Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 November	15 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete and redirect to Now TV (Sky). JGHowes ^talk 01:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Picnic

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

Sky Picnic was never launched and was superseded by NOW TV. This probably is not notable enough for a page. Could it be merged into Sky, or NOW TV? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A redirect would not make sense as this is not mentioned in either of the articles for Sky or Now TV (Sky). Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selective merge to Now TV (Sky). That's probably the best place to briefly cover this topic. Since it never launched, there isn't need for this much detail.4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Oakland County Cruisers. JGHowes ^talk 01:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond at the Summit

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

Stadium was never built, and there seem to be no plans to build in the future. The team it’s connected to is now defunct. Could these be merged together into Oakland County Cruisers Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Bubbasax (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A proposed development that was never initiated so the article is pointless. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the team article, where all the content here appears to be duplicated anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oakland County Cruisers. If it ever does get built, preserving the article history may be useful later.4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take Control (Dangerous Muse album)

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

Cannot find any evidence of this album ever existing through secondary sources. Cannot find any confirmed track listing. Unless there are any other sources that can be found, this probably shouldn’t be classed as notable. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with the nominator, there's no evidence this record was ever released. It's not listed on the band's iTunes page for downloading, or even on their own website. Incidentally, I notice that if you click the "Bio" link on the band's website for details about them, it actually takes you directly to their Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The band itself seems barely notable. Their latest album, "Electric Eternity," appears to be self-released in digital format only, with a couple of blurbs that also happen to comprise the band's total media coverage. "Take Control" isn't even on their iTunes store, which I gather from their media coverage is their main means of distribution. Skeletor3000 (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is WP:PROMOTION Lightburst (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:PROMOTION. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possibly an attempt at promotion, or fancruft (selfcruft?) to make the group's history seem more robust than it really is. As stated above, there is no evidence that this record was even released, and even if it was it is still not notable as either real or legendary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like WP:PROMOTION. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A consensus that the subject meets WP:PROF#C5, which is sufficient to meet notability per WP:NACADEMIC (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Spilde

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

As far as I can see, she is an associate professor. Academics are not really my area, but this likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet GNG. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Endowed Chair of the Sycuan Institute on Tribal Gaming at San Diego State University may qualify for WP:PROF#C5. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GNG is less interesting than WP:NPROF here. Her title is listed as Professor on the SDSU webpage, and I updated the article. I didn't find much sourcing for the career section. She is director of the Sycuan Institute per this link (but I didn't see anything about an endowed chair). And the University of Nevada Las Vegas has a collection of her papers, per this link. I'll also note that she seems to sometimes use the name "Kate Spilde Contreras". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The "endowed chair" bit is on her SDSU profile page. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the SDSU webpage, the body text has "associate professor", even if it has "professor" under the photo. So I have changed it back. I've never heard on an endowed chair for an associate professor. Edwardx (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter, Right. You can also find SDSU news sources that so refer to her (and which are a bit more secondary). Searching with the other name also helps in finding sources... But her official title is Professor, and not Sycuan Professor (per the SDSU profile page, at least). It's looking to me like she's just director of an institute which pays part of her salary. @Edwardx, the listing in the department directory is almost surely more authoritative and up-to-date than the narrative profile. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: a link describing the endowed chair that Spilde now holds. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Endowed chair or not, citations on GS do not meet criteria forWP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5. It seems as though Spidle is a professor and endowed chair. TJMSmith (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's unclear to me why they thought she warranted an endowed professorship but I trust their judgement more than I trust our own more-limited view of her case. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:PROF#C5, holding an endowed chair at a major institution of higher education and research. Her profile on the university website says that she is both Professor and Associate Professor, but Professor appears with her contact details, and Associate Professor in the text, at the end of a sentence starting "In 2008, she was named the Endowed Chair ...", so I assume that the contact details section is up to date, and the text may not have been updated. So she also meets WP:PROF's requirement that "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level". RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Although I agree with David Eppstein, the WP:PROF#C5 does seem a little more marginal than usual. The collection of her papers held by UNLV helps bring me to the keep side. RebeccaGreen, she's definitely full prof: the promotion news item from 2018 is linked in the article history. (I'll go now and put it also in the talk page, but WP:DUE seems to argue against making a big deal about her promotion in the article.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Scholar hits are not required for passing WP:PROF; they are only one way of doing so, and in Spilde's field, they may not be all that illuminating one way or the other. The WP:PROF#C5 case is adequate. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we almost always keep endowed chairs at well-known universities. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only needs to meet one of the 8 criteria listed in WP:NACADEMIC - as listed above, she meets WP:PROF#C5. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Francis

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

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Edwardx (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, clearly WP:PROMOTION. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Writers and public speakers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but this is not referenced to the depth of reliable source coverage about her that it would take to get her over WP:AUTHOR or even WP:GNG. By far the majority of the footnotes here are primary sources which are not support for notability at all, and the few that are reliable source coverage in real media are entirely local coverage in local contexts (like attending luncheons) in Saskatoon and Swift Current, not evincing the geographic range needed to make her notable enough for an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly is an promotional article. مضحرالعجایب (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a case of WP:PROMO. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search yielded no independent coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Pullavar

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

Subject not notable. This biographical article only details one event in the subject's life, with no apparent means of expanding the article. A summary of the content of the article is already present in Levitation (paranormal)#Hinduism. Additional sources offer no information about the life of the subject outside this single event. Info about the levitation event is unreliable in most cases and found in tabloid-type sources. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim to fame is that he performed a magic trick that his audience did not figure out? I assume there isn't more otherwise it would already be in the article. Sgerbic (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A passing mention in a book is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I'm not finding any other sources that meet the notability criteria. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Levitation (paranormal).4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia Frost

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE revealed nothing except that the character doesn't even appear very notable within her fictional universe. -2pou (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Minor comic book character, at best delete to whatever list she is mentioned in.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of X-Men enemies. BOZ (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I would not entirely be opposed to a merge to the List of X-Men enemies list. I had originally thought about proposing a redirect to the Emma Frost page, but that would probably cause unnecessary confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: F where the character is already mentioned. Not opposed to a merge to List of X-Men enemies but she is currently not on that list.4meter4 (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. Jay (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nanny (comics)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just plain fancruft, non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of X-Men enemies. BOZ (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to List of X-Men enemies.`4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. -Jay (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PLOT/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Santa Ana, California mayoral election

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

De-PRODd article. Not a notable election. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Ana, California is the 57th largest city in the United States. SecretName101 (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Just because an election happened doesn't mean there automatically needs to be an article for it. Please do not continue to mass-create articles for positions that don't necessary pass WP:NPOL. This merely says the one-line results three times (in the prose, infobox, and election box); where is the content and the substantive sources? The official results do not count just for being from both the city and county. A possibility is List of Santa Ana, California mayoral elections, which could also be combined with a List of mayors of Santa Ana, California, but individual content-free articles are not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not a notable election and nor pass WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a notable election. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Reywas, I think this might be better merged into another article. I would also put forward 2018 California municipal elections or 2018 California mayoral elections or even 2018 United States mayoral elections as possible alternatives. Number 5 7 17:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere, perhaps to Miguel A. Pulido. I say, not delete, because Santa Ana CA, is a city of over 300,000, so there's likely to be coverage in the media Bearian (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, I see very little in the Orange County Register, the main paper for Santa Ana. The editorial page made an endorsement, there was one article the week before the election about it, and then they reported on the results. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leave merge note as non-notable topic. Since the information is pertinent to other topics such as List of mayors of Santa Ana, California, we can add a little note about it where it should be merged. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with comments above. It is not a notable election and nothing much to cover that deserve an article in Wiki - Jay (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lion Air#History. Content remains behind the redirect for merging if desired. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Air Australia

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

This collaboration never seemed to “take off” (if you’ll pardon the pun.) Should we still allocate an entire page to a project that is extremely unlikely to ever launch, after one of the major partners went into liquidation more than 10 years ago? At the very least it probably needs to be merged rather than kept as it is. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Merge with redirect to Lion Air#History. LA was the minority partner due to regulations (?) but the airline was intended as part of their expansion strategy[1]. Also see id:Aussie Batik. Batik Air#History is later and sufficiently different in scope to not be a suitable target. Note that the principal author tried to prod/speedy it back in 2010... ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. the collaboration indeed never did "take off" *hahaha* Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was just an idea or plan, and the unrealized one. It should just be in a small "part" (2 lines) in Lion Air. Not merge but delete - Jay (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Textile tourism

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

Reads as a novel synthesis from (unreliable) primary sources. Guy (help!) 20:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Sources maybe hard to find in the western world centric sources, but this topic could be broad enough to be notable even though current sources are total junk Graywalls (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. There are so many typos and dead links we need to start from scratch. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do not see any value or substantial info coming from the article. For short definition such as that, it should be in Wiktionary than here - Jay (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brain dump

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

Unsourced WP:DICDEF. This is more suited for Wiktionary. shoy (reactions) 15:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is a reasonable topic and the main point of WP:DICDEF is that we should gather such topics under a common heading, rather than having a separate entry for each form of words. As a formal process, I know this as a transfer of information and that redirects to knowledge transfer. Another reasonable title for this is a debriefing. By the current title of "brain dump", the activity seems to be recognised as a pedagogical technique – see Brain Dumps: Write Down Everything You Can Remember, for example. And there are lots of self-help or journalling books which have this in their title. So, there seems to be plenty of options here to explore and so we should retain the page for further development per policies such as WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a dictionary definition without the contextual and historical information needed to make an article encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not worthy of an article, but could be a "dab" or Wiktionary page. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D. Agreed that this is a workable article (see here for one possible source). There's a lot of hits in my university database search, including peer reviewed journal articles. It seems like there might even be more than one possible article here with the need for disambiguation. Right now the page is serving as a placeholder or disambiguation like page for three possible areas of coverage that need expansion.4meter4 (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced DICDEF - if you want to add it to Wiktionary, go ahead, but there's nothing sourced here so nothing to merge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article looks more like a dictionary definition, and nothing to merge here. Jay (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Leaning towards keep, as several reliable sources were discussed and don't seem to have been specifically challenged. ST47 (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Batagov

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

I found https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2018/03/21/classical-cd-of-the-week-anton-batagovs-bach-is-for-tripping/ but I cannot find any unaffiliated sources that discuss the subject or his works. At the very least, the article (and the Russian, French and Japanese ones) need to be re-written to remove unsourced content and promotional tone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. One should simply do search in Russian and immediately find numerous books with non-trivial description of the person, [2], news, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Even the Russian sources are passing mentions or not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, absolutely not. These Russian books are totally reliable RS, and they cover the subject in depth and clearly establish his notability: "Антон Батагов — широко известный композитор, пианист, общественный деятель — лидирующая фигура в искусстве minimal art. Музыкальные события последнего времени — концерты в Москве, Пермский международный ...". My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - A passing mention in a book is proof that it covers the subject in depth? I take it that's why they're not used in the Russian-language article either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please check the book. At least five full pages are about him, and this is an academic-oriented book on the subject of music in 20th century. The subject is described as a "leader" in his area. This is nothing "passing". My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, only brief mentions in sources and promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.12.89 (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NMUSIC. He was a finalist in the 1986 International Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow. His recordings and compositions have been reviewed in major publications, and his work has been studied in academic publications within the field of musicology. See:

"BACH: Partitas 4+6; Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring.(Guide to Records)"; Haskins, American Record Guide, 2018, Vol.81(1), p.69(1)
"Film Reviews: MUSIC FOR DECEMBER"; Stratton, David; Jul 24, 1995; Variety (Archive: 1905-2000), Vol.359(12), p.74
"First Performances"; Tempo, 1992(182), pp.25-32
"Winning and losing in russian new music today.(p.487-511)"; Quillen, William; Journal of the American Musicological Society, 2014, Vol.67(2), p.487(25)

Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to Keep as GNG refs have not been challenged; try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This editors votes are problematic as per their talkpage here and here, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifthavenuebrands: I checked yesterday saw that that this was a new account. And it is usually not the place to begin editing so quickly. The first edit was to nominate an article for deletion. That is usually something for an experienced editor. And then !voting 56 AFDs in 36 minutes. Please slow down. There is not a good way to asses notability so quickly. Wm335td (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable - Jay (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arkadius

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

PRODded in 2010 as obvious vanispamcruftisement, with all substantive content being by WP:SPAs, and recreated by another WP:SPA. References are mostly self-published, some don't mention the subject, and the rest are brief collection reviews in Vogue. Probably the most compelling point to me is that the leading proponent of having this article, and pretty much the sole editor, appears likely to be the subject or his PR. Guy (help!) 18:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some sources are his own website, some don't mention him at all, and the rest appear to be reports on fashion shows he participated in with no depth of commentary or analysis. I'm out of my element here, as high fashion is far outside my interests, but it seems reasonable that name mentions alone don't establish notability. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4U TV

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

Not notable. removed in other wikis. ARASH PT talk 18:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ARASH PT talk 18:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable and fails WP:GNG - Jay (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Statlander

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

The entire article is built on 1 source, which although reliable cannot be used to establish notability. I cannot find anything out there that does Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment: sources found: canoe.com, deadspin.com, frightful.com, weestling-news.net, ringsidenews.com Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These links aren't working as listed, but they do work after trimming the parameters off the URL (e.g. remove "&ved=2ahUKEwie1b7..."). Just a heads up. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, apologies, fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:POET - Jay (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus the subject now meets GNG post a WP:HEY by RebeccaGreen (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Allanach

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

Fails WP:GNG. I've only found one proper source, which is the obituary that is already ref'd in this article. Scrolling down Google does not bring up anything that's quite better, aside from a few mentions in a magazine with no biographical information, a document with prohibited access, and a website that seems down. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 16:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 16:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 16:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think. There is several GBook references available. She was the first women Fellows of the Institute of Actuaries. [3]. I think a deeper search in archives will find more as she seemed to very vocal. scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have added a couple of new sources, and she appears to have been a pioneer woman in her profession and to have supported her successors. It's unfortunate that my computer doesn't trust the pages of The Actuary website, so I can't check all the relevant material. PamD 17:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more sources and information. I was able to access the obituary through a Google cache, as my computer also didn't trust the website, and the page has unfortunately not been archived. There is significant coverage in the Actuary obituary and an article in The Daily Telegraph in 1970, when she was appointed deputy actuary at the Prudential - the first woman to reach management level in that firm, as well as the first woman on the council of the Institute of Actuaries. There is also coverage, though not as long, in a 1971 article in The Sunday Telegraph; in the Birmingham Daily Post, which noted in 1968 that she was the first woman elected to the council of the Institute; and in the Daily Telegraph, which noted when she was appointed to the Secretary of State's advisory panel. I believe that she meets WP:BASIC, if not also something similar to WP:ACADEMIC for the impact on her profession of her achievements and her writing (as noted in her obituary). RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the Telegraph story and the Actuary obituary are enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY after the good work by RebeccaGreen. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ferrier

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

Fails WP:POET. Andrew Base (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:AUTHOR, and the referencing isn't good enough to get him over WP:GNG. One of the two footnotes is a primary source that is not support for notability at all, and the other is a glancing mention of his name in an event listings calendar that isn't about him in any non-trivial way, which is not enough all by itself just because it happens to be in a newspaper. We're looking for coverage about him as a subject, not just technical verification that he exists. As always, GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that meets or exceeds two"; it tests for many other factors, including whether the sources are independent of the subject or not, the depth of how substantively any source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of how widely he is or isn't getting covered, and whether the context of what he's getting covered for represents a noteworthy accomplishment or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, but this article needs to be added to the references: The Words and Music Show Becomes a Digital Archive : SpokenWeb Unveils 20 Years of Montreal’s Cult Show. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhotomediaTN (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Link is a university student newspaper, not a GNG-passing general market source — we do not just indiscriminately accept all possible sources as equally valid notability markers, but test sources for their type, depth, geographic range and context. Student newspapers count for a lot less than major market dailies, for example — and coverage in a person's hometown local market counts for a lot less than coverage that expands beyond their hometown market does, as well. And even if we were to accept it as counting for something, it still doesn't count for enough all by itself if it's the best new source you can show, as it takes a lot more than just one newspaper hit to get a person over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Link does count for something, and it isn't there "all by itself", it is there along with the other sources and achievements listed. These achievements also pass WP:AUTHOR. For example, the fact that he was awarded the Sheri-D Wilson Golden Beret Award for excellence and innovation in spoken word poetry, awarded "to the poet whose micro-portfolio has the greatest impact on the panel of jurors" shows that Ian Ferrier is regarded as an important figure by his peers and has played a major role in co-creating a significant collective body of work, through, for example, his work with the Words and Music Show.PhotomediaTN (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspapers are not magic GNG-makers if they're the best sources you can show. They can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after the person has already cleared GNG on stronger sources (i.e. real major market dailies), but count for nothing toward the initial matter of getting the person over GNG in the first place. As for the award, notability because awards attaches only to awards that get media coverage about the award, and not to awards that can be "referenced" only to their own self-published website about themselves because media coverage of that award is non-existent. The depth of media coverage about the award presentation is how we determine whether any given award is a notable one or not. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete.He was named as an important poet in Poets and we know it; If you thought poets were all long-dead old men, think again. Teenagers are pioneering poetry for the 21st century. London, England. November 23, 2011. p. 17. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: ___location missing publisher (link) I've also found doctoral dissertations in both French and English that examine his work. He's obviously well thought of, but the RS is just a bit too thin to pass WP:SIGCOV. This is definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:POET - Jay (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Cassidy

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

Actress may not meet WP:NACTOR or the lower WP:GNG. I couldn't find any significant third party coverage of the actress. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [4]. You do realise she was an actor on Emmerdale for three years, which is a UK national TV programme that goes out twice a week, and is hugely popular. Although I haven't watched it for donkeys, I suspect she would be instantly recognisable to most folk in the UK. I think WP:THREE applies as she is only at the beginning of her career. scope_creep^Talk 10:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: I guess your not watching it either. scope_creep^Talk 10:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, well WP:NACTRESS says multiple significant roles:

"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."

But it seems she was only known for one role. However, she doesn't have a lot of multiple significant sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yip indeed. Found this:[5] That and the Times are the only two things in can find. scope_creep^Talk 14:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV even if WP:NACTOR isn't met. Sometimes one particular part is big enough to attract lots of coverage to pass the threshold of GNG if not SNG.4meter4 (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, link to the sources you are claiming about? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to. Scope creep already provided them.4meter4 (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NACTOR and GNG Lightburst (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She had multiple notable roles: Rachel Towers Grange Hill and as Emmerdale as Hannah Barton. Dream Focus 16:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has notable roles so meets WP:NACTOR. مضحرالعجایب (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The very few comments that favor keeping this as an article don't have much argumentative weight; they say it can be improved, but offer no indication of sources, and two weeks in the article still doesn't have any. The main focus of dispute has been over whether there should be a redirect. Since there is clear consensus against keeping and AFD is not the best venue for deciding about redirects, I'm closing this as "delete" but with no prejudice for or against the existence of a redirect. If someone wants to create a redirect at this title, they can; if someone else objects, they can take it to WP:RFD where there is more interest and expertise around the nuances of redirection. RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today's date

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

Today covers this article. Interstellarity (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect instead of delete. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article serves no encyclopedic purpose. I believe it's unnecessary to add redirects for every permutation of a term that is unlikely to be queried. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 21:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment it actually has some useful info. can it be merged to today instead? Hydromania (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Today. It doesn't have useful, accurate, info. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't redirect I don't see a suitable redirect target. Someone typing in "Today's date" wouldn't expect to end up on a page detailing different uses of the word "Today". Most people entering this term will want to know what today's date is, as would someone typing it into Google. Whether we should accommodate them by having a page like this giving today's date in multiple formats I am not sure.----Pontificalibus 07:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete but improve per WP:HEY.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RockingGeo (talk • contribs) 09:51, November 10, 2019 (UTC)
Don't delete The article can be improved. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Today.@Pontificalibus: The hat note at the top of the Today page should answer the question of people searching for today's date.4meter4 (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can somebody please discuss this in terms an AfD closer can understand, such as V, OR, GNG and sourcing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT Lightburst (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per 4meter4. It's a plausible search-term for "today". FOARP (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See Talk:Today's_date, perhaps especially Talk:Today's_date#Date_information_for_today_or_today's_date. Lhimec (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Talk:Today#Today's_date. Lhimec (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge - info already covered in Today. Cannot find any reliable sources that talk about today's date in general terms that is not about a specific day. --Darth Mike^(talk) 13:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge violates our sourcing rules. See delete and merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, should have been Delete OR merge. --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Leininger

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

Has not played professional football. Geschichte (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not entirely sure about the status of SK Austria Klagenfurt, but I understand they have never been fully pro so this player would fail WP:NFOOTY on that basis. Even if he passes NFOOTY, there is nowhere near enough for the GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He has a German wiki: Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I do not see any pro league play. ~~so does not pass WP:NFOOTY~~ Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Marco Leininger does actually pass NFOOTY, six apps in the Austrian Football Second League - per Soccerway. R96Skinner (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to being fooled by the German Wikipedia page about SK Austria, where it said 2. Liga only for the 2018-19 season, whereas the 2015-16 entry was a piped link to 2. Liga. Geschichte (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG which is more important than technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL (78 minutes of play!). Giant Snowman 15:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 06:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Annabichler SV is not even a very notable sports team to begin with and Marco is not a very notable player either. Plus, there are no references. The article is a stub to begin with. FoxTech20 (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable footballer. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick P. Lenz Foundation for American Buddhism

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

Paid promo of a non-notable organization that clearly fails WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 13:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable foundation, nothing here to prove notability fails WP:ORGDEPTH. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 06:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally fails WP:SIGCOV. A passing mention that this organization paid for a Buddhist chapel, here on a military base and there in some other place, does not constitute ongoing, significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP's notability guidelines. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samraat Joshua Grewal

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

Soundly deleted at AfD in January, it's been recreated. If any admins see this I would ask to see if WP:G4 applies. Clearly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG per the last AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 13:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous AfD. Mostly self serving article with limited contributors. Teraplane (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet. We have no WP:CHRYSTAL ball to know if it is just WP:TOOSOON. Non-trivial coverage was found in the Sydney Morning Herald however it is just not enough to show notability. The rest of what I could find, was questionable, regurgitated blog type sources - youtube, and passing mentions like this. Lightburst (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated here constitutes a notability boost over the version that was deleted in January; as a politician, he's still only an unsuccessful candidate and not a holder of a notable political office, and the failed party leadership coup just makes him a WP:BLP1E. So even that is appropriately handled with the existing section in Christian Democratic Party (Australia) itself, and does not rise to the level of earning him a standalone biographical article separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 06:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have not recently kept an article on a party official for a minor party. A few years ago consensus changed not to keep party leaders of the Greens and other such marginal parties; we have even gotten rid of county/provincial/state officials of major parties as being too run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dedi Tri Maulana

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

It looks like the player has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. His club, Persis, in 2018 and 2019 played in Liga 2, which is not listed as a fully professional league. Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck banned user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not played in a professional league and nowhere near enough for the GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are we sure about the GNG failure, GiantSnowman/No Great Shaker? Just double-checking, your thoughts on: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]? Not claiming it's a clear pass or anything, but the media seem to care about his thoughts which wouldn't be the case if he was a nobody. R96Skinner (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look none of those sources appear to be sufficient. Giant Snowman 16:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Bubbasax (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Not a professional footballer, nor is he notable for any other events or projects, failing WP:GNG. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:V is a core policy; it mandates that unsourced content must be deleted if it is challenged and not properly sourced in response. In this light, the "delete" arguments are compelling, and the "keep" arguments, which do not address verifiability, must be discounted. The content is entirely unsourced, except for a single footnote to whatever this is - certainly not a reliable source. This reason for deletion is independent of the issue of notability. The content can be userfied or draftified via WP:REFUND if somebody wants to do the fancruft culling and sourcing that, as this discussion indicates, the content would need to survive as an article. Sandstein 13:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Redwall characters

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

This is a massive collection of novel by novel fictional characters. This franchise has around thirty novels. Most of them currently have articles. Character lists are not inherently necessary article forks, and even less so when you have a bunch of stories that seem to have many one-novel characters. Each article should easily be able to handle a summary style description of the characters in relation events of the book. There is a main article that should be completely sufficient to summarize any core characters. I don't think anything should be merged due to the bloated nature of the content. TTN (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:LISTN is easily met on this one. See the following sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.... I could go on but there's simply page after page of reliable sources discussing in-depth the characters of Redwall. The existence of articles on individual characters in the series is neither here nor there when it comes to this list of all the characters, as this is about the characters as a group. What probably does need to be done is to see just how many of the articles given over to specific characters in the Redwall series meet the requirements for notability, and which should simply be redirected/merged to this list. Additionally, merging the character list to the main article risks the main article becoming WP:TOOLONG, and as such this is a justifiable fork. FOARP (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The character set as whole do not currently establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with sources - it does not matter if not every character is notable, what matters for WP:LISTN is whether the characters as a group are notable - and the sources do discuss the characters of Redwall as notable as a group, giving over paragraphs to discussing the common themes within them. FOARP (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty big stretch of LISTN. I don't buy it. You could argue that any source that discusses two things from a same set justifies having a list of items on that set. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not saying that any article discussing two things from a set indicates notability for that set. I'm saying that any article which discusses the characters of Redwall as a group supports the notability of Redwalls characters, but does not need to mention every character. That's a classic use of WP:LISTN: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been" FOARP (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there's an issue here that might ultimately be too subjective for AfD in that what should constitute discussion for the characters and what should constitute discussion for the series at large. Much of what you posted seems to hit on the themes of the series rather than really exploring the characters themselves, but it's hard to say where that divide should actually occur. I think the main article would have to be in better shape to figure out how much weight was being applied to discussion on the characters. As it stands, I don't think that really applies to the characters as a whole. TTN (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication the collection is notable in itself. If any individual characters or such are notable, they can have their own articles. Other than that, it's fancruft that belongs on some wikia. Probably https://redwall.fandom.com/wiki/Redwall_Wiki ? Feel free to transwiki this there if it is missing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That something could be hosted off-wiki is not a WP:DELREASON. Similarly, individual items within a list already having their own articles is not a WP:DELREASON. Even WP:FANCRUFT is not actually a WP:DELREASON even if it describes a kind of article that may well end up being deleted. As for the lack of sources indicating the notability of the characters of this series, these not being cited in the article right now is also not a WP:DELREASON per WP:NEXIST since they can be found. FOARP (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but refactor and cull brutally. The by-novel structure isn't really the right approach here, and the character summaries are, across the board, overlarge. As for the existence of the list in general... This is a very well-documented, well-studied, notable series. That's important, because it means there isn't really any question that we should have articles for the individual books and a "series" or "franchise" article. Further, the project recognizes that cast lists / character lists are a generally encyclopedic element of articles about fiction topics. My view is that standalone franchise character lists (whether those are for a film series, a TV show, or a collection of several dozen books) are effectively the character list for the franchise parent article; however, even written appropriately, they're fairly unwieldy, and so WP:SPINOUT advises that we should, well, spin them out. Now, I think there probably should be some guidance about how to select characters for these lists, and when a series/franchise is sufficiently weighty to warrant one. I'm ... vaguely tempted to go through the drama of an RFC on the issue when I get a spare moment I wasn't using for anything, but at this point, I've wandered fairly far afield of this specific AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with MASSIVE cleanup, per Squeamish Ossifrage - As stated, the Redwall series is certainly notable and a Character list is a normal thing to split off from the main series article. And, there are some sources on some of the characters. That does not, however, mean that every single plot detail about every single character in every single book needs to be included. So, basically, the current version of the list is completely unworkable, but a list of characters for the series should actually be a thing. So, either that means Keeping this mess and cleaning it up, or just Nuking this and starting over. And since WP:TNT isn't actual Wikipedia policy, I'll default to the former. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at least as I apply it, WP:TNT is for when all of the content has to go before a useful article can be written – perhaps because the content is factually wrong, or written with such a biased perspective that keeping it is worse than having nothing, or that it's simply incomprehensible. This list needs to be refactored and edited down, but "too much detail" should never be a cause for nuking an article; fixing that is a normal editorial process. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character lists for notable series are always valid spinoff articles since it won't all fit in the main article. Dream Focus 19:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are they really necessary, or has Wikipedia simply trained itself to think so? I feel like for a lot of people it's just simply a given, but much of the time they're quite functionally useless. If they're a split, they're supposed to be a place to reference necessary context unsuitable for general plot summaries, but it seems more often than not they either completely bare bones to the point of providing no context or completely bloated with regurgitated details. I feel like it blocks people from looking at other possible avenues to properly cover the information, especially when it's a series with dozens of plot related articles. TTN (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 10,943 Pageviews in the past 90 days. So some enjoy reading through it. Discuss editing on the article's talk page. Dream Focus 20:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - And? Arguments via pageviews have always seemed fairly pointless. There are many unsuitable topics that would otherwise garner ten times that amount in a week. This isn't about this article in particular, but challenging the idea you put forth that characters are a necessary split. I agree a character section is absolutely necessary 99% of the time, but is it really necessary to list every character? Looking at the difference between featured lists and the average character list, I feel like the average character list really has no place on Wikipedia. We cull other non-notable articles of in-universe item, but why are we so lenient on characters? TTN (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not clean-up. We are not here to determine which articles should get FA status. Comparing the articles that come here to featured articles is not helpful. The only question that really matters is whether this meets WP:LISTN, which it does. If the article is crufty, then have a go at editing it. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an attempt at cleanup. This is a bid for the removal of unnecessary content, and a question of why so much leeway is given to character lists when we have gotten to the point where most other fictional subsets have been rightfully culled. TTN (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among other reasons, because they are permitted under current style guidelines. WP:WAF, inter alia, allows for the inclusion of plot summaries and cast/character lists (with some limitations) sourced solely to the primary work, presuming the work itself is notable. WP:SPLITLIST strongly implies, and WP:CSC explicitly states, that such character lists can be spun out to their own article for length (or presumably stylistic concerns, as those are otherwise equated over at WP:SPLIT). Now... even I will agree that's not without its own problems, and there's clearly tension between the various style guidelines here. And, yes, this list is a terrible mess that tries to end-run presenting plot elements in summary style. Fundamentally, I think, the question is whether things like character lists that are explicit spinouts (especially for article length purposes) have to meet the inclusion requirements as if they were fully stand-alone articles, or (as some of these guidelines suggest with varying degrees of specificity) as if they were still effectively sections in their parent topic. Ultimately, there's going to need to be some draft proposals and an RFC on this, I suspect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But cull heavily and cleanup. WP:NOTCLEANUP actually does apply here, but it's better to actually try to clean it up then just throw the baby out with the bathwater._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No sources. The book/book series might be notable, but the minutiae surrounding the narrative and plot is simply not notable nor is it worthy of a singular article. Perhaps if there was a notable character or plot, it could be included in the original article. But this outrageously long list is incredibly long and not very useful unless you were part of the (imaginably marginal) number of readers of this series. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A 22-novel series obviously does not have a "marginal" number of readers. In fact, it's an incredibly popular series that got a TV series, an opera, and even upcoming video games. A list doesn't have to have notable characters to satisfy notability in general. The fact that the list is long and crufty is something that can be cleaned up and addressed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Redwall#Characters. Goustien (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a very initial cull of some of the fancruft. Only RS that I can find which discusses this as a distinct topic is here but no comment otherwise on notability per WP:LISTN. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N.K.Mondal (Author)

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

Don't see any indication of passing WP:AUTHOR or the GNG. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tagged the article for speedy deletion as it was deleted via AfD less than 10 days ago. Probably best to WP:SALT the article space. Also identifies User:Wikipass12 (article creator) as yet another WP:SOCK for Selim Shaikh. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures of Terabithia

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

Unsourced collection of fictional minutia. TTN (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced fancruft. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with the character section on the Bridge to Terebithia page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per Piotrus as fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage. I am uncertain if a merge would be beneficial as I think it would be better to only mention these characters in the plot summary rather than having a dedicated section (or subsection) with a list of each individual one. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Octavia the Younger#Fictional representations. Sandstein 13:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Octavia of the Julii

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

Non-notable character, no sources and OR. TTN (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced fancruft, fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Octavia the Younger#Fictional representations This character is a fictionalised version of a notable historical figure. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Octavia the Younger#Fictional representations per Susmuffin. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Etel Leit

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. The sources given are either not significantly about the article subject, not independent, or not reliable and my attempts to find better sources that establish notability have come up pretty empty. GSS ^💬 11:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 11:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 11:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 11:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 11:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete this article. Etel Leit is a well-known TV personality who has authored books and created music CDs on a subject that has attracted great interest among parents. She lectures on the topic and has been interviewed by NBC, CNN and so on. She was profiled in a university publication. In my opinion, the tone is neutral, not promotional.I have written nearly a hundred articles in the last decade and all have been found acceptable. As always on Wikipedia, there is room for improvement, but at the moment, I think deletion is unjustified.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilabrand: This is not how we prove notability on Wikipedia. If you believe the subject is notable, you need to provide the evidence in the form of reliable third-party sources that focus specifically on this person, rather than simply mention her in passing. GSS ^💬 13:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a WP:BEFORE and came up empty. Wikipedia is not for promotion. Wm335td (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know what you guys are talking about. This article is backed up by a series of references that specifically relate to Etel Leit, not just a "passing mention." Seems like you are just serial deletionists and haven't even looked at the article. She is a woman who is dedicated to improving communication and has been covered by third party sources. There are efforts going on to improve Wikipedia coverage of women, and this article fits in that category. Certainly it has more going for it than a very large percentage of entries about superheroes and space creatures or whatever else interests the teenagers who make up the bulk of Wiki editors nowadays...--Geewhiz (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come now. That is a borderline WP:PA. Not a teenager here either. Please refrain. You can check anyone's AfD !voting record here. I will WP:AGF and if you can show me two non-trivial secondary sources I will change my !vote. I did not find any. Wm335td (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up anything establishing notability and the article itself is clearly written in a promotional tone. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked to be sure, and found zero sources on google newspapers, scholar, or JSTOR. That's not just lack of significant coverage, that's no coverage. I found Leit's books on Google Books, along with passing mentions and even "No results found in this book." This may be the first time I've been accused of being a "deletionist" in my 12 years of service to Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Benda (naval officer)

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER, not sure if being the CO of the Constitution automatically makes him notable Gbawden (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep He passes GNG on his own with a number of RS discussing him. Additionally, he passes WP:SOLDIER which states that if "there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article." All of those subjects are covered in this article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the references are to hometown media. Being officer of the deck during an operation is not noteworthy. I don't have a good sense about whether being in command of USS Constitution is a valuable "ticket punch." Failing delete, maybe wp:userfy.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaarmyvet:, can you tell me where it says local media does not count as a WP:RS? —Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slugger O'Toole:, I didn't mean to suggest that is doesn't, only that, imho, notability requires coverage at a non-local level.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but it’s not what GNG says: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” There is significant coverage from multiple reliable sources here. —Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local coverage isn't enough, or we'd be inundated by every two-bit local politician. The Constitution isn't a capital ship, and Benda isn't even its captain yet, so WP:SOLDIER isn't satisfied either. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, @Clarityfiend:, can you show me where it says local coverage isn't enough to determine notability? All I can find in the policy is significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, nothing in WP:SOLDIER says the person has to be a captain of a ship, or even a high ranking officer. In fact, it says exactly the opposite: "For example, Teddy Sheean, despite having only received a relatively low-level military decoration, is notable..." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Victoria Cross for Australia is "a relatively low-level military decoration"?!? It's the highest honour in the Australian military, equivalent to the Victoria Cross. On the other hand, Benda doesn't have much more than his rank to support his alleged notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Teddy Sheean or the Australian military. I'm only quoting the policy you cited. However, if all Benda had was a rank then I would agree he wasn't notable. What makes him notable is the significant coverage in reliable sources. You may not like those sources, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adequately sourced and a good read; decent amount of coverage. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSOLDIER and yes, more than local coverage is needed to prove WP:GNG for an international Wikipedia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked this of several others, GPL93 and Celestina007, and no one yet yet has been able to cite for me where it says local sources do not qualify for the purposes of GNG. Can you? Thanks. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a court of law, that there isn't anything explicitly saying local sourcing doesn't count towards notability doesn't mean that editors can not see it that way. It's clearly an opinion held by many WP editors, which could be easily seen in itself of the application of critical reasoning or common sense (I'm not saying that it is the only definitive way to see it, but that it can be seen that way). Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, but we regularly exclude certain classes of sources, like WP:SPONSORED content or WP:USERGENERATED websites. It seems to me that if the community felt that local media did not adequately qualify as a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we would have a category for it. In this context, I think every source used is reasonable and reliable for the statement it is backing up. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale provided by GPL93 & Clarityfiend. I do not see WP:NSOLDIER satisfied/accomplished here. Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't hold flag rank. Not particularly significant otherwise. Fails WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Mansaray

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

Non-notable. He's been an intern (for a month) and he presents a show on a community radio station which broadcasts to a very small area of west London. His other claim to fame is that he is friends with someone who is not notable. Note also, page was crated by someone associated with the radio station. Emeraude (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON WP:PROMOTION Wm335td (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local radio personalities are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia just because they exist — the notability test for radio broadcasters requires a national profile, such as being heard on the BBC rather than just one community radio station in one city, and/or being the subject of enough reliable source coverage in real media to clear WP:GNG. But the sources here are his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer and a photo of him on a non-notable fashion blog, neither of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOSTIIMA Business School

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

Following Wikipedia:College and university article advice and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there is a "challenge-able consensus" (in legal jargon, a "rebuttable presumption)" that all accredited degree-awarding tertiary institutions are notable, unless shown to be otherwise. In my opinion, this is one of those cases. Looking at the references cited (other than List of MBA schools in India, which is inherently an unreliable source):

collegedunia.com appears to be at best a LinkedIn-style website for personal CVs and advertisements for businesses
EurAsian Times is at best a news aggregator
https://www.fostiima.org/aicte-approval.php is simply the parent organisation's assertion of accreditation
https://www.jagranjosh.com appears to be similar

There is no evidence in reliable sources that this purported tertiary institution is an accredited education provider. As such it should be treated as a business, and would appear to me fail the WP:CORPDEPTH test. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sbsinha.bhushan (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Shirt58 (talk) Please check https://www.facilities.aicte-india.org/dashboard/pages/angulardashboard.php#!/approved this link for your reference... you have to select there state Delhi and you will see all the AICTE Approved colleges will be listed there after Typing FOSTIIMA Business School in search box you will find this college name. Thanks ![reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any good sources on the school after extensive searches.4meter4 (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. "The sources are Turkish" is not a valid argument. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016 Dürümlü bombing

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

AfD opened on behalf of an IP, who claims that the sources are POV and the truth is unverified. As they appear to have been blocked, see my talkpage for the rationale. I am neutral, but there's no harm in discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reserving judgment until I can do more research. This might be WP:NOTNEWS Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The article reports the facts. I suppose NPOV could be argued as 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', but the event is notable and meets the criteria at WP:GNG. Any NPOV concerns can be addressed on the article's talk page (although personally I see no problem with the article as written).4meter4 (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure this should have been brought to AFD - the sourcing is there, the IP editor may not have believed it but that's a different thing. FOARP (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If an editor believes that strongly that an article should not be here there's no harm in discussing it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there's 40-50 AFDs a day and many go weakly attended, and it's not great to have an AFD which even the nom isn't convinced should have been brought. FOARP (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion, if an admin is approached by an inexperienced editor who expresses concerns about an article that appear to be reasonable then it is our responsibility to address those concerns. Otherwise what are we here for? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable bombing stub. No POV issues or a reason to delete. KasimMejia (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources are Turkish. Turkey has no journalistic freedom (see Censorship_in_Turkey#Censorship_of_the_media and Media_of_Turkey), with the media being well known for having a deep anti-Kurdish bias and making blatantly false statements. (again, see Media_of_Turkey. This is repeatedly confirmed there, if confirmation was needed). Hence none of those sources can be regarded as WP:RS, especially in regards these matters. There is also one Kurdish source used, but the article states that the source says the exact opposite of what the source actually says. As for notability... Why is it notable? If it was, as the Kurdish source (which is used to confirm the exact opposite of what it states) is to be trusted (though it is, to be fair, also biased. In the other direction), then this was not a bombing, but an accidental explosion. Why would that be notable? (also, I'd say that WP:NOTNEWS, which Lightburst mentioned [thanks for mentioning that], should apply). Also, how is this not just baseless accusations, against the PKK? Aren't attack articles, against living people, against the rules?--213.113.121.42 (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semsûrî (talk • contribs)

Iraqi Lurs

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

Wikipedia:POVFORK of Feylis. Semsurî (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Semsurî (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Semsurî (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This term is used (and not the term Feylis) in this peer reviewed journal article: "Update on Luri: How many languages?"; Anonby, Erik John; Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 2003, Vol.13(2), pp.171-197. If there is some sort of dispute here in academic literature, that should be reflected in whatever outcome happens here. This is not my content area, and I am not invested in this topic but it does appear like Iraqi Lurs is used in publications and is a viable search term and POV for coverage. Perhaps a merge/redirect of some kind would be the best solution?4meter4 (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge/redirect if no support is found for deletion. This page also uses a lot of unattainable references which I even question exist. --Semsurî (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Telluride749 (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Data Securities International

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

It doesn't have notability. Telluride749 (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Telluride749 (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Sandstein 13:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish military interventions in Syria

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

This orphan page is simply a bullet-point list of material already contained in Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War and adequately linked from that article, including in the infobox. It would be better to delete it and rely on updates to the main page, and to redirect Turkish military intervention in Syria to Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War and edit-protect. There is a rather convoluted history here with editors trying to create ill-considered disambiguation pages listing these interventions. Maintaining the current edit history under a redirect will preserve the evidence of the consensus against that outcome. BD2412 T 12:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth roads

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

No, seriously, how is this not a random collection of trivia? Fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG, WP:PLOT. No indication of real world significance, also fails WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. First lists of fictional planets, then baronies, now roads? Ay caramba! A new low in fancruft infamy. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - okay, I love JRRT, and I love this list. But I love it because I'm a fan. This is simply WP:FANCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, belongs on a fan page. Geschichte (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'nuff said above. -2pou (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title made me LOL. Yep, it's fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The road goes ever on, but this article will not. Honestly, it is shameful that this piece of rubbish survived for as long as it did. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Minor places in Middle-earth. Goustien (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor places in Middle-earth, if that article is to be deleted, then delete.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That this article has survived almost 13 years is a sign of how far we have let fancruft run crazy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shire (Middle-earth)#Rulers and their functions. Content can be merged from history if desired, subject to consensus. Sandstein 13:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thain (Middle-earth)

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

No evidence this fictional title (office, position) passes WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. Prod removed by random anon with pointless edit summary, but rules are rules, so let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A minor detail of no real significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shire (Middle-earth)#Rulers and their functions This is a plausible search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Shire (Middle-earth)#Rulers and their functions (cf. Mayor of the Shire). Goustien (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I not sure that it is a plausible search term. Who would search for "Thain (Middle-earth)"? It would be better to direct them to Thane (disambiguation), and then they could work out what they wanted. They might be looking for a real world thane.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shire (Middle-earth)#Rulers and their functions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus seems to be that without WP:MEDRS-quality sources, this is not a suitable subject for an article. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vystopia

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

Fails WP:NEO and WP:NFRINGE. I looked for additional sources and found (besides Ms. Mann's own writings) only human-interest stories about this theorised psychological condition afflicting vegans. Cheers, gnu 57 19:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does seem to be a neologism of dubious wiki-notability, and a confusingly coined one at that (shouldn't a -topia be a place?). While the term vystopia is not in widescale use is not an admission that helps the article's case. XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter, dystopia isn't a place, it's a descriptor for a place? I think that's where the word was coined from? Utopia is an actual fictional place as well as a descriptor, that's probably what you're thinking? But probably Vysphoria would have been more apt lol --valereee (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A utopia is a kind of place, a dystopia is a kind of place, but a "vystopia" is a psychological condition. We don't say that a person who believes they are living in a dystopia suffers from a psychological condition called "dystopia". Coining a word on the base of dysphoria would indeed have made much more sense. XOR'easter (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. The word had already been coined and was in use. MaynardClark (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete Just making my position official. XOR'easter (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does seem to be a thing, I've added multiple articles in multiple languages --valereee (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a well-documented and often mentioned reality among the populations and subpopulations the article references. Self-help efforts involves various 'ideal' strategies; one could also CITE articles on 'realism' (in suboptimal realities) where the 'problem of suffering' is addressed in all the world's religions. MaynardClark (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The suspected MECHANISMS of action in 'Vystopia' should be developed and explained in a logical and persuasive manner; 'vystopia; ought not to be seen as merely a syndrome. When autism was first identified by Leo Kanner way back when, it was unclear just what it was; today we think of autism as a spectrum of disorders. MaynardClark (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Plenty of sources and it is a thing, Thanks Valereee! Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely what can be recognized as the symptoms of 'vystopia' have been widely discussed anecdotally. AGain, Vystopia's suspected MECHANISMS of action should be explained in a logical. persuasive manner rather than considering it merely as a loose 'bundle of symptoms' that may at best be considered a syndrome related to anxiety, loss, and futility. Perhaps synonyms, parallels, and similarities could be explored; I suspect that this stub article is not definitive. John Donvan about a decade ago did a TV special about the history of of the diagnosis of autism and asked Leo Kanner's protege, Leon Eisenberg, how what possibly could have been going in in Kanner's brain unlike that of the brains of others that could have enabled him to recognize that he was observing something rather than an apparition that really didn't exist. MaynardClark (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the topic involves health claims, it requires WP:MEDRS sourcing. So far I haven't found any: Ms. Mann's self-published, print-on-demand[12] book on the subject likely hasn't undergone any pre-publication review. Ms. Mann also published an article on the topic[13] in an open-access media- and culture-studies journal; the journal's editorial board[14] is (as you'd expect) entirely composed of culture and communications scholars, not psychology experts. In the journal article, Mann states that she formulated her theory as a result of her experiences counselling vegans, and then sought to validate it through an internet survey. (The survey recruitment page on her website[15] strikes me as rather leading, as does the wording of the questions.) This is WP:MEDPRI at best.
The other journal article cited is another primary source[16]. Those researchers found that vegetarianism was associated with a greater risk of mental health disorders, but the onset of the disorders generally preceded the adoption of a vegetarian diet. It was not clear whether a disorder increased one's likelihood of adopting vegetarianism or a third variable caused both. It would be original research to conclude that these results support Mann's vystopia theory.
When novel or unexpected research results are published, they are often seized upon and uncritically reported by news sources (for instance, look at all the goofy human-interest stories based on one "brexit-induced psychosis" case study.) WP:MEDPRI states "Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as original, primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be entirely omitted". Of the other sources currently in the article,
- Telegraph, Plant Based News 1 BT Sydney Morning Herald and Information 2 are news/human-interest articles about Mann's theory and her book: SIGCOV from a news perspective but not MEDRS.
- Information 1 is paywalled and I don't have access: apparently a Culture feature about a vegan filmmaker?
- krytykapolityczna.pl is a definition in a vegan glossary
- Vegan Psychologist is Mann's own website
- Plant Based News 2 is a passing mention
- Hartford Courant is about a vegan book club which read Mann's book.
- MC Journal: A Journal of Media and Culture is the editor's note introducing the vegan-themed issue in which Mann reported on her survey.
- I agree with MaynardClark that The suspected MECHANISMS of action in 'Vystopia' should be developed and explained in a logical and persuasive manner; but we cannot do so until the research has been performed and published in reliable sources. Cheers, gnu57 21:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the term is a loose 'description' of something that is no worse than the irregularities of the term 'autism for the first several decades of research on it, then keep the article and note that it parallels other quasi-medical descriptions. In physics, we distinguish operational and conceptual definitions: operational definitions describe how something operates or acts; conceptual ideas or definitions are just that - conceptions about what something appears to be. Is there 'information' in the way the term 'vystopia' is used (either by the clinician who coined it or by others who use it? Again, a psychologist is a mental health clinician but is NOT a psychiatrist, who is also a physician specializing in how the brain works. The context of the term's coining may be illuminating for us to consider. Now, let's look at the malaise called fibromyalgia where clinicians are unresolved about what it is, but agree that the term points to something that really is. See medically unexplained syndromes. 'Vystopia' is a gut response of morally sensitive persons that results from the their gradual or sudden recognition of the pervasive problem of suffering that results from pervasive patterns of human behavior that inflict harm upon others (humans for food and clothing), and the entrenched roles that others have in perpetuating this indefensible suffering and the problem of evil that comes from directly inflicting harm upon others habitually and without recognition. Even when they try to declare a moral truce with others (with humans and nonhumans) and to withdraw from actively perpetuating the harms upon others that come from eating and wearing animals, they still feel powerless to solve the broader, far more expansive problem by their own behavioral adjustments and moral authority (and may go to protest and sadness and more). When these sensitive persons do not have a strategy for resolving their powerlessness before evil in the world, they experience 'vystopia'. {That needs to be cleaned up considerably.} MaynardClark (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per gnu57. Sourcing is poor and fails WP:MEDRS. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs to be developed better. That is not reason to delete an article that UNIQUELY describes 'something that is real' but is (like autism, a syndrome that required decades to be more precisely defined. MaynardClark (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this page were about a hypothesis concerning autism, and all the sources were brief mentions of the same book which introduced that hypothesis, and all the references we could find failed WP:MEDRS, we'd delete that page too. Wikipedia follows the judgment of the medical community; it does not lead. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is little if any doubt that this article needs to be developed better; I think that I have suggested (a) that vystopia is something that likely needs to be better understood in terms of current diagnostic criteria found in DSM and ICD, and (b) that, historically, very important diagnoses (such as autism) have undergone clarification processes. The social psychology around understanding 'symptoms' of vystopia' may need better understanding for the sake of the client, not merely for the sake of Wikipedia readers. MaynardClark (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - My search (Google Search) for 'vystopia' yielded 6,030 results (in 0.76 seconds). Surely more mention has been documented digitally than those mentions in this talk page. Analogically, I think of the anguish prolifers feel in the face of blue wave surges in America, and other kinds of feelings of horror other morally sensitive persons feel about the wanton harm wrought upon the vulnerable. This exploitation and victimization of the relatively weak and powerless is a common topic (in the abstract) in ethics (and moral reasoning). I agree that the relevant scientific communities ought to be urged to weigh in on this topic. MaynardClark (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Counting Google hits is not an argument. "Vystopia" may or may not be a well-definable condition that merits further research; I'm not here to make that judgment. The point is that this article is currently below our standards of sourcing for medical topics, and there is not a way to improve it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per gnu57. MEDRS not satisfied. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 12:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Additionally, the only sources available of significance are primary sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So are there good secondary sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kia Jam

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

The article was subjected to an edit war recently, with an IP editor determined to remove a short section (added by Greyjoy in May 2019) about the subject having paid £500,000 to settle a civil fraud case. I removed the section, pending a discussion on whether or not it was sufficiently reliably sourced and WP:DUE, but noticed that without the sources supporting the payment, the article was sourced entirely to IMDB (WP:UGC, unreliable). I searched for additional sourced, but the only stuff I could find that was reliable, independent and gave the subject significant coverage was about the fraud stuff. I believe that, per WP:BLP1E, the fraud case on its own doesn't make him notable, but without those refs he fails WP:GNG, and so the article should go. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E is not a stand-alone WP:DELREASON, but typically a reason to rename/redirect/merge articles about the person into the article covering the event they are notable for. It should only result in straight deletion where the event you would otherwise rename/redirect to is itself not notable. In this case, the event (the fraud case) appears to be potentially not notable due to lack of evidence of WP:LASTING impact (it was covered in May 2019 but not since) meaning this fails WP:NEVENT, and is possibly also a WP:NOTNEWS fail. As such there is no event to merge to. If this guy goes any further in the film-production business we may end up recreating this article, but for the moment we've got simple bare-mentions of him producing a single film in a couple of trade magazine articles. FOARP (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, thanks for this detailed analysis. My thoughts run along the same lines as yours - I wasn't meaning to present BLP1E as a reason to delete exactly, rather it's a reason why this coverage on its own enough to justify retaining the article - and, without any other significant coverage, deleting seems the best option. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Field High School

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

No coverage for this school. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article lacking sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jerrome

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

Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. I do not find any kind on in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Presented sources are local, limited to Petworth News Agencies. Not meeting WP:GNG. Hitro talk 06:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick search doesn't any notable coverage beyond Amazon listings of his books. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There are actually a lot of mentions of this man in local press as a local historian, but nothing quite rising to the level of WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn’t meet WP:GNG Bubbasax (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

can you all have a look at recent revisions please? - a selection of the publication titles has been added and some earlier biog which provides a bit more nobility to the broad, developing role of "historian". The geographical focus is local to Sussex (apart from Hebrew and Cyriac specialisms) but the expanse, depth and rigour of study is there. I will research some peer review that isn't accessible through modern web sources Cazimir (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Joan Baez concerts

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

Non-notable list of concerts fails both WP:GNG, WP:CONCERT TOUR and WP:NOTINHERITED that has been tagged as being unreferenced for over four years. Aspects (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, funnily enough with the same reasoning as here: belongs on a fan page. Geschichte (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I disagree with Geschichte that "belongs on a fan page" is a suitable WP:DELREASON - fan pages cover plenty of things (e.g., lists of albums, books, episodes, characters etc.) that might also qualify for coverage here. However, this is ultimately just an indiscriminate list of concerts with no supporting references (and hence a WP:GNG/WP:V fail). I don't see any evidence in my WP:BEFORE that the concerts of Joan Baez are considered notable per WP:LISTN. I sourcing to support WP:LISTN were found I'd favour a major edit of this article to limit it only to a sub-set of these concerts, but whilst Joan Baez and her music are unarguably notable, and she had some live performances that were probably notable (e.g., at Woodstock, possibly the Live Aid event) reading articles about her various individual performances (e.g., this review of her last live gig last year) I do not see any listing of other performances as a group. FOARP (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously Baez is notable without question. However a list of concerts is more of an advertisement than encyclopaedic content. Bubbasax (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was just discussing the fact today that few people realize that Joan is still performing across the world to this very day. It's so sad the rest of the world knows about her but most in the U.S. think she's retired long ago. I just happened to find this page as evidence and I see that it has not been updated in four years. I would be happy to work on that. Most all of her concerts can be found and verified on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaytaylormath (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Themyscira (DC Comics)

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

I've prodded this fictional ___location with a rationale that there is no indication this fictional ___location passes GNG/WP:NFICTION/WP:PLOT. Primary sources only, no real world significance, BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a plot summary or listing of mentions in various media (comics, movies, games, whatever). There is no in-depth analysis of this ___location in any non-primary work. This was deprodded by User:Jhenderson777 with a comment that "It’s in poor shape but indeed notable". Well, ok, can anyone demonstrate said notability for this here? Please don't confuse this fictional ___location with Themiscyra (Pontus)] where a short summary of this is already present (and could be expanded). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:: I mentioned this in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. I am not the only one who thought it shouldn’t be deleted. I know I wouldn’t be the only one to deprod it.Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 05:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of locations of the DC Universe. The current entry there could use some additional detail. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. That’s like merging Metropolis (comics), Gotham City or Smallville (comics) on there. It should be pretty common sensical that this is indeed notable. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My obvious vote is Keep: Here are sources that I digged up. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[24], [25], [26] etc. Also if the island is a topic on Wonder Woman's supposed bisexuality which is reported constantly! Does that count too? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example: “When you start to think about giving the concept of Themyscira its due, the answer is, ‘How can they not all be in same-sex relationships?’ Right? It makes no logical sense otherwise. It’s supposed to be paradise. You’re supposed to be able to live happily. You’re supposed to be able … to have a fulfilling, romantic and sexual relationship. And the only options are women… Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. It is a major ___location in Wonder Woman. Plus, @Jhenderson777: is right about his ___location information. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator clearly did not do due diligence with BEFORE, I found the ScreenRant, Bustle, and especially the LA Times article provided by Jhenderson777 to satisfy GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this case I actually side with the keepists, this page is notable. I'm kind of shocked it would be nominated for deletion straight-up._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I did before, but clearly, not enough (I guess I stopped after finding several crappier sources which don't go beyond PLOT). Secondary look plus a sources presented here does suggest there is sufficient material to expand this beyond a pure PLOT/appearances ([27], [28]). This one can stay, let's hope someone expands it beyond the current plot/media appearances. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator appears to be insdiscriminately targetting fiction related subjects regardless of merits. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — 131.123.51.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep as major fictional local in the DC Universe. Article is not in happy shape, but that's not reason for AfD. Also nominator looks to have withdrawn. Ford MF (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue Towers

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no credible sources observed other than primary sources. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Hudson (pornographic actor)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: Of the sources currently in the article, only #2 (HIVplus Magazine) represents significant coverage in reliable, external sources. #1 (XBIZ) is an obvious press release, #3 is Hudson's pornographic website, and #4 (Queerty) is a passing mention. (I just removed two other references, both to the unreliable porn blog queermenow.net.) I looked for new sources and found only interviews [29][30] and trivial coverage. This person may or may not have, under a different name, been a member of a fledgling musical group which received some news attention when they raised funds to self-produce a reality web series; in any case, per WP:MUSICBIO, individual band members don't inherit notability from their band. Cheers, gnu 57 04:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 04:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 04:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 04:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 04:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic actor. Abtehas98 (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the depreciated WP:PORNBIO Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 2018 Maine gubernatorial election. Sandstein 13:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Moody

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

Unsuccessful candidate for Governor of Maine in both 2010 (as an independent) and 2018 (as a Republican); has held no elected office or has any significant media coverage. Previously turned into a redirect following a previous AfD, but was recreated back in June with even less content. Seems pretty straightforwardly not notable, but given it was recreated, I'm unsure whether returning to a redirect or full deletion is the better option here. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-redirect as per prior AfD decision. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is admittedly in terrible shape now, but there is evidence of notability. An older version and quick google search shows independent, non-trivial coverage in USA Today, the Portland Press Herald, New York Times, Splinter News, Maine Magazine, Automotive Body Repair News, the Maine Beacon, and other sources. Many of them are unrelated to either of his political campaigns but that doesn't matter per WP:GNG.--TM 14:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the previous AfD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. Nothing here is an improvement over the version that was redirected just last year — it's even weaker than the earlier version, in fact. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but nothing else stated here constitutes a valid claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons, and one media hit is not enough coverage to make him automatically more special than other unsuccessful candidates. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my comment above? There are multiple, independent sources covering the subject in detail. Many of them are from national media organizations.--TM 14:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates are not automatically exempted from having to win the election just because some media coverage happens to exist — every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were enough to hand a candidate a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL, then every candidate in every election would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore. So it's not enough to say "but some coverage exists" — for the existence of coverage to exempt him from having to pass NPOL, the coverage would have to pass one of two tests: either (a) it demonstrates that he was already notable enough for preexisting reasons that he would already have gotten an article anyway, or (b) it demonstrates a reason why his candidacy was so much more special than everybody else's candidacies that even though he lost he still had a credible claim to passing the ten-year test for enduring significance anyway. Basically, he has to pass either the Cynthia Nixon test or the Christine O'Donnell test — and the fact that "some media coverage exists" does not automatically accomplish that, because every candidate in every election can always say that "some media coverage exists". Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is the guideline. All of these other caveats you mention are not part of Wikipedia's policies. Moody demonstrably passes WP:GNG. That should be the end of the discussion.--TM 20:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If he passes GNG just because some campaign coverage exists, then so does every single candidate in every single election in every single everywhere on earth — but we have an established consensus that candidates are not notable just for being candidates, so the mere fact that the campaign coverage exists, precisely as it always does for every candidate, does not translate into a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. To be notable enough for an article, a candidate must demonstrate either that he was already notable enough to have an article for other reasons anyway, or that his coverage offers a credible reason to treat his candidacy as much more enduringly and permanently and nationalizingly special than everybody else's candidacies. There are lots of types of coverage that do not translate into a GNG-based exemption from having to pass the SNG for the person's occupation: city councillors aren't automatically accepted as notable just because some local media coverage exists. Local musicians who haven't passed any of NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria aren't automatically accepted as notable just because their local hometown media have written about them a couple of times. Writers who haven't passed AUTHOR aren't automatically accepted as notable just because their local hometown media have written about them a couple of times. High school athletes aren't exempted from having to pass ATHLETE just because they've had a couple of local human interest pieces written about the fact that they're competing in high school sports despite having a disability. And on and so forth: GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anybody who has surpassed an arbitrary number of media hits", but rather it also tests for factors like the depth of the coverage, the geographic range of the coverage and the context of what the person is getting covered for, and not all kinds of coverage that are possible for a person to show are equally GNG-worthy. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the eleven sources (the one on the current revision and the ten on the previous revision linked above), fully seven of them are news articles on his then-current campaign— WP:ROUTINE. Of the remaining four, two are puff-y blurbs about his business and a third is the "GOVERNOR'S AWARD FOR BUSINESS EXCELLENCE". Only the last, of Moody being appointed to the education board of trustees, would suggest he's a public figure, but "member of the education board" is far, far below WP:NPOL. What I am getting from these sources is that Mr. Moody may be a notable local figure, particularly in local business circles, but is not notable outside of that, and certainly nowhere near notable to pass the WP:GNG threshold. — Kawnhr (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE does not say what you claim it does. It says "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." There is no exception in GNG that indicates that coverage of a candidate cannot be used to establish notability. None of the sources are WP:ROUTINE. this story in the New York Times is a long-form piece from the largest newspaper in the country. Here is a story from the national media site Splinter News. Here is a talk filmed for Maine Magazine about his business philosophy.

ROUTINE is very clear that it does not just cover off event articles about events, but also applies to the standalone notability of people involved in those events. An election is an event, for example — so the existence of campaign coverage is not automatically enough to exempt a person from having to pass NPOL, because as I said before every candidate would always get exempted from actually having to pass NPOL if it were. As for these three sources, Splinter is a subsite of Gizmodo, not a notability-making established or reliable media outlet; the Maine Magazine source is just a video clip of him speaking about a subject, not a journalist-written third person article about him; and as for The New York Times, the existence of one hit of more-than-local coverage is still not in and of itself enough to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. GNG is not, and never has been, just "media coverage exists = GNG passed": it takes into account the depth and range and context that the media coverage represents, and is not automatically passed by just everyone who can show that the number of media hits on their name meets or exceeds two. It does not count sources that represent the person speaking, about himself or something else, in the first person; it does not count Gizmodo blogs; it does not count unsuccessful election candidates as notable just because they have campaign coverage, if that campaign coverage doesn't significantly outdo the depth and range of campaign coverage that every other candidate in election history can also show just as easily; and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An election is an event, but a campaign is what happens over many months. Coverage of a campaign in Maine, especially in national media outlets, is not routine. Splinter, the NY Times, the Portland Press Herald, Bangor Daily News, and other sources cover Moody himself (as well as his campaign) in-depth. We should not have a bias against political candidates and ignore GNG to avoid including their entries. --TM 18:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I already noted, Splinter is not a reliable or notability-making source at all. Local media always cover all elections that involve their coverage area, so every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage in the local media — so the Portland Press Herald and the Bangor Daily News are not automatically notability-clinching coverage in and of themselves, because even failed candidates for town council in Maine can show coverage in those papers. And The New York Times is a start down the road toward making his candidacy more special than other people's candidacies — but it isn't the golden ticket to the finish line all by itself if it's the only source you can show that goes above and beyond the merely expected. Even if you're going for "notable because he got nationalized coverage of his candidacy", it still takes a lot more than just one piece of that to get there. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not every candidate for "dogcatcher" gets multiple in-depth profiles of their lives. That's preposterous. Anyway, [here is ANOTHER national story about Moody. Here are all the times he was written about by the Associated Press [31] This is getting ridiculous now, isn't it?--TM 19:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I said town council. Secondly, you're not showing "multiple in-depth profiles of their lives", you're showing routinely expected campaign coverage of the type and depth and range that every candidate in every election can always show. Thirdly, he's not the subject of most of the pieces in that Associated Press directory — that's just the basic search results pulling up every article in their database that has his name in it at all, not a list of articles about him for the purposes of establishing that he's been the subject of enough coverage to get a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. Fourthly, even the existence of a CNN piece still isn't in and of itself the mic drop — you still have to demonstrate a reason why his candidacy would somehow pass the ten-year test for enduring significance. Again, campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election — so for such coverage to get him over GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL by winning the election, what such coverage has to demonstrate is that there's a compelling reason to believe that even if he never does another thing as long as he lives, his candidacy still has a genuinely unique claim to being so much more notable than everybody else's candidacies that people will still be looking for information about it in 2028 anyway. The measuring stick is Christine O'Donnell — her candidacy generated so much coverage, nationalizing and even internationalizing, to the point that a full ten years later her article is still twice as long as, and cites twice as many distinct sources as, and she as a person is still significantly more famous than, the actual senator that she lost to. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A long-form biographical articles, such as was written about Moody by the Press Herald and the Bangor Daily News, are not WP:ROUTINE. Here is ANOTHER article, this one written by the Boston Globe, which goes into depth on Moody. Whatever you declare about "measuring sticks" is irrelevant. The policy is clear. All that is needed are multiple, in-depth sources covering the subject in detail--19:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

A long-form biographical article about an election candidate, in a media outlet that is simply and routinely expected to always give equal time to every candidate in every election that takes place in its local coverage area, is most certainly routine — every single candidate in every single election in Maine is always going to be able to show evidence of having been covered in those papers. Being a candidate in an election that the person did not win is not an "inherently" notable context that guarantees the right to a Wikipedia article — so a person most certainly does have to show that their coverage has gone very significantly above and beyond what's merely expected to always exist for all candidates before "media coverage exists" constitutes a reason to exempt them from having to satisfy NPOL. Again, if all you had to do to get a candidate over GNG in lieu of NPOL was show that some campaign coverage existed, then every candidate in every election would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore — but being a repository of campaign brochures for unsuccessful political candidates is not our mandate or our mission or our goal. Lots of people get local media coverage in contexts that would not be expected to earn them a place in an international encyclopedia — which is precisely why GNG is not, and never has been, just "two or more hits of media coverage exist, and therefore the person passes GNG and doesn't have to actually pass the defined notability standards for their occupation anymore." GNG most certainly does take into account the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and it most certainly does deprecate some kinds of coverage as not enough to override the defined inclusion standards for their occupation. Musicians are not exempted from having to pass NMUSIC just because they can show a few hits of coverage in their local papers for playing at the local pub on Friday nights. Writers are not exempted from having to pass AUTHOR just because they can show a few hits of coverage in their local papers for winning a local poetry contest and self-publishing a chapbook. Mayors and city councillors are not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because it's possible to source the election results themselves. High school athletes are not exempted from having to pass ATHLETE just because they had a couple of pieces of human interest coverage written in the local media about their recovery from an injury. Unelected candidates for political office are not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because the campaign coverage that always exists for every candidate exists for them too. And on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect No new claims of notability since the last AfD. Any campaign related content can supplement the campaign page. --Enos733 (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I found reliable sources. (non-admin closure) VF9 (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inside contracting

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

The lack of any reliable sources lead me to believe this article is WP:OR. VF9 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norway women's national under-19 floorball team

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

Totally no-notable youth team in a miniscule sport. Geschichte (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, no reliable non primary source. 07:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneWorkingAccount (talk • contribs)

Delete Not really notable like the nominator has applied here. HawkAussie (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a youth team. If there was more there, it would already be in the article. I can't find nowt on it. scope_creep^Talk 11:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toasty's Tunes

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

The topic is not notable according to the standards set at WP:NMUSIC. In addition, there are no reliable, independent sources present in the article. Utopes (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Google doesn't seem to recognize the existence of "Toasty's Tunes", although "Toasty Tune" is probably the same thing. I would consider the social media sources cited in the article to be non-RS, and the article makes no claim to notability. The article, especially in the choice of perspective words, reeks of promotional content. Hog Farm (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam and a7. I don't see any actual credible claim of anything and the rest is just promo. Praxidicae (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage I can find in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a promotion exercise for his music with no reliable sources coverage and it's WP:TOOSOON as he is only 14, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolf (Middle-earth)

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

Fictional race, minor WP:PLOT element, no real world significance, nothing in BEFORE search, fails GNG/WP:NFICTION. Deprodded by User:*Treker with unhelpful edit simmary 'take it to AfD'. Well, we are here, what can you say to justify this as a notable, encyclopedic topic? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor plot element. No significance in the real world, no real significance even in Middle-earth (single digits mentions in the works of a very prolific writer). No significance, no reason for an article. Hog Farm (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tolkien's werewolves are not even prominent from an in-universe perspective. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of Middle-earth animals#Draugluin. Goustien (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only mentioned in passing in LOTR, no suggestion that Tolkien's werewolves are any different to other werewolves.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Middle-earth animals#Draugluin. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Innsmouth#Esoteric Order of Dagon. Tone 07:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric Order of Dagon

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

Fictional entity that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:PLOT/GNG. BEFORE reveals only plot summaries. There is also a disambig like entry for several real world organizations whose name was inspired by this but none seem to pass WP:NORG. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with edit summary significant feature of Lovecraft's work; take to AfD" so here we are. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Innsmouth, where the EOD is located. The scection in that article is rather short and could use expanding.--Auric talk 22:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Shadow Over Innsmouth or merge with Innsmouth#Esoteric Order of Dagon This fictional organisation is only relevant to one of Lovecraft's stories. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Auric. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge makes sense. Artw (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McAdoo

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

Non-notable biography. Of the 18 sources in the article, half of them don't even mention the subject. The others are all mentions in passing, some related to his poker radio show, some related to his failed politics run, and one about him looking at a flag when he was 4 years old as a casual public interest piece. There is nothing here to meet any of our notability guidelines, and I can't find anything further online. I previously moved this article to draft to allow for improvement, and later tagged it for notability, but both of my efforts were reverted by the page creator, who has only ever contributed to this page. – bradv🍁 02:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – bradv🍁 02:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – bradv🍁 02:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PA article starter who WP:IDHT, the article is WP:PROMOTION and fails GNG and NPOL. Lightburst (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources that carry credible, non passing mentions of the subject. No proof of meeting WP:GNG TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per comments above. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on nomination reasons. Abtehas98 (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Not shown to be notable. Kierzek (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jack McAdoo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 2600:6C5A:1480:2C8F:D895:31BF:3BC0:423E (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been corrected as to the discussion below. All of the links mentioned have been removed. It is now virtually identical in subject matter to the page of Karen_Kilgariff that has been published for reference. Thank you. I also see that the discussion about deletion has been placed in areas that have nothing to do with the subject of the article. It almost feels personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darcel2268 (talk • contribs) 14:54, November 14, 2019 (UTC)
Darcel2268, please don't attempt to move the article while it is being discussed at WP:AFD. I have restored it to article-space. – bradv🍁 15:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable person. Cannot find much, if anything, that would count as sigcov. The references in the article do not demonstrate notability. The first four appear to be links to the homepages of the schools attended – no mention of the subject – and the rest are just passing mentions. Creator has stated at the help desk that they are employed by an organisation of which the subject is CEO; disclosures per WP:PAID not yet complied with. Eagleash (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G7 - author has indicated that they wish the page to be deleted. Bensci54 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As well as reasons mentioned above, the references are not actual references, they are simply links to the organisations mentioned, and do not support the claims made. ArkayusMako (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The few sources here are covering him entirely in the context of his unsuccessful run for county commissioner — but non-winning candidates for political office do not get articles just for being candidates, and that's especially true at local levels of office, like county commission, where even winning the seat would still not have been enough. But there are no sources demonstrating his notability as a podcaster either. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist; nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters of Finwë

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

Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG/WP:PLOT. Deprodded by the creator with the request to take it to AfD, so here we are. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extremely minor characters who did not even appear in any of the works published by Tolkien. They were only mentioned in his notes that were published years after his death. As such, there is pretty much nothing discussing them in-depth in any way, as there really is nothing to discuss about them. Rorshacma (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. (Also, you can't inherit notability from Finwë.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are extremely minor characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Finwë. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Somewhere between keep and merge, therefore default keep. Discuss merge at talkpage. Tone 07:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Quimby

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

Not seeing how this fictional character passes WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. Real world impact and significance limited to a single mention of him during a real world election campaign. Hardly sufficient to warrant a stand alone article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage for this recurring character from the longest-running primetime scripted series The Simpsons. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to actually link it here and provide a shred of analysis that would suggest they go beyond mentions in passing/repeating fictional character biography? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well known character in long-running televsion series. WP:GNG met based on the following references - 1 2 3 4, particularly refs 2 and 3. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A paragraph stating that 'he is a stereotypical [caricature of] a politician" is hardly an in-depth analysis and no source goes beyond that. Even the dog and the cat of the Simpsons family are streotypical caricatures of cats and dogs, Neither is notable... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read either the Guardian article or the iPolitics article? To be clear, the Guardian article is some 10 paragraphs and ~1000 words long, all of which compares the Quimby character to real-world equivalents and as such discusses the character in depth. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I did, and it's few mentions in passing, out of which the best is "Quimby is good satire for a reason. He embodies exactly we suspect of small-time populist politicians: that they’re two-bit and on the take. Quimby’s stock self-endorsement (“Vote Quimby!”) no matter the situation – say, caught during an extramarital moment at the Sleep-Eazy Motel – is the calling card of a panderer we all recognise: the politician whose own crookedness has convinced him that no scandal could ever outlive the permanent campaign." I don't think a sentence or two can be argued to be in-depth coverage. If all that can be said about a character when it comes to real world impact/reception/analysis is that he is a caricature of the politician, with maybe a sentence explaining it, I don't think that's sufficient to merit a stand alone article. Now, if there was a source that analyzed how Quimby (or Wiggum) fit into such stereotypes for a few paragraphs, discussing different dimension of said streotypes and how they fit in them, I'd be convinced that's good enough. But all we have for them are one-two liners. I am sorry, this can be better managed in a list. There is nothing to justify splitting them from a list into stand-alone articles, once fictional bio cruft/media appearances trivia list is cut. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of recurring Simpsons characters, the references are not about Quimby, generally, just reference him in regards to other topics._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significance to millions of people in the real world. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — 131.123.51.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge to List of recurring Simpsons characters. A minor character who is not notable. I fail to see why millions of people need this article. What do they do with it?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Regret that they haven't read the more informative https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Joe_Quimby in the first place? Keeping substandard articles here is a disservice to the readers where they should be simply directed to the wikia article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (speedy keep), without prejudice to re-nomination in the future and/or merging or redirecting in consideration of various Wikipedia policies, current, and future sources available. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 02:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carihi Secondary School

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

Cardiffbear88 PRODed this non-notable British Columbia high school, but was dePRODed without any reason whatsoever by another user. Cardiffbear88's PRODing of this article was a good move in my opinion considering that long-established Wikipedia practice for elementary or high schools is to delete and/or redirect to a school district article page (where available). One of these two options seems the best here. Also, note, too, that article is completely uncited, and there's no mention of any context besides saying it's a school and it exists. Doug Mehus T·C 02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, it's difficult to follow what you are saying, but the longstanding practice you mention above is to keep high schools and redirect lower schools. This is a high school. In Canada. Do you want to withdraw this? John from Idegon (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like most high schools, there is likely to be sufficient coverage per WP:NEXIST. This particular school seems to be additionally notable due its Kwakʼwala language program, and aborginal support block discussed in detail here but also mentioned in numerous reliable sources.----Pontificalibus 07:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - John from Idegon/Doug Mehus - that practice changed in 2017, please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Basically, any school now needs to show that it meets WP:GNG and this is the primary thing we should be concerned with, not robotically redirecting some schools whilst keeping others.

In this case this is a tentative keep as, as Pontificalibus says, the language programs and sports teams of this high school appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources (see, e.g., 1 2 3 4) FOARP (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, That's not correct WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not in itself a reason for keep. See the reasons cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rutland Middle School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Elliot Secondary School. -DM Doug Mehus T·C 17:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, Mindmatrix, SL93, and/or Kudpung care to chime in with what I mean? Apologies for the poorly, and quickly, formed AfD nomination. Doug Mehus T·C 17:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, Also, Bearcat should be pinged for his expertise. Doug Mehus T·C 17:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Mehus - you should be careful with selective pinging of editors as it may look like WP:CANVAS. I'm not using WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a keep rationale - I'm saying that the thing that really matter here (as determined in the 2017 RFC) is whether or not WP:GNG is met, which it is. FOARP (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, I wasn't intending to canvas anyone...I can ping the other editors from that discussion (but I got most of them). Nevertheless, in those discussions, the decision to delete was unanimous. My understanding of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is that it's not a keep reason on its own. There's no indication WP:GNG is met here. Doug Mehus T·C 19:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we are agreed that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a keep/delete rationale. I think WP:GNG is met based on the references already discussed above which is why I'm voting keep. FOARP (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school has received significant attention for its language program, per Pontificalibus and John from Idegon, and regular coverage from the local newspaper, the Campbell River Mirror (e.g. [32], [33], [34]). Basic GNG pass. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tenpop421, With respect, I don't think that's correct, quite frankly. It's not a "basic GNG pass." It's not enough to say the school exists. We need to consider the depth of the sources available; I can tell you that those schools I mentioned, which were deleted, are the subject of a lot more press coverage than this school. However, all of it is trivial coverage, like the sources you quoted. Trivial sources do not count to WP:GNG. Doug Mehus T·C 19:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, I'm not sure I agree with your classification of the above sources as trivial. Perhaps I was flippant in posting these exact articles, but the (admittedly inadequate) description in WP:GNG of "trivial sources" gives an example of a one sentence mention of a subject. I believe the articles I linked are wholly on the school (or students of the school, notable as part of their sports program); perhaps these articles ([35], [36]) are more explicitly non-trivial mentions? Also I don't think your argument that schools you mentioned "which were deleted, are the subject of a lot more press coverage" is very valid, as both of the AfDs you linked met with minimal comment from other editors, so don't represent much of a consensus on the matter (also see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). Regards, Tenpop421 (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tenpop421, Agree with you on the inadequacies of WP:GNG, but I think there's a pretty lengthy precedent of redirecting ultra-stubs to their school district article. Not every article is deserving of their own page. Doug Mehus T·C 20:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus. While the article is an stub (or "ultrastub") at this point, I think it could be sufficiently expanded with the sources noted by the editors above, especially in regard to its language programs. Redirecting means this (fairly noted, interesting) information would simply not be on wikipedia, which doesn't very conducive to building an encyclopedia. Considering merging, I'm not sure how the school district article, which is currently a rather bare-bones list, could comfortably contain a section on this school. Either way I think the article is best being kept, a stub is better than nothing at all. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tenpop421, Okay, I'm fine if it's kept, without prejudice to merging in the future. I know some editors are reluctant to compel merges at AfD. Doug Mehus T·C 20:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tenpop421, See also School District 23 Central Okanagan for how the schools can be merged. Most of the schools listed there were the result of redirect or merge decisions at AfD; some of them even had more content (and citations) than this article. Doug Mehus T·C 20:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, glad to have come to an agreement. Looking over a few of the articles that were merged into that article, many seem to be elementary school articles, which were mostly considered inherently unnotable, and few contained little more than an infobox of basic info contained in the school district article. Don't see much merging going on in total. Also, noted that you're responsible for most of these deletions, lol. PS, are you indicating that you're withdrawing the nomination or not? Thanks, Tenpop421 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tenpop421, I haven't decided if I'll withdraw this nomination yet. Doug Mehus T·C 21:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the present state of the article is not ultimately what matters at AFD, as AFD is not clean-up. It therefore doesn't matter that this is a stub, or that the article at present doesn't have sufficient referencing. What matter is whether a decent article could be written - and I think it could based on the sources already discussed. FOARP (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, Right, but we should not strive for C-, start-, or stub-class articles. To me, there aren't sufficient sources to get this to GA status. I may withdraw the nomination without prejudice to re-nomination, merging, or redirecting, in the future, but haven't decided as of yet. Doug Mehus T·C 23:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Middle-earth peoples#Istari (Wizards). Tone 07:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Wizards

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

Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG/WP:PLOT. Stale merge discussion, one of the merge targets looks likely to be deleted as well,the other one is not really a suitable merge target anyway. Deproded by User:Andrew Davidson with unhelpful rationale, so we are here. Andrew, please tell us why you find this topic notable and meriting an AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them. ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan ^💬 05:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what where? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard (Middle-earth) is likely to be deleted anyway, and Radagast is a bad merge proposal idea, since his connection to this is very tangential. This article mentions him once in passing, what would you like to merge to his article? I can't think of anything that would be relevant there. To be even more clear, nothing I see suggest Radagast is a Blue Wizard himself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, Radagast was not a Blue Wizard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: these azure mages are completely not notable. They aren't mentioned in The Lord of the Rings, but are mentioned in The Unfinished Tales, a book of unfinished stories and essays that was published after Tolkien died. It is absurd that they are considered important enough to have an article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle-earth peoples#Istari (Wizards) I suspect that this would be a common search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Middle-earth peoples#Istari (Wizards). Incidentally, I'm rather tired of editors who like to prod complaining about the lack of rationale for the removal of a prod. A prod can be removed by any editor for any reason or for none. It is an absolute right and getting stroppy because it's done should be avoided. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Committee (comics)

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usual comic fancrut, fails WP:PLOT/GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos. Sandstein 13:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy Cohen

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subjects lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos. BOZ (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos. Capt. Milokan (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I plan to merge all the original Howling Commandos (except Nick Fury, Dum Dum Dugan and Gabe Jones) if no one objects? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 07:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as all the relevant real world info is kept. I'm particularly looking at the info on Pinky Pinkerton, which I'm not certain is enough to warrant a stand alone article, but shouldn't be lost. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections and I appreciate the courtesy of a heads-up. Capt. Milokan (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book of G'Quan

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

De-prod-ed article. Doesn't establish WP:NOTABILITY independent from the show, and it is not mentioned in Babylon 5#Religion, so I even question its in-universe relevance for WP:WAF considerations. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Narn. Ps. Perhaps User:Andrew Davidson would tell us why he deprodded this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exiles (Red Skull allies)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed it does. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any independent sources that meaningfully discuss this topic. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anyone knowledgeable enough about the topic to search for this term can find the information at Red Skull. Redirects are cheap, but I'm not sure this one's too obscure to be plausible. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon anime in India

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

Unneeded, and fails to establish notability as it only focused on THAT country instead. Wikipedia only focuses on reception on a series released westside.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the rabbit hole of Pokemon articles per country would be agonizing Bubbasax (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not necessary. It's better off just a small footnote in the main Pokemon article. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the article does not properly address the topic at hand, being the Pokemon anime in India. The show's impact in the country of India in particular is not notable. Utopes (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Begoon 11:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 00:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://thelinknewspaper.ca/article/the-words-and-music-show-becomes-a-digital-archive

[1] ttps://thelinknewspaper.ca/article/the-words-and-music-show-becomes-a-digital-archive

[1]