuously since 2009 without deletion; that's not really much of a re-creation abuse threat. --Closeapple (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's a mess, but arguably there are good sources. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep does have a reasonably lengthy AllMusic bio and magazine coverage but I'm not familiar with the magazines, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C100:64E:E585:AF4F:7965:7C6A (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page has gradually demonized me and made lies about me for over a decade. The Allmusic page was clearly sourced form here. This page had accused me of being in a white supremacist band, in bands that I never heard of. Wikimedia has stolen photos from my old MySpace account. I don't want to be on Wikipedia and I don't want any more random stories written about me on here. This makes me feel so uncomfortable. PLEASE DELETE THIS PAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C100:64E:5DAC:88C8:DBBE:8D8E (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Zog is a white supremacist group. I am shocked and offended that Wikipedia has let this happen. There is no "ep". That is all wrong. I didn't try to make a "one man band" and " Il Sesso Che Uccide" isn't a "release". Mp3's were digitally distributed without my permission. Someone did these things to me 10 year ago and this just continues and continues and continues because people are sourcing untrue information from websites like this. I don't want my name on here, I don't want to be on here. I feel violated, slandered, and uncomfortable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C100:64E:5137:7B7C:A9B1:689 (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Striking, duplicate of the vote immediately above. ST47 (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ There are 12 personal photos of me in Wikimedia Commons that were taken from my MySpace account many years ago. "Zog" never had a record and I later found out that word was strongly associated with white supremacy. Whoever added that ..did it with malicious intent. There was also no album so all of that is incorrect. Prior to this it said I was in a band called Panicsville. I wasn't. All Music Guide even wrote that because that article was clearly sourced from this phony information. This entire page is the cause of pages upon pages of misinformation throughout the internet. I don't have a record label so that is untrue. "Il Sesso Che Uccide" was a collection of songs on Bandcamp and someone took 2 of the songs, added a random song, and illegally distributed it in numerous digital stores. I was shocked after discovering this and spent a week filing complaints to get it removed. I never announced anything. I don't have a website, I don't have a community page on any social media, I never announced anything. That cover of "Mascara" was on Bandcamp only. There is nothing notable about it. I don't even have, or use Bandcamp anymore. Not after all of this. The "Sick Spider" band was the most cruel of all. That also doesn't exist and someone attached my name to it. "In November 2012 Broude leaked the seven song bootleg recording, Dead on Arrival" what does that even mean? Someone also posted fake lyrics with my name attached...all over the internet and they used terrible racial epithets. That is the absolute worst, personal photos were taken and plastered all over the internet and around the time that I first discovered this page someone posted porn on numerous websites and attached my name to it. It took me months of complaining to make it stop. If you took out all of the misinformation in this article there would be nothing left but my date of birth which is nobody's business. There are dozens of derivatives of this article on countless other Wikipedia-like pages and this is like a retroactive virus of misinformation about me! Why is there a vote over my dignity and privacy?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C100:64E:40E1:319D:79EB:830C (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Striking, duplicate of the vote immediately above. ST47 (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see that the GNG is met. Interviews do not usually qualify as the significant independent coverage required because the info is presented by the subject. No other notability standard seems to be met.Sandals1 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. One more thing: We should revisit WP:BLP and especially its strong words about potentially false allegations finding their way into Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per human feelings of compassion. Toughpigs (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Outside of AllMusic, I see nothing online: no news articles, no newspaper articles, and nothing significance in magazines. There seems to be more than one BLP violation, and the subject himself appears to want this page removed and salted for privacy. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EatSeeHear

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

For-pay spam. Fails WP:NEVENT with no WP:SIGCOV. ∯WBG^converse 06:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 06:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 06:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it might be notable, but this is a huge mess and we are not a free webhost. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Water Park

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

Awful for-pay spam.

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NCORP by a good few miles. ∯WBG^converse 06:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional, no good sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are a charity, a free web-host for tourist traps. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure promo. –dlthewave ☎ 20:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The indication in WP:GEOLAND is that natural features are "often notable", not that they always are. Consensus in this case is that it is not. Potential to redirect to List of rivers of Missouri if that list was expanded to include meaningful information about this stream, but currently it only gives the name. RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skinner Creek

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

Non-notable body of water in Missouri. The only sources are GNIS (official geoname database) and an toponymic source. A Google search returned no hits beyond a listing on a fishing database. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question What was the Skinner Creek referred to in the "Skinner Creek News" section that frequently appeared in Union, Missouri newspapers in the 1920s? Could it at one time have been a settlement or neighbourhood? ----Pontificalibus 19:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to List of rivers of Missouri and add it there as a tributary of Big Creek (assuming the map Google brings up is accurate). Per WP:GEOLAND, no " notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates" is available, so no standalone article is warranted. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This federally recognized, named creek is notable per WP:GEOLAND, and "information beyond statistics and coordinates" is indeed found in the article, specifically the name origin.– Gilliam (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect No substantive sources establishing notability. The idea that every item on this massive list of mere names needs its own article is preposterous. Being named after something is an insignificant statistic not warranting notability. Content can be provided in a main article, not that we really need to include every small stream. Reywas92^Talk 01:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This creek is so small that there is far from enough info for an encyclopedic article. I usually try to find redirect targets whenever possible, List of rivers of Missouri would need expansion first. The GNIS coords for the mouth do align with a Big Creek, but following that on the map shows it flows into Brush Creek then Meramec River which flows into the Mississippi. List of rivers of Missouri show Mississippi River/Meramec River, but Brush Creek/Big/Creek/Skinner Creek are all missing from the tributary tree. MB 05:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND we keep "lakes, streams, islands, etc" ...information beyond statistics and coordinates is in the article. Wm335td (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of that goes on to say "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." That has not been met with a sentence about the name. MB 04:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, I can't find any reliable sources about such a stream in Missouri, but there is one that night be notable in Wisconsin. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The article plainly states Skinner Creek exists in Franklin County, Missouri, and this fact is supported by a reliable source with coords.– Gilliam (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough RS coverage to write an encyclopedia article. The fact that it's named after something does not establish notability; all names come from somewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Ullah Dawn

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

Non-notable business, head of trade organisation. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage. scope_creep^Talk 18:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. He is literally a used car salesman. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable & fails GNG. (The article creator was banned by wmf foundation for paid editing, this might be one of his paid editing article.) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable minor child. No prejudice against creation of a redirect, but there was no consensus for that in this discussion – some participants explicitly opposed it, while others recommended a redirect to the article about one of the parents (and both parents have articles). RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neve Te Aroha Ardern Gayford

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

Notability is not inherited. Neither the person, nor his/her birth, has significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Sorry. The correct result is a speedy redirect to Jacinda Ardern#Personal life. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal invalid, because of the subsequent "Delete" !votes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for a redirect. Both her parents have articles, and anyone knowing her full name is likely to know the names of at least one of her parents.-gadfium 19:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe that no need for a redirect or Withdraw, Both her parents have articles. Not Enough Establish notability person. Fails WP:GNG.~ Nocturnal^talk 19:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. Notability of children is not inherited from that of their parents. As a general practice we do not name children in parent articles either (unless the child satisfies the notability requirements). Ajf773 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The standards for the existence of a redirect are less than for the existence of an article, and I wouldn't object to the creation of a redirect, but "Delete", "Delete and Redirect", or "Redirect" are all acceptable outcomes to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neve doesn't need an article until she herself becomes notable. pcuser42 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neve has major significance in New Zealand. She is the baby of a sitting Prime Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole brazier (talk • contribs) 10:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Cole brazier (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. ミラ P 15:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contested PROD. No longer a uBLP but is a long way off from meeting GNG. Schwede 66 17:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even Barron Trump does not have a stand alone article, and he is a teenager who has actually been interviewed, had his actions commented on in news stories and the like. Personally I think we should also delete the articles on all non-ruling members of royal families who are not at least 18/died before 18, but that is a slightly distinct issue from here, and here the subject is clearly non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jacinda Ardern. The child's main claim to fame is that she is the daughter of the PM, born while she was in office. She does not currently have any notability independent of this. Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable child. scope_creep^Talk 16:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP to Jacinda Ardern. Our core users will no doubt be scanning Google for this odd name. Delete if and only if you must. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Zawed (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No justification for redirect. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Horton

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

Other than being the first woman to be appointed as a lecturing staff in the department of physics at Cambridge university, I see no reason for her to pass GNG. Daiyusha (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. An obituary in Nature is a strong suggestion that she is notable, but multiple sources would make a clearer case for WP:GNG notability. I don't think our current academic notability standards are well adapted to people who flourished 100 years ago, but according to the obituary she published roughly 25 papers. Google scholar lists 34 for author:ac-davies published before 1940, but those also include a small number of unrelated publications. The citation counts are low but I think that is partly reflective of changing citation styles that make modern citations easier to index. It's perhaps worth noting that her husband Frank Norton (FRS and of unquestioned notability) himself only had 44 papers, most in collaboration with her [19]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak keep — Given the time period, I'm happy enough with the Nature obituary establishing notability. (Frank Horton's obituary in 1957 describes her as "a distinguished physicist and administrator".) I concur that WP:PROF is mostly geared toward evaluating researchers active today. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided are adequate for WP:GNG. Since this person is no longer living it is not a case of promotion like so many biographical entries here are. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Horton was a member of the royal society, and one of the sources says that he published most of his research along with students, "one" of which was Ann, whom he later married. Should collaborating with a student necessarily mean the student becomes notable as well?. Agreed, some of the research she was involved in had a mention in a book, but those books are all published by cambridge themselves, I dont think that is an independent source. Daiyusha (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the books is from Oxford UP, and another from Stanford. Moreover, the two worked as a team, published as a team and are credited together as a team; we don't override that and arbitrarily assign all the credit to the senior partner in a collaboration. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Nature obit is the main source, but it's a big deal. WP:NPROF C1 says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I think this is weakly met here by the Nature obit + other sources pointed out here and in the article. Agree that we shouldn't try to hold her to the citation count standards that we look for in BLPs. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG. Well-sourced considering the time period and the field. No concerns about promotional purpose. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nature obit and vice-principal of a Cambridge college. PamD 13:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can not understand why this was nominated, subject clearly meets GNG. Netherzone (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep History maker and meets general notability. Also, note, that women scientists were not "documented" as widely as their male counterparts and stereotypical fame and fortune isn't a notability requirement, let alone was it common for women in the sciences. If I had a dollar for the number of women scientists nominated for deletion. ""Why we’re editing women scientists onto Wikipedia" Missvain (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Having an obituary in Nature is a big deal. Having photos archived by the University of Cambridge library is a big deal. A clearly notable figure and an important contribution to Wikipedia’s coverage of women in science. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - serous scholar when women just didn't get tenure in STEM fields. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rolling Stone Top 100 top-ten songs in 2019

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

The format of these lists was copied directly from List of Billboard Hot 100 top-ten singles in 2019, but the Rolling Stone Top 100 Songs chart doesn't have the reputation, history, or cachet to make a list of every song that reached its top ten as making the top ten of this chart is not significant and not found in independent sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTSTATS Wm335td (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No part of the criteria listed at NOTSTATS, nor of its parent section at WP:What Wikipedia is not is relevant to this article, therefore it is not a valid reason for deletion. Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seldom do list of top songs end up being kept, unless they are number-ones. Ajf773 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Coles

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

Coles had a somewhat successful career as an opthalmic surgeon and professor, although not sufficient for WP:ACADEMIC. He then embarked on a retirement career as a writer, publishing exclusively self-published works. The list of literary awards includes a number of short list and finalist placings in the William Faulkner - William Wisdom Creative Writing Competition, but no actual wins. Other than clean-up edits, the article has been exclusively edited by three SPA editors, the latest of whom (WHColes) one might safely presume is the subject himself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notable neither as a physician, scientist, or author. Considering his books are self-published, the purpose of this is presumably promotional DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) T*U (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deževa Agreement

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

There is nothing to show that this agreement is notable. With the peculiar use of pronouns and weird grammar, it is a bit difficult to understand, but as I interpret it, only the very first sentence is actually about the agreement, not sourced at all. A Google search for the title finds one single hit outside Wikipedia: This pdf. It says about the agreement: Unfortunately, no documents for this agreement have been preserved, and we know only what Danilo and Pachymeres mentioned. If the article is not deleted, it should at least be draftified until the notability of the agreement can be established by reliable sources and the text is rewritten in proper English. T*U (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. My thanks to DGG for managing to make the article understandable by rewriting it, thereby also indirectly explaining the notability. As the article now stands, I would not hesitate to cast a "Keep" !vote. --T*U (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources at 1, 2, and 3. Mccapra (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The kingdom to which this refers is a redirect to the article on the medieval kingdom of Serbia, which was a major state. The article is either a translation or written by a non-native English speaker, using "her" probably to refer to the kingdom (which should be "it". It seems to indicate a change in policy from alignment with Rome to alignment with eastern Orthodoxy. If so, it is potentially very significant, but I know far too little of Serbian history to be able to comment further. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one ofthe rare cases where the Google translation of the other language's WP article is clearer than what was written here. Though I do not know the language, I boldly modified the present almost indecipherable article on the basis of that translation, and of related WP articles, so it makes some sense. If this is thought inadequate--and it might be--the best course would be to move it into draft and ask for assistance. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article on Serbian wiki is much clearer, it think it is a notable subject, the sources are also there. The absence of english hits on google is not a valid reason for deletion. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless someone can explain why, contrary to appearances, thus isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of BattleTech characters

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

Notability and lack of sourcing. There is no significance to any of this outside of its own universe, and it isn't even adequately sourcing itself from within that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unadulterated fancruft, delete per WP:TNT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Valid spinoff article. The template shows just how many articles there are for BattleTech, it quite a notable series, a lot of shows and publications and games based on it. Best to just have all their characters in one place. Dream Focus 21:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So source it, or else it goes. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most spin off articles of this type have no sources, nor need them. Its sourced to the media. In articles about notable media which have the character list fit inside them, they don't have sources for the character lists, nor do they tell you the plot summary is referenced to the subject the article is about. Dream Focus 22:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion is not true and has not been true for at least a decade now. --Izno (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: FWIW I've put a bit of advice at Dream Focus's UTP. ミラ P 03:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pile of cruft. Delete per WP:NOTPLOT. --Izno (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of my earliest wiki articles where BT fancruft. But I grew up, and now I can sadly say this doesn't meet NFICTION and like. Fortunately, all info is preserved on https://battletech.gamepedia.com/Battletech_Wiki / https://battletech.fandom.com/wiki/BattleTech / https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Main_Page (sigh, 3 wikis, I guess it means 3 egos...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IRely

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

iRely is a small tech start up that does not meet Wikipedia's GNG. They currently have 142 employees listed on Linkedin. Their references primarily consist of press releases, first party sources, and profile pages. Their press coverage is minimal. On Google, the only thing that shows up for iRely are reviews, profile listings, and press releases. This article's sole purpose is to serve as an advertisement for the company. This company does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Sonstephen0 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) ~ Nocturnal^talk 20:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis Xavier Catholic High School

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:GNG with regards to significant coverage. I performed a Google search and most of what came up was a Facebook/Twitter page, routine coverage of events that took place at the high school [20], a page that only lists phone numbers/names of employees [21], another page that only lists the address and phone number [22], and a local news story that includes nothing more than a trivial mention of the high school [23]. None of these qualify as significant coverage of the high school and whether it fails WP:GNG or not, it most definitely fails WP:IINFO.

~~A mention of the high school can probably be made somewhere in Ottawa, but as it stands, there's nothing to substantiate this article other than the name, address, list of employees, etc.~~

To give an example of a high school that does meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, Carbondale Community High School is cited (or is citeable) to five different independent sources, includes a list of notable alumni and section about the sports teams, all of which isn't the case for St. Francis Xavier Catholic High School. St. Francis Xavier Catholic High School is just a case of WP:EXISTS and therefore doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion to have its own standalone article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've been able to add referenced information from searching the archives of the Ottawa Citizen, and it has already had a student who's attracted notice in other media outlets (in addition to a recent missing student case, which I omitted as unencyclopedic). I don't think the presence or absence of a section on sports should bear on notability; that's more a matter of editorial labor, and some schools don't compete, but I added one since the information was there (the newspaper otherwise seems to cover drama productions more than high school sport). For a school started in 2009, I think that's enough to demonstrate notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your additions and given what you've managed to provide, I will withdraw this nomination, seeing as the notability concerns I aforementioned have now been addressed.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Touch Play

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

I cannot find any reliable sources (reviews etc.) on this book; the article itself is nothing but a plot summary and a couple of spammy links. The best I can find on the internet is a mention of Sukumar as a biographer, but it doesn't even list the book (let alone review it), and a couple of things that look like they pulled their brief mentions from Wikipedia or from the publisher. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scuderia Alpha Tauri APT15

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

WP:TOOSOON. Looking at the sources we can see that they are either general sources about what the team are doing in 2020 (in terms of drivers and engines) or when the car is to be launched (one source only). These sources simply don't establish notability for the car and a google search yeilds no sources about the car which make it remotly close to meeting WP:GNG. Further every detail this article provides about the car (excluding who drivers it, the engine manufactor and launch) is either dictated by the rules or speculative. Including the name, no relaible source can verify that the car will even be called APT15. Simply put this article is based almost exclusivly on speculation and the only sources which mention the car even briely is the source which tells us when it launches. WP:SIGCOV is not met.
SSSB (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
SSSB (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entire article is derived from assumption by the author. Not even the name of the car has actually been announced yet.T v x1 19:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toby James

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

Not seeing any real notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews of his books in multiple reliable sources: Elite Statecraft and Election Administration ([24][25][26]), British Labour Leaders ([27][28][29]), British Conservative Leaders ([30][31][32]). And ~500 citations is probably a borderline pass of WP:PROF#C1 in a field like political science. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe. ∯WBG^converse 07:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on account of the multiple book reviews in reliable sources. Uhooep (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lin-ay kang Antique. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lin-ay kang Antique 2016

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

Fails WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. hueman1 (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lin-ay kang Antique. Much better to merge some of the important stuff to the main page. _SUPER ^ASTIG 12:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lin-ay kang Antique, No notability independent of parent article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lin-ay kang Antique. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lin-ay kang Antique 2009

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

Fails WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. hueman1 (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lin-ay kang Antique. Much better to merge some of the important stuff to the main page. _SUPER ^ASTIG 12:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lin-ay kang Antique, No notability independent of parent article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theosophy and music

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

Original research, namely a synthesis of many cases when theosophists did music or musicians were interested in theosophy. Most of the sources are either theosophic (and thus not independent, as WP:RS requires) or not consider the topic in any depth, like mentioning a membership of a person in Theological society. The section "The Theosophical theory of sound" is rather different from the rest of the article, but it does not cite enough independent sources either.

P. S. See also a similar nomination for "theosophy and politics" and the nomination in ruwiki. Wikisaurus (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the reasoning claimed in the nomination, this needs community input about the sources and their relationship to the text.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I see some erroneous material and plain original research. Two examples: Holst had nothing to do with theosophy (his religious beliefs were mainstream protestant and two of his works are included in the Episcopal Church's Hymnal 1982, while his exploration of Hindu religion was a phase). Olivier Messiaen was a standard Roman Catholic and as professor at the Paris Conservatoire he was pretty mainstream; his inspirations were St. Francis and the Transfiguration, not theosophy. While his music was radical, his professed beliefs were not! Is this such a mess it cant be saved? Bearian (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me if you want to save this, otherwise count me as a delete vote. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If someone expressed a desire to fix the article, I would vote keep. But its a mess of WP:OR and essay-like writing. WP:TNT may be the best option here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have desire to fix the article, and already I do it. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:SERGEJ2011 has volunteered to fix the article and the fix is now ongoing. I am hereby relisting so as to give adequate time to reach a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Many "keep" opinions are pure votes and do not argue why the list should be kept. It is true that notability for lists is a difficult and often controversial issue, but that makes it all the more important that people argue why such lists should be kept even absent coverage of the list topic in reliable sources - and only one editor, Pontificalibus, is making arguments to the effect that such coverage exists. Sandstein 06:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist Churches in Leicester

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

NOTE: Methodist Churches in Leicester has been moved to Methodist churches in Leicester per MOS:AT

There's a category for this, and most of these would not meet WP:NOTE. I feel it does not serve a purpose. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, opened 8 January by User:Jerodlycett
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21

--Doncram (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic

I personally consider this disruptive/wasteful of editor attention, and it is worse because notice was not given. I suppose all comments here should be copied to the others and vice versa? Why not just let one AFD be settled, first. Please do not open any more. --Doncram (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question of AFD etiquette is being discussed elsewhere, is not about content of this AFD. I am collapsing this myself. --Doncram (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covered more extensively at this user talk section, but:

Having multiple AfDs simultaneously open on related but different articles is fine. The outcomes may differ due to the differences between the articles (and each article should receive sufficient individual consideration unless there is a clear-cut case to bundle). In this case, I think there is a clearer case for outright deletion of List of Baptist churches in Leicester and Congregational Churches in Leicester.
I also find the verbatim copying of comments unnecessary and wasteful, which is why I requested that Djflem stop doing so. Multiple AfDs can be simultaneously open with natural discussion without asynchronous verbatim copying.

Apologies for forgetting to mention the related AfDs in the original nomination. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That there's a corresponding category is not an argument for deletion, but the category only contains two entries apart from this list. So if this were to be pruned to only include entries with articles, it would not have enough content to merit a standalone list. Redirecting to Places of worship in Leicester might be a good option. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Almost every entry is non-notable. Ajf773 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above cited WP:LISTN states:

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.Djflem (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there is no demonstrated notability, Wikipedia is not intended to be a list of every little thing. Ajf773 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists and Wikipedia:CSC cite other considerations.Djflem (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the topic of "Methodist churches" is clearly valid in the world, and it is reasonable to have a List of Methodist churches (which we do have) and for editors to exercise editorial discretion in splitting it out geographically as seems necessary to keep the size of list down. However, the overall list is not too large, since the United States section was split out a long time ago, and it is feasible and reasonable to cover Methodist churches of Leicester in the main list-article's section on the United Kingdom. So i !vote "Merge" below. About the list-item significance of each separate church, i.e. whether it should be mentioned, that is a question for editors involved in developing/maintaining the world-wide list-article. In discussion at its Talk page, they can decide if they want to limit the list to just places proven already to be individually Wikipedia-notable or to allow other items that seem significant and head off creation of separate articles for each one. That is how this is supposed to work. I don't see any relevance of discussion about "Lists of X of Y", that is not what is happening here. --Doncram (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rename or Merge List of Methodist churches in Leicester Djflem (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect. This is a list of Methodist churches in one area of England, which does not have a lot of useful information for readers. But the topic is clearly within the domain of List of Methodist churches#United Kingdom. Any useful content/sources should be merged to there. We are obligated to look for wp:ATD Alternatives to Deletion and this is a good one available here. --Doncram (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:seems a rather long list to incorporate into target, but not opposed.Djflem (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The deletion nominator states "There's a category for this, ..." as part of why they feel it "does not serve a purpose." The nominator appears to be unaware of wp:CLNT about how lists and categories (and navigation templates) are complementary. Usually, if there is a category then there can be a list. The list can cite sources, include photos, include coordinates and show maps, and otherwise provide substantial information that a category cannot. It also can be extremely useful by including redlinks for items that should have articles (as supported by sources establishing significance) and by including "blacklink" coverage of items that are somewhat significant and can be covered in the list without having to create separate articles about them, thereby heading off article creation. Categories cannot do that; they seem to demand more creation of articles. Here, about Methodist churches in Leicester there should be and is a corresponding list-article already at a higher level. The Leicester category is useful, though, for bringing our attention to at least two Methodist churches not yet covered in the List of Methodist churches in England list. Going forward, Jerod Lycett, please do read and try to understand wp:CLNT. --Doncram (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:LISTOUTCOMES also speaks to this. Djflem (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we have a category means it's not useful for tracking, and given that the vast majority of the list is not notable means the list itself has to serve a purpose. Leicseter has not had an effect on Methodism, and Methodism has not had an effect on Leicsester. I should have stated this more clearly, but since WP:NOTDIR, this also sets a precedent of having tens of thousands of "List of {sect/denomination} {religious buildings} in {municipality/region}". I will say here, I support the idea to Merge it, but I don't think it's what Wikipedia is about to have lists like this. If a place or sect had an influence on the other (strong ties) then I could see listing it out like this. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a corresponding category. The Category:Methodist churches in Leicestershire is for churches in the county of Leicestershire, not for churches in Leicester. Neither of the two churches currently in the category are in the city of Leicester. There is no Category:Methodist churches in Leicester because we don't have any articles on such churches.----Pontificalibus 09:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i wondered about that myself, whether those churches were in Leicester proper or elsewhere in Leicestershire. Whatever, it still makes sense to add those two to the List of Methodist churches and to merge/redirect the AFD subject. --Doncram (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename (as suggested) but better Delete -- At one stage in WP's development, lists with redlinks provided a useful means of identifying where articles were needed, but that time has passed. However, the general consensus is that most local churches are NN, so that converting the list to redlinks would invite articles on NN churches, which would then have to go through AFD. I am sure the Methodist Church will have a website that will list all its churches; and they will update it as churches close and (less often) open. A list such as this has a grave risk of ceasing to be correct if not maintained. Note: Castle Donnington is in Leicestershire (but not Leicester). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that the list should be converted to redlinks. Maybe your perspective comes down to "redirect" rather than "merge" because you might think that there is no content worth merging (besides the two bluelink ones i added, which are apparently elsewhere in Leicestershire). Either way leaves a redirect. --Doncram (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Methodist Churches in Leicester is a notable topic. However List of Methodist Churches in Leicester would violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY while we have no articles on individual churches. The article should be improved to describe the churches, not merely list them.----Pontificalibus 09:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to changing it from a list to a regular article, and would support the keep in that case. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOT in violation of above mentioned WP:NOTDIRECTORY that clearly states:Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic, which this article list clearly does.Djflem (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the article as it stands is a clear violation of #7 "Simple listings". You are quoting the part of the policy that is applicable only to lists of associated topics, such as quotations.----Pontificalibus 18:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, a opening explanation providing context information as cited in #7 - Simple listings without context information - would resolve the issue. Yes, an introductory first paragraph would be good, but its current lack speaks to the state of the article (Wikipedia:UGLY) not the validity of it. Djflem (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with referenced content and prose, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Honestly I don't see enough material available to justify having a separate article about Methodism in Leicester. Methodism is not even mentioned in the Leicester article, which does cover the building of a cathedral and some other stuff about other churches which were important in Leicester. The "notable topic" source identified by Pontificalibus does assert that John Wesley came to Leicester in 1853 to preach, came again in 1857, preached in 1893, and came again in 1894, but didn't he visit lots of places? I did use the source to develop a bit about the Millstone Lane site in the article. Perhaps a sentence or two can be added to sort of "describe" one or a few more, but there is no content about architecture or anything much. The source is mainly a prose list of churches, like in other sections it is a prose list about churches of other denominations. I currently think the Millstone Lane item is worth merging over to the main List of Methodist churches article, but probably not much more. If more information comes available and the sublist of Methodist churches in Leicester is greatly expanded within the main list, it could conceivably be split back out again in the future, but I don't think that is likely any time soon. !Votes to "keep and expand with prose" assume there are both sources and editor interest not apparent. --Doncram (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Searching through contemporary newspapers I am finding lots of articles devoted to the topic. For example here although the article reproduces speeches etc, the first part describes the architecture and facilities of this new chapel in detail.----Pontificalibus 08:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Methodist churches#United Kingdom Draftify or delete: Unless someone goes ahead and rewrites the article into a separate article about Methodism in Leicester, this article should be considered as a list of Methodist churches in Leicester. There are only ~~two~~ zero notable entries in the list and I don't see how the list really fulfills any of the three main roles in WP:LISTPURP separately from the overarching list - only very weak cases could be made for any of the three. It's also not convincing that "Methodist churches in Leicester" is notable as a whole (as opposed to "Methodism in Leicester"). — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC) (two replaced by zero 22:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)) (struck out and replaced !vote 18:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

A merge to what is clearly intended to be a "very limited list" of chapels in the world would be entirely inappropriate. There are now sources in this article to satisfy WP:GNG for the topic "Methodist Churches in Leicester".--Pontificalibus 08:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main list is not intended to be very limited. It is intended to include all notable Methodist churches. You must be basing your judgment about its intent from fact it only has 14 U.K. members which was all those in corresponding categories at time it was created; it certainly should be expanded to include any others now having articles and to include all the Methodist churches in U.K. that Listed buildings of level II* and higher, by the way. I created and did most of the development of List of Methodist churches (although much of that got split out in subsidiary List of Methodist churches in the United States, which has hundreds of entries, reflecting my convenient access to US NRHP database info.). I and others defended it in 2012 utter crap AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local Methodist churches. Another editor patiently explained several times there how lists of buildings get developed by starting at high level, adding items, splitting out sections by geographic areas as necessary to keep overall size down. We might or might not ever need to split out "List of Methodist churches in Texas", etc. But jumping to presume we need to split out "List of Methodist churches in Leicester" is jumping way too far, I don't see that there will be many list-item-notable ones to justify that split out, and it is better for covering them to have them included in context with other Methodist churches in U.K. --Doncram (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By merge, I mean only move the two notable entries over – not the entire list. Unless someone rewrite this article to be a prose article instead of a list, I still don't think that this list should stand on the basis of not fulfilling the criteria of WP:LISTPURP. I also haven't checked the listed sources, but they seem to either be about "Churches in Leicester" or "Methodism in Leicester", but not necessarily "Methodist churches in Leicester". — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly fulfills the first statement made in WP:LISTPURP:The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.

[33], [34], [35], [36] all discuss specific Leicester Methodist Churches in detail, none of which has their own article. I don't see this as being a list article, but an article on Methodist Churches in Leicester which currently contains a bare list as a starting point, but which through WP:EDITING would discuss those churches for which detailed sources can be found. You state "Unless someone rewrite this article to be a prose article..." - that can only happen if the article is not deleted. Indeed the tag currently at the top of the article is for exactly this purpose and states "this article is in list format, but may read better as prose. You can help by converting this article, if appropriate". The reason we have such a tag is that articles like this are not summarily deleted simply for being in list format. ----Pontificalibus 10:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re LISTPURP, this article doesn’t really serve as a valuable source of information, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not.

Re rewriting the article as prose, there hasn’t been demonstrated interest for anyone to do so. Perhaps draftifying would be a solution. I also noticed that the two notable churches aren’t even in Leicester, so the list has no independently notable entries. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page is well on its way to becoming a very good annotated list, which IMO is the best form for presenting this information.Djflem (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List or not, that's an editorial decision that can be taken a later date. What is clear is that there are no grounds to delete, because the notability of Methodist Churches in Leicester has been established by the addition of sources to the article.----Pontificalibus 12:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pontificalibus is doing a nice job finding sources which provide some info about each of several churches, but I still don't think there is anything special about Methodist churches in Leicester or Methodism in Leicester. Now with those four sources ([37], [38], [39], [40]) it seems that four more items could get a bit of annotation at least, although probably not separate articles. Oh I see some or all of those items are now expanded slightly with those sources. By the way, one assertion needs to be modified (the one asserting "George Street was the first purpose built Primitive Methodist chapel" sourced to this. I can't really read that, but I am guessing that this is not the first purpose-built Primitive Methodist church anywhere; it may perhaps be the first one in Leicester.

Looking at the article I think that makes about 6 appear to be noteworthy, at the level of being items in a list (not including the two outside of Leicester). These can be merged into the higher level list-article. Those items having no information besides existence, or only irrelevant info (e.g. sold for use as a furniture store; sold for use as an infant school (whatever that means)), I would deem not to be significant enough as Methodist churches to be included as items there. As some comments indicate, we don't want a directory of all Methodist churches. Editors there could discuss, perhaps disagree on the margin, but basically a list-item should have some source somewhat establishing importance. We don't need a split-out article on the ones in Leicester; it is more efficient for editors to manage a list-article about Methodist churches at a higher level. Perhaps List of Methodist churches in the United Kingdom or List of Methodist churches in England could eventually be split out, but that is a decision for editors at the higher level list-article. Perhaps the ones which John Wesley visited or preached at is interesting, and could be researched and noted there by asterisking or some other way, but this should be done not just for those in Leicester. I think "Merge" remains the best option. --Doncram (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/partial merge Wikipedia is not a directory of every house of worship in every city, past or present, most of which are quite unremarkable. Only those that are notable or historic should be listed and consolidated. Reywas92^Talk 07:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite and give a specific policy based explanation of what you wish to say with the above?Djflem (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be petulant, it's the same reasons I stated on the other AFDs and per Doncram: notable content should be listed at List_of_Methodist_churches#United_Kingdom, the rest is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and tries to be everything. There are millions of non-notable churches, mosques, etc. and it is not our place to list them all across thousands of articles by location and denomination. Reywas92^Talk 08:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of that link are you pointing to: 1.Summary-only descriptions of works 2. Lyrics databases. 3.Excessive listings of unexplained statistics or 4.Exhaustive logs of software updates? None them seem relevent here. Thanks.Djflem (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: You seem to be arguing against everything, so here. 1 and 6 of WP:NOTDIR. WP:LISTN states that the list topic must be notable. Either WP:PROVEIT or show some policy that states it gets an exception. I'm honestly tired of it at this point. Wikipedia has a barrier for inclusion, not exclusion. My, and seemingly everyone else's, argument to delete is that it fails to meet that. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: About Laurel House Publishing (currently a redlink) / "Where Leicester Has Worshipped". Maybe the existence of this book/booklet is confusing matters for some. I don't think it is a substantial source. It looks to me like a person named Andrew Moore has written two books and self-published them under name "Laurel House Publishing". Just because he chose to create a tedious/exhaustive review of churches in Leicester does not, IMO, make "churches in Leicester" a valid topic. The only other "publication" of Laurel House Publishing AFAICT is "ELLIS OF LEICESTER: A QUAKER FAMILY’S VOCATION". I am guessing that the address of Laurel House Publishing is Andrew Moore's residence. If you or I chose to list all the blades of grass in our lawn, and self-published our study, that does not make the list encyclopedic. In the U.S. there is Arcadia Publishing and Turner Publishing Company which mass-produce local history books that are marginal in quality, but do have some decent layout / editorial policy effects. For example they will publish any collection of old photos in a given town, with captions about them, which are nicely formatted. But just because an old building is pictured does not make it Wikipedia-notable (individually or as a list-item), IMO. They are predictable, exhaustive catalogs, not adequate to establish Wikipedia-notability of a topic, IMO. "Laurel House Publishing" is even lower, not registering as legitimate at all, AFAICT. --Doncram (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the address (Redacted) in Leicester is a regular house on a residential street. (Redacted) --Doncram (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Moore, per his Amazon "profile", also published a book on railroad stations in Leicestershire. Don't get me wrong ... I like this guy, I am glad he is a productive local history buff. His photos, material can be used as info in some articles probably. But I don't think his "publications" go toward establishing Wikipedia-notability of any topic. --Doncram (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently a running list with few links. Unless it is amended to a regular page on a particular church with historical impact. Otherwise, this will open the gate to proliferation of list of <insert> in each county. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for improvements According to WP:GNG, it is appropriate or things of the same sort that are not sufficiently notable for a separate article to be covered in a list--an analogy very familiar to me is the many articles on "Schools in..." . Once draftified, the first step is to add some documentation for each of the items listed, which should easily be possible, for hte potential sources are given in the bottom on the list (plus local newspapers). Then, try to expand the sections, it should be possible to add at least dates and locations and first minister for every one of them. Then for any that do seem to meet notability -- and some may if only because of their buildings, as is frequently the case for articles on churches, expand those to articles. The only merge that makes sense to me, is a combined list, for Churches in Leicester. Most of the list will probably be Anglican churches, of which some are certainly old enough to be notable.. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: However per WP:LISTN Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group., and that is my argument for the list to be deleted. I have far less concern about the notability of Churches than of Methodist Churches. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

then call it a combination article. (The number of lists where the group itself has actual documentation for notability is about 1 in 5 ; the number of times that guideline is rejected by consensus is about 50:50. We can do whatever reasonable has consensus. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is a mess and needs significant expansion with some factual information, but as AfD is not cleanup, that's not a reason to delete. Article should certainly be draftified as an alternative in good faith to allow the article to be improved. Bookscale (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not shown Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nupur Sharma

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Local politician who failed to get any substantial coverage and not elected representative yet. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only notability claims stated here are that she was an unsuccessful candidate for political office and that she was president of a university student union — but neither of those are "inherently" notable roles that get a person into an encyclopedia in and of themselves, and the article is not referenced nearly well enough to make her markedly more special than everybody else who's done the same things. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If article reading Clearly shown Fails WP:NPOL. Local politician who failed to get any substantial coverage and she was an unsuccessful candidate Fail WP:GNG. -Nocturnal306^talk 21:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete The subject fails general notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage of them. Also, the subject fails notability guidelines for politicians. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is plainly a run of the mill, non-notable lawyer. Many a lawyer, including me, has run and lost for public office. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not enough coverage, not finding much in searches, fails NPOL. Eagleash (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prohibition Party#Electoral history. Consensus that NPOL/BASIC isn't reached, but that a redirect is most suitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Watkins

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

Article about a person who ran for Vice-President of US under the Prohibition Party but was never elected into office fails WP:NPOL. Lapablo (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While having been a veep candidate could get him in the door if he were shown to have sufficient reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, being a minor party veep candidate is not an instant notability freebie that would exempt him from having to get over GNG on the sources just because he existed. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prohibition_Party#Electoral_history. Rachel Bubar Kelly, Rolland Fisher, and George Ormsby (politician), Rutherford Decker, maybe more, should also be redirected. Don't think being involved in the Prohibition Party post-1930ish is grounds for automatic notability, these don't have substantive sources... Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Prohibition_Party#Electoral_history. We do not have enough for an article here. Failed candidate of a political party. Part of me wants to preserve the little bit we have here with a redirect per Reywas92 Wm335td (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Reywas92. MB 02:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as stated above. --Enos733 (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per nom. Dean Watkins to Prohibition_Party#Electoral_history. unsufficient reliable source. -Nocturnal306^talk 22:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as stated above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that GNG/NACTOR are not satisfied Nosebagbear (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sohee Park

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

Article about a person who fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He has acted only minor roles in movies, when his roles are "Tony's Assistant, Young Korean Lover, Prisoner and a whole lot more its too soon. Lapablo (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. Classic run of the mill character actor who lays a lot of red shirt types. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undoubtedly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: but would be persuaded to change my mind if some reliable references were added to the article. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that individual is non-notable Nosebagbear (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajith Wickremaratne

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

Promotional biography with no substantive non-WP:SPA content. Referenciness is provided by self-published sources, namechecks and press releases. WP:BEFORE finds no independent coverage. Guy (help!) 09:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO - nothing notable about this individual. Dan arndt (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It seems like the references in the article haven't convinced anyone, and being a journalist who was killed is not a notability criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K.M. Basheer

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

This is a WP:ONEEVENT and it should be covered in the larger article where the context is present. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete ~~and redirect to Sriram Venkitaraman (for now)~~ per WP:VICTIM, which states: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. For having a standalone article for the victim, persistent significant coverage is required. Here, K.M. Basheer doesnt have significant coverage. But there is coverage about "death of K.M. Basheer", and the accused Sriram Venkitaraman. All of this, in turn, is because of the accident and death of Basheer. After this AfD, a renaming discussion should take place for the article of Sriram Venkitaraman. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
updated vote —usernamekiran(talk) 22:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : A non-notable journalist -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 12:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why the journalist isn't notable? Explain here, not just comments. Kutyava (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when an article on a journalist only mentions there death it is clear they were not notable enough to merit an article. Wikipedia is not the news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep: Hope there are enough references in the article. Many journalists have been killed in India recently for various reasons. This journalist is one of the last victims. I think it is not necessary to delete the article. -[[User:Akbarali]] ([[Talk:Akbarali|Talk]]) (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbarali: Hi. Basheer was not murdered because he was a journalist. It was a road accident. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Basheer was killed. see the sources: 1 and 2 Authordom (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Authordom: Basheer was not murdered. See the article 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. In the second paragraph it says: Communities along the surrounding coasts of the Indian Ocean were seriously affected, and the tsunamis killed an estimated 227,898 people in 14 countries. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:ONEEVENT ,WP:GNG ,WP:JOURNALIST and WP:VICTIM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete death in a traffic accident is tragic, just tragic. But not "notable" by our definition of notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Stuart (American actress)

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

No references, not finding much about here (but am about another person). Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unless reliable independent sources can be found to establish her notability. I struggled to find good sources for her on news searches. The creator of the article has only provided an anonymous user-submitted source on IMDb as an external link. That's not enough evidence of notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb and a tabloid are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did my due diligence and was unable to find any reliable secondary sources that cover the subject significantly. Missvain (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I feel the actress has met WP:NACTOR (Criterion 1), as she has had a couple of main roles in notable films (Tamara, and more significantly Blackout) as well as a couple of recurring roles—but, as other editors note, sources are needed. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rail & Transload, Inc.

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

No evidence of notability, A job advert or (in effect) directory listing is not enough. Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 09:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 09:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles doesn't pass WP:NORG Wolfson5 (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Search turns up nothing but directories of rail infrastructure and job listings. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhash Kumar

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

This article was originally an autobiography and has since been substantively edited only by WP:SPAs. It is in the florid and promotional language common for Indian PR biographies. It contains much of the WP:PEACOCK. Guy (help!) 09:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 09:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 09:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Poorly written and poorly sourced article with a promotional PR / WP:PEACOCK tone – "renowned", "prestigious" etc. There are a few bits on news searches for him, but not enough good sources in my view to establish significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cops are supposed to solve crimes. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Lack of referncing for a BLP is a problem (and would be a draftifiction case); however, there is little that I can find to support any referencing, and the existance of SPAs mean that draftification is unlikey to work. Britishfinance (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MC Charlene

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

Fails GNG, and NMUSIC if we're generous to even consider it. It is difficult not to notice the glaring paid PR puffery coverage throughout the citations. Her main claim to notability appears to be her receiving the "Scandinavia Afrobeats Music Awards" - an utterly non-notable award. I found 2 other sources: [41] a blog post about a music video she appeared in; [42] and another post about an event she went to. Now, considering the sources listed in the actual article that are not just event announcements or disclosed sponsored posts: [43] & [44] what appear to be puff pieces about a visit to Nigeria; [45] another puff piece; [46] another puff piece, including the wonderful bit: "MC Charlene proved once again that she is the right host for your shows as she hyped the crowd"; [47] what appears to be a release on her Norwegian business; [48] what reads like an event advertisement blog post; [49] photos of an event in Turkey; [50] puff piece with photos about an event in Berlin; [51] yet another puff piece; [52] one more; [53] and an announcement that she won non-notable awards. This leaves us with 3 very questionable sources that are at the heart of her questioned notability (and note that I seriously question the reliability of these sources): [54] this one is a copy of the Poise Nigeria PR post; [55] A FabAfrik article; and lastly what I think is the single quasi reliable source of this entire article: [56], "Cameroonian MC/Host Charlene Slams Nigerian DJs For Not Playing Cameroonian Songs". PK650 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Poorly written promotional article. Not enough found on news searches to establish significant notability in my view. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I so love the idea of her having an article. There are "secondary" sources galore, but, the majority appear to be puffy pieces that are borderline what we see with Bollywood sources. Missvain (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the sourcing is shite - but I so want to see this on the main page on April Fool's Day. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shemar Childs

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

Non notable singer who doesn’t satisfy WP:SINGER nor WP:MUSICBIO. Article may also be a biographical piece Celestina007 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication from reliable sources that subject meets any notability criterion. Blatant self-promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Subject does indeed meet notability criteria and follows correct format and setup. Subject as well used all possible citations and/or sources which were approved by entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemar8810 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which of the provided references meet WP:RS and how WP:GNG is satisfied. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in reliable media.NotButtigieg (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searched for reliable sources, but not enough found to establish notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Subject does indeed meet notability criteria and follows correct format and setup. Subject as well used all possible citations and/or sources which were approved by entity. Sources such as *Observer* follows WP:RS guidelines on being an officially News and Sports Publishing Distribution. Source as well makes sure that all majority and significant minority views have appeared and have been covered by entity. Provided reference is in fact a reliable source due to publisher being a reliable, independent publishing source with a very well known reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Shemar8810 (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can comment as much as you'd like, but each editor is only afforded one vote. GPL93 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion piece that states "Be sure to check out Yung Rose on Spotify and Instagram!" hardly meets WP:ORGIND. Also, I fail to see what relevance a reference to an album named Shemar (by an artist named Yung Rose) has in an article about an artist named Shemar. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Could possibly be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Shemar Childs and Yung Rose are the same person. He changed his Performance 5 months ago. How can this page be improved to be accepted? Would like advice and to understand what can be done. Shemar8810 (talk) 3:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As indicated above, do not vote to keep multiple times. It is disruptive. For what its worth, thank you for clarifying. However, I do not see the subject of this article (which I presume is you) meeting inclusion criteria. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity page. Googling finds no significant coverage under either name. Sideline observer is not a significant source for establishing notability; it is an aspiring website not of reporting/news gathering but of opinions and commentary run by and for college students (see this)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jacob Sartorius discography. Play not viewed as notable, consensus now established for redirect target Nosebagbear (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Left Me Hangin'

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

Non-notable extended-play (EP). This page shows no notabilty at all. The only thing close to notability is that it had a good review on “Critical reception”. That is not enough. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It cites its sources, but the only sources are for Mr. Sartorius' website, a concert release, and a review. If there are more links to work with then I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could also accept it being redirected. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Jacob Sartorius~~ Jacob Sartorius discography. Note that Billboard says that the album reached their sales chart [57], but that isn't quite enough because the album received no reliable reviews and only a few brief announcements of its existence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think if we redirect it, we should redirect it to Jacob Sartorius discography, not Jacob Sartorius. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. None of the sources are independent, published sources offering in-depth coverage. The closest is a review on a blog, which isn't good enough. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Redirecting to Jacob Sartorius discography would also be a good outcome. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Jacob Sartorius~~ Jacob Sartorius discography. It's not notable enough for an article, but I think a redirect could help aid user searches: say if they've heard of the EP but can't recall the name of the artist. --Voello _talk 02:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I commented before, and you still want to redirect to Jacob Sartorius? Why not Jacob Sartorius discography? Redirecting to the discography is better. There is more info about Left Me Hangin’ on the discography then there is on Sartorius’ official page. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Discography article is a better redirect target. I have adjusted my vote above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, since it has more information it would be a better fit. --Voello _talk 21:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of whether it would be better to delete, or redirect, and where to redirect if so, is still ongoing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacob Sartorius discography. It failed to make it to any charts. I could find in-depth coverage from one additional reliable source (You need Jacob Sartorius’s new EP ‘Left Me Hangin” in your life) and various trivial mentions, but it's still not enough to meet WP:GNG. Please note that there is already a redirect from Left Me Hangin (without the apostrophe) to Jacob Sartorius discography. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manna (drone delivery company)

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

Approved at AfC and moved to mainspace. A small start up that hasn't done anything (yet) other than R&D and receiving funding. Has sources but none are mainstream, the ones with non promotional content basically repeat the same information. Some sources are decidedly dubious. The company has a novel idea but for Wikipedia an article is simply too soon. Let the community decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At least 1 mainstream source (The Irish Times) has written about the company. As a note to anyone else looking for information on this company, Manna (www.manna.aero) the Ireland/Wales based drone delivery startup is not to be confused with MANNA (mannarobotics.ai) the San Francisco/Oklahoma based drone delivery startup 2.

And that is only about a paltry 3mio seed fund. If Wikipedia were to have an article about every minor start up or novel idea there would be another million articles in it. One source to the Irish Times does not notability make, however reliable the publication is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd disagree and say $5.2 million for a seed is not small. Also it can be seen in action here --Coolmandan (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the AfC reviewer that accepted the draft, I am starting to think I made the wrong call on this one. According to the Companies Registration Office the company was only registered on 11 April 2019? Coolmandan would you like to comment? Also the number of 'according to's in the Irish Times article could indicate it is based on a press release. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Curb Safe Charmer Unsure on how it was registered but it is also found registered in the US here in July of 2019. I think since it is a start-up, it may have had discussions, formalities or changes, unsure - I could update the article page to reflect these finds? Manna is mentioned in Forbes and featured in the 100 hot start ups. I think in terms of having an article on Wikipedia then it is useful since there is a growing number of articles, interviews and mentions of the company; as well as partnerships of flipdish. --Coolmandan (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Safe Charmer, Kudpung: Hey There has been no more discussion on this matter and has been a week since opened. There was this article recently outlining more of the companies plans. --Coolmandan (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a platform for listing every minor start up, whether they have a fleeting mention in Forbes or not. Not wishing to canvass here, but let's let our top notability expert chime in: pinging DGG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normally in a situation like this I would simply say return to draft space. But I really don't see how there is likely to be context for an article until they become at least minimally notable . The policy here is NOT DIRECTORY.

But even more imprtant than the fate of this draft article is our policy on conflict of interest. Coolmandan, as this is the only article you havewritten,and it's not usual for someoneto have a merely generla interes in a very new company, itis reasonable to ask you whether you have any confliction of interest as we define it in WP:COI, and, if relevant, whether you have been paid directlyt or indirectly or as part of the job duties to write this article? DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree DGG and Kudpung. The only real results I can see on Google are for TechCrunch and a few other publications who write about startups, as well as their own company website (which actually didn’t hit the top entry for me!) It’s not clear that they notable enough at the current time. I think for now best to delete, later it may become notable. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. althought the company received a big fund to start the company but this is not the notability guidelines in Wikipedia. Subject fails WP:NCORP. Would suggest to delete instead of draftify as for a company to pass the notability would take many years to gain WP:SIGCOV of WP:RS and WP:IS sources coverage. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Fits WP:TOOSOON. Back to draft only if reasonable COI concerns raised are dismissed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Fits WP:TOOSOON. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other contributors. A relatively new, small and non-notable company that hasn't "done" anything yet. Other than receive some funding. And to get the press release on that funding round "printed" in a few places. WP:NCORP and WP:GNG is not met. Guliolopez (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, can't argue against that. Thanks all for explaining. --Coolmandan (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Creator of the article is a WP:SPA and might be associated with the said company. Furthermore, the AfC reviewer really made a wrong call accepting this one. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 00:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per xargs. scope_creep^Talk 02:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not xargs. Must have been sleeping. Fails WP:NCORP. Asserts on the policy like a glove. scope_creep^Talk 17:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP userdude 03:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails the criteria for establishing notability NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a start-up whose only notability is connection to a new invention. FWIW, my father's parents were born in Ireland and Wales, respectively. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malvika Raaj

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

Unknown actress. Acted in 1 film. Nepotism. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete subject lacks significant coverage, thus fails general notability guideline. I couldnt find anything about the film "Jaydev" mentioned in the article. She had a minor role in one film (Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham), hence she doesnt satisfy notability criteria for actors either. All other films mentioned in the article are upcoming ones. It is WP:TOOSOON to have an article. Once she passes notability criteria for actors, the article can be created again. But it is a delete for now. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for her! Missvain (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: based on failing to meet WP:NACTOR. I have no idea if she is notable as a model. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect is up to editors. Sandstein 19:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finarfin

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

Prod contested by User:Ceyockey as "this is not a non-controversial edit and should be taken through AfD." This figure fails WP:GNG. This article receives some mentions in reliable secondary sources, but not the sort of mentions that would allow us to build an article about the character. One Mythlore article mentions Finarfin three times, all in the context of the etymology of the Elvish word "fin." Another article in the same journal mentions him seven times, but in the context of the "sons of Finarfin" or the "house of Finarfin", communicating us no real information about Finarfin. In fact, many of the mentions to Finarfin are in this manner, and the others are too brief and in-passing for us to build an article about this figure without relying too much on primary sources. Hog Farm (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the reason I deemed this to be unsuitable for PROD was a) the number of editors involved in composing it and b) the observation that other characters had gone through AfD, albeit they were by and large deleted through the AfD process. I did not want to judge this a case of WP:SNOW, which is why I de-prod'd the article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. Hog Farm (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Finarfin is only briefly mentioned in a few Mythlore articles. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have enough indepth sources to show notability. The detail and citation and analysis in the nomination show that the claim that these LotR related deletion nominations are not being done with undue speed or vigor. On the other hand the mass creation of so many of these articles so early in the history of Wikipedia, many even minor Tolkien related articles, like Barahir, were in the first 100,000 articles on Wikipedia, was unjustified and is one of the causes of the dysfunction of Wikipedia from its creation to the present. We need to rid Wikipedia of Silmarillion cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert: Whatever the merits here, redirects are cheap and they are useful to readers searching for help, even if only brief. I suggest we point this at Fëanor. It may be worth saying that while many of us may feel the Silmarillion to be far less interesting than the Lord of the Rings, it gets some 600,000 hits a year, so our readers definitely consider it significant, and its characters worthy of attention. We should handle those requests gracefully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have no way to say what percentage of those looking up the Silmarillion want more than an extremely basic overviewed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not, but we do know that there are also many hundreds of thousands of hits on Silmarillion characters, spread over many articles that are currently being deleted. In addition, the genealogies in many of these articles reflect those drawn by Tolkien himself. All three facts show that it would be wrong to speak of Silmarillion-related material as pure fancruft. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geneologies drawn by Tolkien himself are primary works. I am also beginning to think including them here borders on copyright violation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a minor character in a minor work.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Middle-earth characters#F. Goustien (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge: Finarfin is one of the slightly bigger B-list characters, and we should give thought to where House of Finarfin (and perhaps the family tree of that house) should go when the article is removed. The current entry at List of Middle-earth characters just says "Finarfin: First Age elf, son of Finwë", i.e. it points back to the soon-to-be-removed article, and another like it, so that'll soon be really unhelpful if we just delete and redirect. What we need to keep the encyclopedia in a sensible state is to merge a small bit of the Finarfin account there, with a suitable source, so that readers can make sense of the coverage. I suggest we point it to Fëanor and add a few words of description about Finarfin there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I considered relisting due to the close division of numbers, but based on the arguments this is a pretty clear Keep. Most of the arguments for deletion, including the nomination, do not seem to recognize that outlines are a navigational feature, and therefore are not treated as redundant to regular articles or lists. The comments about the need to maintain the outline are relevant, but appear to have been addressed during the AfD. Most of the other on-point comments evaluate this as a useful and appropriate outline, so the overall result is Keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Middle-earth

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

Maybe I'm wrong and there is a place for vague topic outlines like this in Wikipedia, but the content here is duplicated in many other places. Even if this article, which duplicates articles such as Middle-earth, List of Middle-earth characters, and Arda (Tolkien), this outline has serious fancruft issues, probably half the stuff linked here are redirects, it would likely require a WP:TNT delete. Hog Farm (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Outline pages for large topics are reasons, and there's no question there's a lot of Middle earth topics that notable despite the present number of AFDs. It is rare for a topic on fiction to have this much but ME has had a great deal of study to support this. That said, it does need to be trimmed where there are excessive use of redirects - the only major links should be to standalone pages. --Masem (t) 03:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CLN says articles like these can exist alongside categories, but it also says editors may decide that certain methods of listing are inappropriate. These kinds of lists are just impossible to keep up on with how much fiction fluctuates. Even something like this where the original author has been dead for decades constantly has pages added and deleted due to new works still being made. Without a project dedicated to keeping it up to date, it'll just stagnate like one of the other recently deleted ones. I'd say at best the lists of non-fiction items not already covered in Middle-earth should be merged there. TTN (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not the role of an encyclopedia to provide glossaries for fictional worlds when reliable secondary sources don't reference such glossaries. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think this is a duplicate of any of the linked articles: this is explicitly an outline, while Middle-earth and Arda (Tolkien) are broad topic articles. I agree there is overlap between Outline of Middle-earth#Characters and List of Middle-earth characters, but the organization is very different: the former orders them by historical period and association, the later in alphabetical order. I do agree that listing redirects is problematic, but this can be resolved. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just a galaxy of fancruft. There is no Middle-earth franchise.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masem and BenKuykendall. Also, there is in fact a Middle-earth franchise. The Tolkien Estate that controls the intellectual property of JRR Tolkien has chosen to license his works for a plethora of commercial adaptations, from the Peter Jackson films to Lego sets. This is by definition a franchise. De728631 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can adequately cover these things in the articles on Middle-earth and probably in some ways more to the point in the article on J.R.R. Tolkien himself. If the LotR TV show takes off the ground in a truly dramatic way, than this might be something worth revisting. However that is an event that is not going to happen unitl at the easliest 2021, so we have a long time until then. We do not need this article until that TV show actually exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also per Masem and Benkuykendall. This is a useful outline, and it would be a shame if it were deleted. It serves a different purpose than the Middle-earth article. After a little cleanup and a link from that article to this outline, the utility of this outline would be undeniable. BirdValiant (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:25:2C81:FAD:F228 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful index type article and different enough from the rest. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 11:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Index pages for en.wiki's fiction coverage are usually badly maintained, and this is no exception: it seems 50-70% of the in-universe topics are either black-linked, red-linked or redirects, and it will just get worse. The navigation templates for the franchise are up-to-date, easier to maintain, and easier for navigation purposes. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgeureka:: This has been improved, for the most part. See this diff. I agree the navboxes for the franchise are quite nice. But nav boxes and outlines serve different purposes. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for navigation purposes. AfD is not for fixing red links. FWIW, I like it. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like a good enough article, even if it's only use is for navigational purposes. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is comparable to Outline of Narnia, Outline of Star Trek, or Outline of A Song of Ice and Fire franchise. Goustien (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Bangabandhu Cup squads

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

No lead, no content added. Only 1 team squad added, very unlikely that others will be added. Anbans 585 (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if this was fully populated it would not be notable per WP:GNG (no coverage of the topic) or WP:NOTSTATS/WP:LISTCRUFT. We only keep squad lists for major international tournaments like the World Cup. Giant Snowman 17:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No-Notable, Lower important. Fail WP:GNG.-Nocturnal306^talk 22:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Road

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

This road is no different from the many other common streets in the Downriver area of Wayne County. It is not (and never has been) a state trunkline road, has no distinguished history, architecture, or notability. —Notorious4life (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—a quick search on http://michiganhighways.org confirms that this wasn't a state trunkline highway. Absent that, we'd look to WP:GNG, and this article fails to meet that bar, thus it should be deleted as non-notable. Imzadi 1979 → 16:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic road; writing up what you see driving down it or on Google StreetView is not encyclopedic content, and a resurfacing project is not grounds for notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and not fit for an encyclopedia unless we can find significant non trivial coverage in reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret per WP:OUTCOMES. Being a public transportation stop, sadly, is not considered notable; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkside Avenue. I disagree with the consensus, but it is what it is. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign of significant coverage to establish notability. Route description appears to be OR and contains unsourced speculations, for example "A Costco store is also rumored to build on the former Gibraltar Trade Center site along with Menard's, but the future is not yet know". –dlthewave ☎ 19:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Routledge (author)

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

Non notable author who doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR. I don’t see any evidence subject of article has won any notable awards hence WP:ANYBIO also is not satisfied here. Celestina007 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A simple search turned up zero reliable sources. There is nothing to show notability. Sorely fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I was not aware of the notability criteria beforehand and take full responsibility for it. Won't happen again.DarayaK (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. WP:TOOSOON perhaps. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Jmertel23 (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. WP:TOOSOON perhaps. NotButtigieg (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Self published books do not show notability and fails to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk sources lead to junk articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedurally closed. For some reason, the nominator opened this AfD twice, and the other one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. K. Parakkadavu (with no space before the "P."), resulted in "keep". This second AfD is redundant. Sandstein 20:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. K. Parakkadavu

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

Fails WP:GNG Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 23:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2020 (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/2020 January 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not indepth enough sourcing to justify an article on a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. K. Parakkadavu

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

Fails WP:GNG Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 00:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strogly Keep: Because he is one of the recipients of the 2016 Kerala Sahitya Akademi Awards. Kutyava (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)(https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/kerala-sahitya-akademi-awards-announced-1.2620049), (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/sahithya-akademi-awards-announced/article22819193.ece) and author of more that one hundred books. Some of his book are available on Google Books.[reply]
Keep He's from Kerala and I don't speak the language he publishes in, but searching quickly shows that he is celebrated at literary festivals and, unlike the many wannabe writers of the world, he's the real deal. The Hindu: [58].NotButtigieg (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The subject passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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