Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 August	6 August >

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ideami[edit]

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

Nominating after the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Ideami (2nd nomination). Like that article, this one does not meet notability criteria; I cannot find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. GooseUser (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GooseUser (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. GooseUser (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a lot of dead links, and one potentially independent, reliable source (El País), which lists him as the co-creator of Deconstructed Music and links to a long-defunct website. There wasn't enough coverage to sustain an article about the person and there isn't much about hist studio. I did find some recent coverage: https://www.elcomercio.es/sociedad/ciencia/metodo-torch-javier-ideami-despertar-lado-creativo-cerebro-20190415184052-nt.html which is an interview where he explains his Torch methodology, an "innovation ecosystem". Vexations (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dead links, links that do not lead to actual reviews but to commercial gallery websites. This is basically a promotional puff piece. Not notable. Netherzone (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because it's not notable.Forest90 (talk) 12:07, 12 August 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. WP:CSD#G7. I created this page in error, having mistakenly dropped "O2" from the title. Content has been moved to the correct title C6H3Cl2NO2. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C6H3Cl2N[edit]

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

C6H3Cl2N was created by mistake: chemical formulas of all three compounds are C6H3Cl2NO2. There is no molecule in enwiki with formula C₆H₃Cl₂N. Gyimhu (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All three molecules listed at this page are already listed at C6H3Cl2NO2. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as effectively nonsense. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonova engine[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill, trivial, fails WP:GNG. Much of sourcing is primary. Störm (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a non-notable student project. The only coverage it received seems to have been in the university's paper, as I have been unable to find any reliable sources discussing it. Rorshacma (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because it fails WP:GNG an also it's not notable subject.Forest90 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Year of the Ox (Rappers)[edit]

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

I don't see that this group meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The references given are almost all Youtube videos and some Facebook links. Touring as a supporting act for a dozen shows, and recording in legendary studios does not confer notability. They were on a short segment of MTV Asia Raps but to me it seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. ... discospinster _talk 20:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page was recently created. It may be worth giving it a few days. Squeeps 10 20:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a clear lack of general notability here. Trillfendi (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable artist. Barca (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NWEB.-The Gnome (talk) 19:19, 12 August 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. As it was highlighted in the discussion over several Middle-earth lists, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 20:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

House of Isildur[edit]

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

This family tree of anecdotal fictional characters has no reliable third party sources asserting notability and so fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Trivia/fancruft like this belongs at a franchise-specific wiki like the LOTR wiki, which has few restrictions on content as compared to Wikipedia's stricter guidelines. Redirecting to Arnor or a similar article seems appropriate. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is a precedent, and some of the arguments made by Sandstein apply to this AfD.— TAnthony^Talk 19:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps 10 19:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources at all being used to support this information, and I am finding nothing but fan sites and mirrors of this article with additional searches. I am not even sure, in this case, if "House of Isildur" was even a term that was ever actually used in any of Tolkien's books themselves to reference this lineage. Rorshacma (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as The Complete Tolkien Companion, the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia and the The Complete Guide to Middle-earth. Game of Thrones is an absurdly recentist precedent for LotR material as Tolkien came long before Martin and so the stature and scholarship for his work is correspondingly greater. Andrew D. (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Middle-earth characters (whether all of them need to go in, I leave to the experts). WP:NFICT applies here. Notability isn't the real issue, but "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details.". Currently the content is all in-universe, and thus doesn't warrant its own article (it could be adjudged as an inappropriate CONTENTFORK. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the total lack of any outside the fictional universe context dooms this as an unacceptable article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous.
Merge to List of Middle-earth characters Alex-h (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the article with a main article like List of Middle-earth characters.Forest90 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corinthian Yacht Club of Seattle[edit]

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

One of more than a dozen local social organizations in the area for people who use boats. No assertion of notability and no sources to establish it or independent references to verify content. (prod declined, as usual, without explanation) Reywas92^Talk 19:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's plenty of mentions, both in news and books, but insufficient sigcov coverage to meet WP:NORG. No specific redirect target stood out, but I'm open to someone finding a good one. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article subject is not notable really.Forest90 (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject lacks verifiable evidence of notability. This article about a Seattle, Washington, yacht club was created by an editor who may be related to the club. In any case, he has only contributed to this article in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 19:25, 12 August 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 keep but I would prefer renaming the article, since "land drainage" should point to the general topic, not the UK term. Tone 20:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Land drainage[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF of a UK legal term. No apparent notability; all searches for strings such as "'land drainage' uk" yield results related to the topic of drainage, not the legal term. Perhaps this should be redirected there after deletion. Sandstein 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selective) to Land Drainage Act. Clearly notable series of legislative acts. As the PTOPIC is not the act, possibly no redirect or move to title with DAB (legal).Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a dictionary definition. The current focus on a particular legal aspect in a particular country seems too narrow for such a broad concept and so it should be globalised. The primary topic for this title is the general concept, as detailed in numerous books such as Modern Land Drainage or Land Drainage. Andrew D. (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a merge may be appropriate, but not to Land Drainage Act as that article is mostly a long list of red-linked statutory instruments. A better option would be to improve the existing article by any editor who has access to internal Environment Agency documentation or has library access to statutory instruments. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Velella: - I would suggest adding prose, explaining the acts and legal concept/bodies - prior to the list. We definitely can't keep this at the current title - it is not the WP:PTOPIC - and Land Drainage Act is an appropriate title + could be developed with prose.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a fairly well known aspect, and there's both sourcing above and other content available, such as the particularly thrilling read of Inter-War Land Drainage and Policy in England and Wales paper. Land Drainage (UK) might be appropriate. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Article. Firstly, the article subject is notable. Secondly, the article is not a dictionary definition. As I can see the article just need more expanding.Forest90 (talk) 12:18, 12 August 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 20:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Faulkner[edit]

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

This article (recently created by a new account that I suspect has COI issues) is currently very short, because most of the content was COPYVIO and has been revdelled. The sources don't establish notability - Montgomerie's autobiography just gives a passing mention, and the Albemarle Gallery is selling his work and so promotional and not independent. The short biography on the National Galleries of Scotland website goes some way to establishing notability, but I couldn't find any other mentions in independent sources - just a lot of profiles on the websites of galleries selling his work (promotional and not independent), and a profile on the Scottish Art Connect website (WP:UGC and WP:SPS - you can create your own profile once you've exhibited in three galleries). I can't find any independent biographies, or reviews of his work in newspapers or on Google books, so I think he fails WP:GNG. He does have a picture in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, but WP:NARTIST calls for works in several such galleries, and so he fails that too unless anyone can dig out some more sources or a list of notable galleries that feature his work in their permanent collections. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being in the Scottish National Art Gallery collection is a very good of notability. But, as the nom says, there is scant coverage elsewhere.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that - that's really what prompted me to do a thorough search, since I thought he might be displayed in other notable galleries (WP:NARTIST calls for several notable galleries to display their work, which I interpret as a minimum of three), but I can't find anything else at all. If I'm honest, I suspect his presence in the National Portrait Gallery (rather than the National Gallery itself) is more to do with the subject of the painting - Colin Montgomerie - than the artist. They have a large collection of paintings of famous people; the artists who created them are not always notable themselves. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. BTW, several for WP:ARTIST is intentionally vague. Might be two, might be three. See the discussion at the top of this page. In any case, we do not have several here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - OK, I hadn't realised that. That should be clarified really, I just checked a few dictionaries and while some allow for several to mean 'more than one', most definitions seem to agree that it is 'more than two, but not many', which is how I understood that wording. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here shows he meets the notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, I think. As far as reviews go, I can only find one or two sentences about an exhibition of his in London. We need more than one public gallery holding his works (private collections like banks don't count), or winning prizes. That may come, but for now, delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per RebeccaGreen above, plus needs more than just the Scottish National Art Gallery exposure. Other relevant gallery coverage appears to be Albemarle Gallery (now combined with Pontone Gallery) which seems to be largely promotional coverage. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Forest90 (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Frontrunnaz (songwriting and production team)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Lots of text and sources, but so much of it is "notability by association", and it's difficult to see any notability for the production duo themselves. Relies heavily on the first two sources, which are primary source interviews from non-RS websites. The Billboard and Hip Hop Lately references do not mention the duo at all, and the NPR source is literally one passing mention in the whole interview. The mentions of certifications and awards are mostly inherited notability for co-writing one song on certified albums – they are not credited on Logic's Grammy-nominated single "1-800-273-8255", or on LeCrae's Dove-nominated "Cant Do You". The only song of theirs which has received any kind of individual recognition is "Till the End", on which they were two of five co-writers, and it has been certified gold by the RIAA. But this seems to be the only source which genuinely passes RS, and it is neither multiple nor in-depth. The work with Serena Williams doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere apart from Serena name-checking them on her social media... and it's worth noting that Serena and the Frontrunnaz' Diondria Thornton are in fact close friends since childhood. All the personal information regarding their early lives, meeting up, and their children is barely referenced, suggesting a COI from someone who knows them personally. There's no question that the duo have worked with many notable artists, but there is a lack of sources to demonstrate their own notability. Richard3120 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kudos to the nominator for the in-depth investigation of the text and sources in the article. I would also cite violations of WP:INHERITED and WP:PROMOTION, but otherwise I can add little to what the nominator has already said. The duo indeed has a few songwriting and production credits with notable people, but they are still a few degrees of separation away from notability for themselves. The article has way too many unsupported claims, and as a distinct entity they have almost no reliable coverage except for brief mentions in publications that are about other people. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunlight Electric[edit]

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

NCORP fail. Tagged for missing refs since 2008. The article is, ahem, a tad bit promotional in its current state, and I cannot find enough sourcing to rescue it from its current advertisement status. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:BEFORE found sources only marketing /directory info. A non notable company fails WP:ORGCRITE and WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:30, 7 August 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. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 19:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of kings of Arnor[edit]

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

This list is the very definition of WP:Trivia and WP:Fancruft; I believe it's a remnant from a decade ago when Wikipedia had a lot more fancrufty lists and articles, some of which were even created by a younger me. A lot of that stuff has been excised over the years. Most of these names aren't even actual characters in any of the books. Interested fans can find information like this (and more) at the LOTR wiki; these franchise-specific wikis have few restrictions on content as compared to Wikipedia's stricter guidelines. — TAnthony^Talk 18:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "very definition" of these cookie-cutter nominations is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read WP:Trivia, which doesn't actually provide carte blanche to delete anything which the nominator finds trivial. And WP:Fancruft is an essay which is just more opinion. So, the relevant link for this is WP:ITSCRUFT, which is an argument to avoid at AfD. Our actual deletion policies include WP:ATD; ; WP:CENSOR; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives, none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge to the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only sources being used here are the Tolkien books themselves, or fansites. I have looked for additional sources to see if there was much talking about the Kings of Arnor as a group that would help establish real world notability, and have found nothing but a couple very brief mentions in Lord of the Rings guidebooks. As there is no sourced content worth merging anywhere, and the article name wouldn't be a particularly useful Redirect, I agree that deletion is the answer here. Rorshacma (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps 10 19:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another list which comes close to being a copy of what is published in a work of fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This content brings together information that the curious can't find in a better format.Individual articles on the listed kings might be excess but not the list.12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, lists of these kings can be found outside Wikipedia here, here, and here.— TAnthony^Talk 03:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list is better than those lists (the third link you offered incidentally has no list at all).12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to copy everything from here back to the LOTR wiki before this is deleted, as I said they have few restrictions there.— TAnthony^Talk 14:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An absolutely critical correction/clarification I recently added here,was reverted for no good reason there last August when I tried it.(Same at the Tolkien Gateway wiki).12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Some of the characters are notable enough to be apart of a list but an article for this specific list is too WP:FANCRUFT. The merge to suggestion is WP:ATD,though deleting isn't bad due to the fact that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a indiscriminate source of knowledge. Josalm64rc (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8CCF:747C:B4E6:7CB0:7320 (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge the article with List of Middle-earth characters.Forest90 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 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 18:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captain of the Secret Base Openweight Championship[edit]

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

Promotion fails to meet WP:GNG, so the titles derivatives also don't meet GNG. All sources are WP:PRIMARY. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — We were literally nominating this at the same time. Promotion is up for deletion as well. Fails WP:GNG. StaticVapor message me! 17:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The promotion is notable enough as it is an offspring promotion of the Toryumon System that has been regularly featuring many known veterans of the Japanese independent pro-wrestling scene such as Bear Fukuda, Mad Paulie, Men's Teioh, Mototsugu Shimizu, Tetsuhiro Kuroda and even Suzuki-gun member DOUKI for a decade. More independent sources have been provided from Cagematch.net, a website often used in various Wikipedia pages about pro-wrestling promotions or championships. Cordially, MordecaiXLII. 01:01, August 6, 2019 (CEST)
- As explained elsewhere, neither helps to show notability. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both promotion and belts fail to meet GNG. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the promotion is deleted under it's AfD, this surely has to follow. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article fails WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:22, 12 August 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 18:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captain of the Secret Base Openweight Tag Team Championship[edit]

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

Promotion fails to meet WP:GNG, so the titles derivatives also don't meet GNG. All sources are WP:PRIMARY. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:GNG, no coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The promotion is notable enough as it is an offspring promotion of the Toryumon System that has been regularly featuring many known veterans of the Japanese independent pro-wrestling scene such as Bear Fukuda, Mad Paulie, Men's Teioh, Mototsugu Shimizu, Tetsuhiro Kuroda and even Suzuki-gun member DOUKI for a decade. More independent sources have been provided from Cagematch.net, a website often used in various Wikipedia pages about pro-wrestling promotions or championships. Cordially, MordecaiXLII. 00:43, August 6, 2019 (CEST)
- MordecaiXLII - please see WP:NOTINHERIT. Subjects don't gain notability from notable subjects. Cagematch doesn't help to prove notability, it's only to be used to verify match results, per WP:PW/RS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lee Vilenski - How does anything gain notability, then? The Cagematch sources were just adressing the WP:PRIMARY. To me, the three articles now meet the WP:GNG criteria. Cordially, MordecaiXLII. 08:30, August 6, 2019 (CEST)
    - You need to add significant content from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Things like it being mentioned in the news, magazine clippings, or reviews from 3rd parties. not everything is suitable for a Wikipedia page.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Well I have been defeated. The thought police hath struck again. Hope you managed to get off from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MordecaiXLII (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Barca (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the promotion is deleted under it's AfD, this has to follow as well. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it fails WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:23, 12 August 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 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Base[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, I could not find any coverage in reliable sources StaticVapor message me! 17:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. StaticVapor message me! 17:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've also nominated: Captain of the Secret Base Openweight Championship and Captain of the Secret Base Openweight Tag Team Championship for deletion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks you beat me to it. StaticVapor message me! 17:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The promotion is notable enough as it is an offspring promotion of the Toryumon System that has been regularly featuring many known veterans of the Japanese independent pro-wrestling scene such as Bear Fukuda, Mad Paulie, Men's Teioh, Mototsugu Shimizu, Tetsuhiro Kuroda and even Suzuki-gun member DOUKI for a decade. More independent sources have been provided from Cagematch.net, a website often used in various Wikipedia pages about pro-wrestling promotions or championships. Cordially, MordecaiXLII. 00:48, August 6, 2019 (CEST)
- @MordecaiXLII: Notability is not WP:INHERITED by these other things. Cagematch, although included as a WP:RS on WP:PW/RS, their coverage is considered WP:ROUTINE and therefore cannot support notability. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Galatz pointed out, notability is not inherited. This article relies heavily on such and Cage Match can only be used for match results and therefore doesn't prove notability. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:24, 12 August 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 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Fernandez (TV personality)[edit]

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

I don't see any indication that this person is notable by our standards – there are some mentions in blog-type sources, but I don't see the sort of in-depth coverage that would justify having a page on him, or indeed enable us to write one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 9 August 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 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction Los Angeles[edit]

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

A low-budget film that doesn't appear to have been the subject of secondary coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 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. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 20:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

House of Anárion[edit]

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

This tree is the very definition of WP:Trivia and WP:Fancruft; I believe it's a remnant from a decade ago when Wikipedia had a lot more fancrufty lists and articles, some of which were even created by a younger me. A lot of that stuff has been excised over the years, especially unsourced family trees of fictional characters like this one. Most of these names aren't even actual characters in any of the books. Interested fans can find information like this (and more) at the LOTR wiki; these franchise-specific wikis have few restrictions on content as compared to Wikipedia's stricter guidelines. — TAnthony^Talk 17:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "very definition" of the nomination is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read WP:Trivia, which doesn't actually provide carte blanche to delete anything which the nominator finds trivial. And WP:Fancruft is an essay which is just more opinion. So, the relevant link for this is WP:ITSCRUFT, which is argument to avoid at AfD. Our actual deletion policies include WP:ATD; ; WP:CENSOR; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives (not that deletion is forbidden), none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge of the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a single subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gondor- There is not a single reliable source being used here, and no claim of real world notability. Searching for sources turns up very little outside the text of Tolkien's books themselves. As the topic is on the royal house of Gondor, and they are already mentioned in that article, a redirect there would be useful, but there is no reliably source content here that needs to be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps 10 19:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete such lists are justified for real world ruling houses, although I would point out there are many houses of Majarajas who ruled millions of people at a time that we have far less developed articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8CCF:747C:B4E6:7CB0:7320 (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination this anachronistic piece of fancruft. The whole contraption is sourced to creators' own notes, so it's not a Merge but an outright Delete: Unsourced material is not dumped elsewhere in Wikipedia but thrown in the bin. -The Gnome (talk) 19:29, 12 August 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. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 18:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of kings of Rohan[edit]

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

This list is the very definition of WP:Trivia and WP:Fancruft; I believe it's a remnant from a decade ago when Wikipedia had a lot more fancrufty lists and articles, some of which were even created by a younger me. A lot of that stuff has been excised over the years. Most of these names aren't even actual characters in any of the books. Interested fans can find information like this (and more) at the LOTR wiki; these franchise-specific wikis have few restrictions on content as compared to Wikipedia's stricter guidelines. — TAnthony^Talk 17:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "very definition" of these cookie-cutter nominations is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read WP:Trivia, which doesn't actually provide carte blanche to delete anything which the nominator finds trivial. That guideline is actually about sections of articles which lack a particular focus. And WP:Fancruft is an essay which is just more opinion. So, the relevant link for this is WP:ITSCRUFT, which is argument to avoid at AfD. Our actual deletion policies include WP:ATD; ; WP:CENSOR; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives (not that deletion is forbidden), none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge of the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a single subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources currently in the article aside from the Tolkien books. This one actually does turn up a few sources upon further searches, but I'm really not finding much outside of plot summaries. Pretty much the only bit I'm finding that discusses the Rohan kings in any way outside plot are a few brief mentions that support the information in the second paragraph of this article (that all of their names were different epithets for rulers) which is not enough to warrant this otherwise unnotable list being kept. Rorshacma (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps 10 19:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when your article has to be sourced to the informational appendix in a fictional book it is too much reflecting the in-universe reality of a fictional work and not drawing broadly on many sources as would need to be done to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only (this one even has zero sources!). A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 18:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of kings of Dale[edit]

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

This list is the very definition of WP:Trivia and WP:Fancruft; I believe it's a remnant from a decade ago when Wikipedia had a lot more fancrufty lists and articles, some of which were even created by a younger me. A lot of that stuff has been excised over the years. Most of these names aren't even actual characters in any of the books. Interested fans can find information like this (and more) at the LOTR wiki; these franchise-specific wikis have few restrictions on content as compared to Wikipedia's stricter guidelines. — TAnthony^Talk 17:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "very definition" of these cookie-cutter nominations is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read WP:Trivia, which doesn't actually provide carte blanche to delete anything which the nominator finds trivial. That guideline is actually about sections of articles which lack a particular focus. And WP:Fancruft is an essay which is just more opinion. So, the relevant link for this is WP:ITSCRUFT, which is argument to avoid at AfD. Our actual deletion policies include WP:ATD; ; WP:CENSOR; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives (not that deletion is forbidden), none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge of the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a single subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not a single reliable source being used here, and I have not been able to find any reliable sources discussing this particular fictional lineage outside of a very few brief mentions in plot summaries. Which isn't really surprising considering how minor of a lineage this is, even within the Lord of the Rings itself. Rorshacma (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps 10 19:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks any sources. This lacks any outside the fictional work context at all, listing who played certain roles in film does not save the lack of context issue, especially for an article on a fictional royal lineage. It is unclear that any of these characters beyond Bard are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 18:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Númenor[edit]

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

This list is the very definition of WP:Trivia and WP:Fancruft; I believe it's a remnant from a decade ago when Wikipedia had a lot more fancrufty lists and articles, some of which were even created by a younger me. A lot of that stuff has been excised over the years. Most of these names aren't even actual characters in any of the books. Interested fans can find information like this (and more) at the LOTR wiki; these franchise-specific wikis have few restrictions on content as compared to Wikipedia's stricter guidelines. — TAnthony^Talk 17:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "very definition" of these cookie-cutter nominations is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read WP:Trivia, which doesn't actually provide carte blanche to delete anything which the nominator finds trivial. That guideline is actually about sections of articles which lack a particular focus. And WP:Fancruft is an essay which is just more opinion. So, the relevant link for this is WP:ITSCRUFT, which is argument to avoid at AfD. Our actual deletion policies include WP:ATD; ; WP:CENSOR; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives (not that deletion is forbidden), none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge of the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a single subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding any reliable sources that discuss these characters as a group in any way that is not simply plot summary. Very brief plot summary at that, considering that most of these characters were only featured in the various supplementary works published after Tolkien's death, and are not major characters in the The Lord of the Rings itself. Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps 10 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per previous.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 18:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of kings of Gondor[edit]

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

This list is the very definition of WP:Trivia and WP:Fancruft; I believe it's a remnant from a decade ago when Wikipedia had a lot more fancrufty lists and articles, some of which were even created by a younger me. A lot of that stuff has been excised over the years. Most of these names aren't even actual characters in any of the books. Interested fans can find this information (and more) at [1][2]; these franchise-specific wikis have few restrictions on content as compared to Wikipedia's stricter guidelines. — TAnthony^Talk 16:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "very definition" of these cookie-cutter nominations is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read WP:Trivia, which doesn't actually provide carte blanche to delete anything which the nominator finds trivial. That guideline is actually about sections of articles which lack a particular focus. And WP:Fancruft is an essay which is just more opinion. So, the relevant link for this is WP:ITSCRUFT, which is an argument to avoid at AfD. Our actual deletion policies include WP:ATD; ; WP:CENSOR; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives (not that deletion is forbidden), none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge of the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a single subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps 10 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of coverage even with little sourcing is justified for real world rulers (although I would point out we have less for many rulers of pre-unification kingdom of places in Nepal, or for the rulers of Kashmir then we have here for a fictional place), it is not justified for background characters most of whom only show up fleetingly in the plot of a book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, 1st, as with many lists, retain only the names that are notable ie. have their own wikiarticle, oh look! it is now tiny and can easily be accommodated in a section at Gondor, so delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Lukacevic[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. He has not played enough games to meet #2 (127 in AHL, 21 in HockeyAllsvenskan, 15 in Slovak Extraliga = 163). No preeminent honours to show for to pass #3 and he never played internationally. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has played in a number of leagues, but doesn't seem to have played enough games to meet criteria #2 in WP:NHOCKEY or have the awards to meet criteria #3. Coverage fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:26, 12 August 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 18:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Davison[edit]

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

Interesting background to this. It was deleted under CSD A7 and turned into a redirect. At a subsequent XFD for the redirect, the appropriateness of the speedy deletion was questioned, and this article was restored, although with a question mark over whether it should go to AFD. I'm now bringing it here as, although I understand there is a claim to significance in creating unified diff, I can find very few reliable sources to support Wayne Davison's notability. Even when searching along with unidiff/unified diff search terms, I get nothing but a couple of blogs/websites that don't seem to me to rise to the standard of reliable sources. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are multiple references cited in the article, yet all are offline and difficult to cross check. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:NMUSIC etc. Josalm64rc (talk) 21:05, 7 August 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 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Robinson (civil servant)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO the sources are too weak and in a BEFORE search I found quite a few mentions in RS but there are all without exception quote from him in his capacity as DG of civil aviation. e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6]. None of these are in-depth coverage of the subject as required by GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the lack of singificant coverage about him is due to his status as a sub-cabinet civil servant, one of several directors at his level at the Transport_Canada#Headquarters. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 9 August 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. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dayalex Ayala[edit]

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

Promotional article, which was moved out of AfC by the article's creator after having been declined many times. Very poorly sourced with only non-RS, and brief mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, dear editor, I am writing to you with the purpose of discussing this article and avoiding its elimination, the article is encyclopedic but lacks references right now, I would like to continue editing the article so that it remains on Wikipedia. I remain attentive of you, RDAP.

RDAPRDAP (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current sourcing is awful (the links to YouTube, Amazon, Soundcloud, Spotify, Apple Music are all meaningless to establish notability) but the problem is that I can't find anything better than that through Google. I don't believe that Dayalex Ayala meets the general notability criterion and at this point, it's RDAP's responsibility to convince us otherwise. By the way, I suppose RDAP stands for Roque David Ayala Prieto, which is Dayalex Ayala true name so we're very likely facing strong conflict of interest problems to boot. Pichpich (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Very likely an autobiography, as noted above, and lacking in true indications of notability. One of the films Mr. Ayala starred in did win a category in a national competition, but it was the film that won, not Mr. Ayala's acting or musical score – the film was written and directed by his college teacher. The only other reliable source in the article, Ultima Hora, doesn't mention Mr. Ayala or his music at all. Richard3120 (talk) 14:40, 6 August 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. There is really nothing approaching an argument for deletion here. Sandstein 20:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lexington, Islington[edit]

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

Notability Tommygs (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC) — Tommygs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is inadequate per WP:VAGUEWAVE. There has been a tavern here for centuries and The London Encyclopedia traces its history back to 1664. There have been several name changes and rebuilds during this time. The page in question documents the latest, recent incarnation but even that seems reasonably notable as a live music venue. I intend to do some work on the history of this place and will may start other pages for the other significant names for the establishment. The worst case will be merger of such pages per WP:PRESERVE and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One location, one article, I would say, just as it is covered in sources such as Temple 2008, p. 352 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTemple2008 (help) and Wroth & Wroth 1896, pp. 145–146 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWrothWroth1896 (help). Terrible article. Historical and well-documented location. Be careful about the identification with Busby's Folly, which several sources (including what I cite here) say is an error. Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Temple, Philip, ed. (2008). "Pentonville Road". Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville. Survey of London. Vol. 47. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300139372. ISSN 0081-9751.
- Wroth, Warwick William; Wroth, Arthur Edgar (1896). "The Belvidere Tea Gardens, Pentonville Road". The London Pleasure Gardens of the Eighteenth Century. New York: Macmillan.
Keep I don't see any obvious problems with this article. I would note that the Evening Standard highlights this establishment in an article speaking about an issue involving music venues in general, which to me says something about its notability. StonyBrook (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well aside from the fact that the cited source is a pub promoter advertising xyr pub who clearly does not know history, and the construction date and history that xe gives are wrong according to Temple 2008, p. 352 and others; there's the matter of it being recentist rubbish that gives no mention of a street address that has been two pubs, a tea gardens, a restaurant, and others over 2½ centuries, and instead gives the reader a useless list of recent stage acts. That's what one gets with an article written sourced to pub promotion and entertainment guides instead of history books. Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angelia Robinson[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to be a notable musician. I can't find any coverage of her in books, newspapers or elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Angelia Robinson albums and Lessons in Love (Angelia Robinson album) should probably be bundled into this AFD. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Old unsupported PROMO article (part of a larger PROMO garden created by SPA and blocked sock acct), all OR, ORPHAN, etc. Not a borderline case, it seems. Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 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. Firm consensus to keep given that NPOL is satisfied. There was also a general consensus that GNG and possibly ACADEMIC were also satisfied. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Carlos Bates[edit]

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

Article found via a Teahouse post by DiamondRemley39, to which GirthSummit and Gråbergs Gråa Sång answered.

I found nothing online that supports notability in view of WP:NACADEMIC. That being said, considering the time period, offline sources may exist.

The closest seem to be his membership in the American Antiquarian Society (not in article, but see first external link); however I think that is not enough to meet NACADEMIC #3. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping fix: Girth_Summit. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Yes, I am inclined to agree that he is not notable. I have searched newspapers.com and most of what I see is that he gave a few lectures and his collections were auctioned off after his death. I only found one thing indicative of notability: He received an honorary degree. But it was only a master of arts... though it was in an earlier time and a master of arts may have more clout then. Right now it looks like he hasn't done enough to be considered notable. Thanks for nominating the article, Tigraan. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for the ping Tigraan. I just did a Google search and found quite a few hits. This source includes a short biography of the subject, and explains that his papers are archived in the American Antiquarian Society's Archive Collection, and also says that there is a biography of him in the AAS Newsclipping File, and directs you to AAS Proceedings, vol. 64 (21 April 1954), pp. 8-10, which I assume from the context is another biography. I don't have access to it, but I'd have thought that would all contribute significantly toward notability. He's also discussed in some detail on pp130-131 of The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science: Volume 38 - Supplement 3. I stopped looking at that point, but there are more hits on a Google - I'm convinced he passes WP:GNG based on these sources. GirthSummit_(blether) 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The AAS Proceedings biography can be found here. He was elected to the Connecticut House of Reps (according to the biography). Does he then pass WP:Politicans? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wonder what to think of that source. The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science article listed above, about the Connecticut Historical Society, was written by Diana Ross McCain, who, like Bates, worked for the CHS. And Bates is mentioned on two pages and isn't the subject of the article, yet the coverage is more than a trivial passing mention. Just want to make sure that a kosher independent source. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that one could argue that these sources are not fully independent of the subject, since they are written by people belonging to organisations that he was also a member of. However, they're very reliable academic publications, and I don't see any reason to scrutinise them to death - the subject has been dead for 65 years, we're not worried about self-publicity here, and it's clear enough that he was a distinguished scholar in his day - indeed, as the editor of sixteen issues of the Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, he's probably notable under criterion 8 of WP:NPROF regardless of WP:GNG. I would be surprised if digging a little deeper into printed records didn't throw up a lot more sources, and I'm satisfied that this is an easy keep. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I just checked WP:NPOLITICIAN. He passes the secondary criterion as having been a member of a legislative body at state level. He's still required to pass the primary criterion, but I can't imagine that he got elected to Connecticut House of Reps without garnering some press coverage along the way - it would just take someone to dig through the press archives of the time to find it. This adds more weight to the notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources identified above so that WP:GNG is passed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, there is not a whole lot here in terms of sources, although, as noted above, formally sufficient to pass WP:GNG. For me the deciding factor is that the AAS obituary contains detailed and substantial biographical info. So the article can be expanded to actually look like a reasonable biography. Nsk92 (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copmment If he was a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives, that would mean we should keep the article. We also should mention this in the article. In my experience even people who were very significant in past legislatures often lack articles, and they often only get articles for very unrelated reasons, the example that comes to mind easiest is Rendell M. Maybe, whose article survives because of his political roles, but I created the article because of his role in establishing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Nigeria and writing a book on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment - switching to keep based on the Conneticut House election / NPOLITICIAN. The sources found by Girth Summit are not enough to my eyes for NACADEMIC or GNG but they are still a reasonable basis to write the article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my vote to keep due to WP:NPOLITICIAN. Still not seeing him as an Academic, though the content of such sources seems ok. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives (passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPOL has been a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:20, 8 August 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. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kolanos[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Highest North American league he played in was the CHL which only grants notability for preeminent honours, #3, alongside the EIHL where he also played, and the subject has none. Also has no preeminent honours during college as well so fails #4. Tay87 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this fails the GNG as it is bound to be no more than a few sentences transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:27, 10 August 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. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of political figures of Upstate New York[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:LISTCRUFT with no set criteria for inclusion. Appears to be a list of who the creator personally believes to be important political figures GPL93 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and unsourced listcruft. Highway 89 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my question on this is the same as in a similar AfD a few days ago. If Upstate New York is notable and the contents of the list are all bluelinked, what is the rationale for deletion? It’s not OR that the individuals listed are from upstate NY, so what’s the urgency in getting rid of this? Mccapra (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a reason for keeping the list, either. I'd argue that all of the Upstate New York lists are WP:LISTCRUFT, but for this list the subjectivity of the criteria for inclusion is the main reason why it should be deleted. Its not a list of politicians from Upstate New York (in which case a category would be more appropriate, anyway), but "political figures". Even who is and is not from Upstate New York is disputable, given that there is no clear consensus on where Downstate ends and where Upstate begins. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have we reached out to Don Argus jr? Bearian (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian I notified Don Argus jr of both AfDs but it appears he is a rather infrequent editor so I am unsure if he will see them. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced indiscriminate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced list, criteria unclear. There must be hundreds if not thousands of notable politicians from that region. Picking the most important ones was likely a WP:OR process, and it's unlikely we're going to find an authoritative NPOV independent RS for this sort of a selection. Daß Wölf 03:07, 10 August 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 valid disambugiation. If there were only two items, one could sort them with hatnotes, here there are 4. Tone 19:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation, since it only points to items within the series of the same name. The series article does the same job, better. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DAB. The disambiguation page is useful as a directory for people to quickly find one of the entries, instead of searching through the main The Legend of Zelda page for them. Highway 89 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a WP:THREEDABS, it's well within the threshold where that can be contained in a hatnote. There aren't so many entries also named "The Legend of Zelda" that is requires a disambiguation page. This is made even more redundant by the fact that they are all in the same series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How likely would someone searching for it be looking for cartoon series or the manga? I don't think they'd have any trouble finding them if they were looking for them. Pageviews: 1,153 in the past 90 days so someone must be coming here. No shortages of space on Wikipedia. I don't care whether its kept or deleted. Dream Focus 01:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yeah, it has pageviews since it's linked from the top of the Zelda article. Most likely all those people will just close the page once they realize it's a dupe of the series article. It's an active hindrance, not a help._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see a policy reason to delete: it's assisting navigation to 4 different articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Miracle[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability criteria, as there are no sources in the article on the use of the term. Ythlev (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - No sources? Did you actually look? There are hundreds. Try [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] Hug^syrup 12:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean in the article. Ythlev (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, per WP:BEFORE, you are expected to carry out a reasonable search for additional sources before nominating for deletion. No one would blame you for not finding an obscure book that only exists in a library, but the sources I listed took me 10 seconds on Google. If you would like to withdraw your nomination, this could be closed as a speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1, which would probably be the best outcome. Hug^syrup 14:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this topic can easily be covered in Economy of Taiwan and does not warrant its own article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sources given above only mentions the term to describe the growth and do not demonstrate that this term is widely used. Ythlev (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, up to you. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but this is clearly not a dictionary entry - it's a highly detailed article about a notable concept that has attracted widespread coverage. The sheer prevalence of the sources, as well as the fact that some comment on the use of the term 'miracle' demonstrate that the term is itself notable and widely used. Anyway, let's let this one run its course and see what the consensus is. Hug^syrup 14:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a well known term/event in economic history. In addition to Hugsyrup's links, try [14] ( [15] is a graduate thesis, but has citations to numerous studies of the phenomenon), and of course, the Thomas Gold book, a selection of which can be found here. MarginalCost (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MarginalCost's citations. Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As per a source review, the topic passes WP:GNG. Also, the extended coverage and analysis regarding the multiple facets of Taiwan's rapid growth in the second half of the 1900s is certainly not a dictionary definition. Furthermore, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, not the state of sourcing in articles, as per WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hugsyrup and Northamerica1000 passes WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:34, 11 August 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. Discussion's been open for a month and both sides are well-argued. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Magnet[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Shrav81 with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article appears to meet all primary criteria for notability. List of references indicate that the subject matter has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. There may be some sources that may not meet WP:RS but I spotted at least 4 sources that do, so the correct remedy would be to attach tags to fix references, not deletion. Further, the assertion that it has received contributions from a single editor is not a criteria for deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'd love to see a lot of the promotional language cleaned up Sneakerheadguy (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a lot of sources, several of which are reliable and independent so notability is there. There is definitely quite a bit of promotional/POV content but that is fixable (and as stated above, this isn't a criteria for deletion anyway). Highway 89 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Non-trivial like: Economic Times and Business Today. Nominator did not do a thorough WP:BEFORE. Passing mention in anotherBusiness Today and Telegraph India. Trout Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the 45 references listed in the article and above, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. I wonder if the Keep !voters have read WP:NCORP (especially WP:CORPDEPTH and [WP:ORGIND]]) because I do not understand how they reached the conclusion that references exist that meet the criteria as described in WP:NCORP. There's also a lack of detail provided by those who !voted to Keep and some make no references to policies or guidelines (which, of course, they should). Of those Keep !votes that provide reasons and or refer to policies/guidelines, most are quoted and interpreted incorrectly and/or incompletely. For example, some say that there exists coverage which is "significant" - my opinion is that while some of the publishers may be large/successful/significant, this does not mean that the article is significant. In fact, upon close examination, none of the content is significant since most of it is churnalism and/or derived from primary sources. There are various incomplete interpretations of guidelines - for example, a topic is not automatically notable if it receives coverage in "multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources" because it is *also* a *requirement* that the *content* must be independent (and not a series of "interviews" or articles based on interviews/quotations/announcements) as per WP:ORGIND. After an examination of the references, not a single reference includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Finally, the references listed by Lightburst above are classic examples of references that fail the criteria for establishing notability. The Economic Times references is classic churnalism complete with photo, history of founders, description of problem, funding history and positive future-looking statement - fails WP:ORGIND and it is clearly not independent content. The Business Today reference is entirely based on information and quotations from the founders and one of the angel investors - again fails WP:ORGIND. Due to the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: the sources offered above are likewise passing mentions and/or WP:SPIP; this is not significant coverage. For example, "Different Strokes: Jade's creative crowdsourcing model" is based on the interview with the co-founders. This is not independent, significant coverage and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 11 August 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 10:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior High[edit]

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

The article Warrior High should be deleted due to the fact that it does not meet theWikipedia:Notability policy, and that it does not have numerous sources, with only one source covering it.ShakesPakes (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ShakesPakes (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreeing with SL93, no significant coverage is found. ShakesPakes (talk) 15:20, 7 August 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 09:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Educational Consortium[edit]

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

No independent sources in article or found (just a few passing mentions of sports teams). Fails WP:NORG.

This is an odd article. It's written as if this were a school, and the organization sort of claims to be a school, but it is not an accredited Kentucky school. The students are all technically home schooled, and the supposed campus at 1500 Alliant Ave, Louisville is actually two days a week of borrowed or rented classroom space at Indiana Wesleyan University. This is an organization which, in effect, provides private tutoring to allow home schooled Christian students to take higher level high school courses that their parents might not be capable of giving them. It also allows them to participate in some group activities such as sports.

I deprodded this 3 months ago pending investigation. I was unable to show its notability (see analysis and sources at Talk:Christian Educational Consortium#What is this group?) and my request for help in finding independent reliable sources to show its notability went unanswered (see Talk:Christian Educational Consortium#Any independent sources about this group?). Meters (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. What is it? A school? An organization? An accrediting body? I can't tell as it's currently written. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: It's not an accredited school. Two days a week of instruction does not meet the the Kentucky school regulations minimum hours of instructions of "no less than the equivalent of 1062 instructional hours in a minimum of 170 instructional days" to be illegible for accreditation as a private school.^[1] It's definitely not an accreditation body. All of the students are technically home schooled as shown by the boilerplate letter the group provides to the students' parents to send to their local school boards: "This letter is to inform you that we will home school our children, listed below... Our school is located in our home, at the above address."^[2] I don't know what the legal status is in Kentucky, but in a similar situation where I live the government education department simply called the group a private tutoring service for home schooled students. Meters (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Kentucky State Regulations: Private Schools". Kentucky Department of Education.
^ "Sample Letter of Intent". Christian Educational Consortium.

Keep This sort of program is roughly comparable to articles for adult folk schools such as John C. Campbell Folk School. This quasi-school includes secondary students and appears to be a feeder for Indiana Wesleyan University. They compete at the secondary level in baseball according to Google News. We presume notability for secondary schools. Although it is not accredited, it's size and association with Indiana Wesleyan University make up for this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is not an accredited school, and even if it were the presumption of notability for schools only goes so far as to exempt them from speedy deletion on notability grounds. Per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N schools still have to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. I was unable to show notability, and I gave it three months for other editors to find sources. If you can provide sources to show its notability that's fine, but your assumption hat it is connected to the University of Indiana Wesleyan is not enough to keep the article. Meters (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a precedent for other large secondary-including co-op type organizations on WP AfD? If not, we may be setting a precedent with what we do with this one--lets get it right. As for their relationship with the university, you could call them up and ask. What is stated in the article is enough to infer what I stated earlier. It seems that most of the team/extracurricular stuff on Google News is behind a paywall so it is difficult to see how in-depth the coverage is. They are not be accredited, but in 2012-2013 they offered five AP classes, which is more than many smaller public US high schools offer. You cannot offer AP classes without jumping though some certification hoops for them--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, you're basing your keep on a inference about their relationship with the university (not that I see that affects their notability in any case), and a guess about sources you have not actually seen? RE: precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigo Sudbury Campus This was a full time, five day a week private tutoring service for home schooled students (including high school students), with permanent teachers on staff and its own "school" premises. Meters (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia's "presumed notable" is not "inherently notable" and is not absolute; it doesn't override WP:GNG. This article has zero citations; and it was founded in 2001 (so entirely within the world wide web era) yet I can't easily find independent, significant coverage on the web. So even if it were something that Wikipedia usually "presumes" notable, it's rebutted by the utter lack of WP:SIGCOV. Notability is not inherited, so an "association" with some other institution is not sufficient, and it seems like the "association" is that they happen to be allowed some rooms in the "Louisville Education and Conference Center", an Indiana Wesleyan satellite office building 3 hours(!) away from campus, in a different state, mostly used for adult education and also "available for use as conference space by area businesses and organizations." (For completeness, even though it should be moot, an analysis about whether this is really a school by any normal definition: Their website claims "school" and "blended education" and "attend traditional academic classes" without explaining what they think would count as any of that. But, as Meters mentions above, when it comes down to dealing with outsiders, this "school" changes its tune: They tell parents to send a letter to the public school board saying that "we will home school our children" and "our school is located in our home" and referring to the parents as "the school administration" for federal law purposes. I can't find any evidence on the website that their graduations or diplomas are recognized, and the word "accreditation" appears in literally only one place on the website, dealing with dual-enrollment classes at the University of Louisville.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. There seems to be some misunderstanding of our notability guidelines here. WP:GNG is a basic standard for notability; meeting it is sufficient, in and of itself, for inclusion. There are some subject-specific notability guidelines that are explicitly alternatives to WP:GNG; WP:PROF is one such. Meeting such a guideline is enough, in and of itself, to demonstrate notability. WP:NCRIC is not such an alternative; WP:NSPORTS states explicitly that standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. In other words, meeting NCRIC is not, in and of itself, demonstration of notability. Therefore, there is clear consensus here that the subject is not notable; redirecting as a reasonable search term, as some have suggested. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Dass[edit]

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

Although the subject squeaks by WP:NCRIC with that List A appearance, he does not meet WP:GNG, which is still required for subjects whose notability falls under WP:NSPORTS. There are simply no sources that go into any depth about him anywhere that I could find (hell, there aren't even any that mention him in passing, aside from the exhaustively-complete stats database Cricket Archive).

He appeared in exactly one game that meets the NCRIC guideline and then apparently never did anything else of note in his rather limited "career". He didn't even really play, according to the article: "He did not bat or bowl during the match." It's been 18 years - let's face it, he's not going to play any more cricket, and he's not going to become any more notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Please familiarize yourself with WP:N - it clearly states that an article has to meet either GNG - a random, woolly, POV-biased, guideline - or a subject-specific guideline. You have conclusively claimed your placing on AfD is null and void as soon as you have done it by noting that he, in fact, did play. There is no such thing as "squeaking" past a guideline - and if you wish to alter this guideline yourself in a way that would affect all sports, please suggest how you would do so, or better still, do so in the appropriate places. Bobo . 08:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how has it taken you over 11 years to "find" this article and decide it doesn't suit your randomly made up standards, by the way? I'm suspicious. As for our use of the "exhaustively complete" CA database, please indicate to us a secondary source we could use which would fit your liking. Bobo . 08:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same way I did—this article is top of the list of Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009, and clicking on it led me to this AfD. Either way I'm not sure what your "suspicions" have to do with this AfD; you seem to be needlessly personalizing an editorial issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bobo192 is the editor needing familiarisation with WP:N. It says an article is presumed notable if it meets the subject-specific guideline. A presumption is not a guarantee. In this case there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, which is a powerful indication of non-notability and suffices to rebut the weak presumption of notability arising from a single first-class appearance. The nomination is valid and correct, and I agree with it. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Weak notability" is still notability. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use, and demonstrate how they would be more suitably "reliable" to come to your standards, if the ones we have used for the last 15 years do not fit your liking. Bobo . 09:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable sources. Not just stats.—Mkativerata (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use. Bobo . 09:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles that discuss Dass and his career are an obvious example.—Mkativerata (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He didn't even really play, according to the article: "He did not bat or bowl during the match." I've not checked the scorecard, but if, as the article claims, he was a wicketkeeper, then he will have been the most involved player in the game whilst his team was fielding. As to the 11 year gap in the nomination, I'm not aware of any limit on this, particularly for such stubby articles that have no incoming links that someone is unlikely to stumble upon by chance. Spike 'em (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked up the scorecard, and he took 2 catches and made 2 stumpings as keeper, so he clearly did "really play". Spike 'em (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete - or redirect to a suitable list if it were created (there is no List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players) - I can find passing mentions, but nothing in depth, at Luton Today, Radlett CC, Northants Telegraph and the WH Times. It's possible that articles exist that deal with Dass in a little more depth in the local press - I know, for example, that it's possible to find fairly in depth coverage of Norfolk players, although that would tend to be those who have played much more frequently for the county side than Dass did for Bedfordshire. Given the lack of sources beyond statistical ones (there is also a CricInfo entry with less information than at CricketArchive) and the limited Minor Counties career he had, I'm minded to delete here. Note that I would have no objection to a solely Minor Counties player with substantial coverage in reliable sources being included in the encyclopaedia - there are plenty that I think could be found - and would have no issue with the article being recreated at some point in the future if substantial sources, perhaps from a local Bedfordshire newspaper from 2001, were to be discovered. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to suitable list as per BST. WP:N states : This [passing notablity guideline] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. I see this as being a suitable case to merge a number of short articles into a longer list of related topics. Category:Bedfordshire cricketers and its sub-cat contains 240 players, though not all of them played List A cricket for them. Spike 'em (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we do this we will have to make a complete list - say of "Foo cricketers", not just the odd name based on other users' boredom. In the past when we have created these pages based on randomly deleted articles, people have added only the names which people have put up for AfD, and these articles have been swiftly dealt with. Bobo . 13:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through the 27 List-A games (as listed on CricketArchive) played by Bedfordshire to see how many players this should encompass. Spike 'em (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Half of which I have no doubt I created... why do I get the feeling I'm being victimized again..? Bobo . 13:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are 95 players who have played List A cricket for Bedfordshire, with just under half (43) playing a single game for them. Cricket archive only shows initials (not forenames) on scorecards, so may take a while to determine who is who on here. I'm certainly not suggesting information is deleted, but a list serves the purpose better than a set of microstubs that no-one maintains.Spike 'em (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

28 of the 43 single appearances for Beds made no other top-flight appearances (according to WP); I'd say most of these should be redirected to a list. There is also at least 1 England international amongst the 43. Spike 'em (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that was reasonable. In cases where there are lots and lots of apps in minor counties matches there may be more of a case for a stand alone article, depending on sources. At the same time, there may be people with 2 or 3 LA apps who played few other matches and about whom we only have limited biographical information who might be better off being redirected. But those can be dealt with as required.

Any chance that you could create the list at some point? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So hang on now... we've gone from discussing the eligibility of someone who clearly passes CRIN, to discussing the eligibility of people who are "a little bit more eligible than others", despite not being eligible by CRIN? Well if that's not hypocrisy.... One moment you're painting me out like an arch-inclusionist because I'm sticking to one rule, the next you're kicking my "arch-inclusionism" aside by inventing another, which will be completely and entirely based on nothing but POV? Bobo . 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Notability is a matter of judgement, not something which is always black or white. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly believe that to be the case it's proof of how pathetic this project has become. If we're not working to black-and-white criteria, there is no point ever creating articles. Bobo . 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me, which Bedfordshire cricketers who have not made List A appearances would be allowed under this rule? Bobo . 18:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue, but I know that there are two Norfolk cricketers with more than 100 minor counties appearances who never played a FC, LA or T20 match. I think there's a chance that I may be able to find enough sources about both in the EDP archives and other sources Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While we're complaining about the lack of or suitability of certain sources and/or external links, and pulling out random guidelines from nowhere, can someone please fix all the Test cricketers with zero references or external links? (There are seven alone in Category:Zimbabwe Test cricketers, as a milestone). Not an attack by the way - this is a problem which has been around for at least the 15 years since I've been a member here. I'm just guessing that these Test cricketers attract more traffic than others. Bobo. 03:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Just hope we do not get some of the editors who have commented on the most recent Kennedy article up for deletion, since there it was argued that existing for 15 years should default an article to notability. I guess some people do not realize that 15 years ago the article creation process was less controlled than it is now, and Wikipedia has never had enough people doing deep research to monitor new articles. The article creation process we have now with submissions for creation helps, but since we do not require people to go that route, we get lots of submissions that do not come close to meeting inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to articles like this which do..? Bobo . 07:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he meets the cricket notability guidelines they are clearly flawed. We should be able to know more information about someone who played so recently. One of Wikipedia's biggest flaws is inclusion of articles on clearly non-notable sports people who have never received any significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To say "there is a problem" when we are going to be, once again, unable to fix the problem, is a worthless and time-wasting process. Bobo . 07:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:CRIN by playing at the highest domestic level. Those who go through the same routine of attempting to force through change on CRIC A). Don't even contribute to the project. B). Have no idea about cricket. The project already reached a consensus to delete articles on players where only their initials were known, resulting in the deletion of hundreds of articles. StickyWicket (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, as I have stated above, the article title was under initials only for a year and a half before this information was added to CA. Where was everyone back then to complain..? If this individual had reached CRIN for the first time today, even if only his initials were available, this conversation would not be happening... Bobo . 08:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per Blue Square Thing above. Research provides no significant coverage. What is provided clearly does not "[address] the topic directly and in detail. Directly, yes, but in detail: no. Further Google searches reveal no additional information. How long the article has existed is irrelevant; its notability is being discussed here and now. Harrias ^talk 10:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what is "further detail"? A birthdate? If this is the only reason articles are deleted, then heaven help the rest of the project. If extraneous information was added, then this would be seen as unnecessary... Perhaps we just delete every article which only has a link to CI and/or CA... Perhaps, as I've stated above, we delete every Test cricketer article who doesn't have any external links and/or references added. Bobo . 10:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Bobo . 15:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked this question in multiple locations, and I have answered it. That you don't like the answer does not change it. My answer remains this. Harrias ^talk 15:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Blue Square Thing. This RfC has already confirmed that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Dee 03 12:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is directly contradicted by N. What is the point of either? Bobo . 13:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like this fails the GNG as it is bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. Could be redirected to a Bedfordshire list if there is one, as mentioned above. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:V. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a fourth source to the article --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Blue Square Thing. As pointed out above, WP:CRIN defers to the notability guideline- not vice versa- and if CRIN allows the unrestrained creation of these virtually empty microstubs then the fault is with CRIN and not our deletion procedures. Reyk _YO! 12:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the fault is with CRIN then why, in the last 15 years, has nobody been able to come up with a logical alternative that is universally applicable? Bobo . 14:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They have. WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please don't distract from my question once again. Why has nobody come up with adaptations to CRIN - which people have attempted to do for the last 15 years, and still have failed to do? Bobo . 15:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is impossible to have a bright-line criteria which accurately predicts which subjects will be notable and which will not. The best we can do is provide a guide which will be right 99% of the time, and accept that in the other 1% of cases, that prediction will be wrong. Harrias ^talk 15:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The beauty of having brightline criteria is exactly that. There is no "will be". Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Oh but, wait, I forgot, WP:N is only a guideline... Bobo . 15:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, poor semantics; I should have said "which subjects are notable and which are not". Aside from that, my point stands. Harrias ^talk 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it is possible to have brightline criteria we can apply and that is what we have had for all these years. Want to suggest a change to the brightline criteria? Sure. Just make it so that it's universally applicable in all instances. Bobo . 15:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the premise. Harrias ^talk 16:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot supply an alternative then that is pointless. Bobo . 16:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did. WP:GNG, with WP:CRIN as a guide. No bright-line criteria is necessary. Harrias ^talk 18:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Blue Square Thing. Sadly I can't find substantial coverage of this cricketer in any sources. Merging to a list would be a comfortable alternative, but as Bobo192 has pointed out these lists assmebled after AfDs are often poorly maintained. Ajpolino (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really non-notable other than by the most pedantic criteria imaginable. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. Despite the claims of the article creator, meeting WP:NCRIC only gives presumed notability, not guaranteed. The important information (that Dass played a List A match for Bedfordshire) will be retained, just as a list entry, not a stub. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - I've added an entry for him on the List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players that Spike created. At some point the rest of that list will get filled out. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:21, 9 August 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 09:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Beedenbender[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claims here are that he was a county legislator and chief of staff to a town supervisor, which are not instant notability freebies -- but the references here are WP:ROUTINE local campaign coverage and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people, not coverage that is substantively about him. For county or town level politicians, the notability test is not just the ability to verify that the person exists -- it requires a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks him out as much more special than most other county or town politicians, but that's not what these sources are doing. Bearcat (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article seems to have been written to bolster a political campaign that has ended in defeat, with the victor Edward P. Romaine himself not rising to the level of an article. Apparently, Beedenbender has since moved into the private sector. StonyBrook (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 6 August 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 09:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girdhar swami[edit]

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

Non notable person, no RS whatsoever, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very thin sourcing in reliable sources, doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE.PohranicniStraze (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam and completely and utterly non-notable with no credible claim of significance and probably a G5 for meat puppetry. Praxidicae (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, poorly formatted sources. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:45, 9 August 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. It may be that this person is a suitable subject for an article, but the consensus here seems clear that the current version is not that article. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Smith (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Lacks WP:RS, clearly fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Like with many "entrepreneurs", coverage looks promotional and I can't really distinguish it from paid newspaper coverage:

Extended content

Source	Independent?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/this-fitness-brand-is-changing-everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-gym-classes-2015-6		✔ Yes
https://www.theage.com.au/business/small-business/10-ways-to-free-up-time-to-grow-your-business-20181019-p50apu.html	Sponsored content for a bank	✘ No
https://www.news.com.au/finance/small-business/how-this-melbourne-dad-founded-a-multimilliondollar-fitness-franchise/news-story/506a00023d57f402d343f576d34c610a	(Seemingly independant, but is written like a blogspam)	✔ Yes
https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/kx-pilates-from-20-000-in-debt-to-turning-over-20-million-20181218-p50mxx.html	(But looks like paid coverage)	✔ Yes
https://www.dynamicbusiness.com.au/topics/news/entrepreneur-steps-down-as-ceo-of-kx-pilates.html	A press release	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The Australian Businessinsider might be the best source to demonstrate GNG. (Was also interviewed by this local entrepreneur podcast) – Thjarkur (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete final reference is definitley promotional and one sided. This is the page creators only contribs, another indication of self promotion. Teraplane (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete appears to pass GNG, sources are good, but all that means is that it can have an article, not that it should.

It smells promotional, and all sources are as much to do with the business as the founder, edging it close to WP:BLP1E. It also begs the question, "Is the business notable?". I'm settling on no. --Spacepine (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. A real BLP would have reliable sources covering his personal life, his college and career in some detail, major awards, and legitimate reasons for notability. I don't see any of that here. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the SMH and News.com stories appear from an identical source and use an image in common, anything after page in the SMH or The Age I'd have doubts about it being independent reports, bigger stories would tend towards being advertorials. The maybe a weak argument for saying the business is notable but nothing to support Aaron Smith as being notable independent of the business. Gnan garra 04:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 16:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, but most importantly failing WP:SIGCOV notability criterion. Note that the use of paid editors and lack of notability often go hand-in-hand as volunteers don't miss notable biographies forever. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Poloncarz[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a county-level politician, not properly referenced as clearing WP:NPOL #2. As always, the county level of political office is not a notability freebie -- to be notable enough for an article, a county councillor has to show a depth and range and volume of sourcing that marks him out as much more special than most other county councillors, but this is completely unreferenced. Bearcat (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county executives are rarely notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 9 August 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 09:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James V. Arcadi[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a county-level politician, not properly referenced as clearing WP:NPOL #2. As always, the county level of political office is not a notability freebie -- to be notable enough for an article, a county councillor has to show a depth and range and volume of sourcing that marks him out as much more special than most other county councillors, but the only references being shown here are a primary source, which does not constitute support for notability at all, and a local newspaper obituary, which is not enough coverage to magically get a person over WP:GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being on a county legislature is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Spacepine (talk) 12:12, 7 August 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 09:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Miller-Williams[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a county-level politician, not properly referenced as clearing WP:NPOL #2. As always, the county level of political office is not a notability freebie -- to be notable enough for an article, a county councillor has to show a depth and range and volume of sourcing that marks her out as much more special than most other county councillors, but the only references being shown here are primary sources which do not constitute support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time to throw out all these articles on unnotable Eria County politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 7 August 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 09:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Lenihan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as clearing WP:NPOL #2. He has served only at the county level of political office, which is not an instant notability freebie -- to qualify for an article, he would need to show a depth and range and volume of sourcing that marked him out as much more special than most other county councillors in most other counties. But the only reference present here at all is a nine-year old glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article whose primary subject is other people, which is not what we're looking for when it comes to evaluating notability. Bearcat (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator. Being the chair of political party at the county level doesn't pass either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Spacepine (talk) 12:07, 7 August 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 provided to meet GNG have not been challenged. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mashinsky[edit]

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

Not notable outside of his company, lacks significant in-depth references to establish notability, all signs of WP:UPE. Meeanaya (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Best Blake44 (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What a joke this website is sometimes. You have no problem giving undue credit to Alon Cohen who only patented a minor piece of the VoIP. Mashinsky played major part in the VoIP protocol being created. He also founded Arbinet which was a huge leap in how Telecom operates. Just because Wikipedia is too stupid to create an article on that company doesn't mean that is not a notable accomplishment. When writing this I noticed several notable companies Mashinsky founded. Groundlink was Uber before Uber. Q-wireless put Wi-Fi in the entire New York metro system. But fuck it. Delete it again if you want but don't accused me of being paid because I have not been paid by anyone in two decades. I haven't needed anything for two decades. I have never met Mashinsky and have no connections to him. I saw a lack of coverage in this area I am knowledgeable and interested in. I saw a page that was stupidly deleted and I recreated it. Read the Harvard Case Study before saying delete; it is 30 pages long and all, I mean ALL, about Mashinsky. As far as I could tell, he never even went to college let alone Harvard. Why would a Harvard Business School professor write 30 pages about a no body? Read the article in The Standard by Guth. Read the New York Times from 1999. For crying out loud, Mashinsky was notable before Wikipedia even existed. TheImogenen (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per the above. _{The Lord of Moon's Spawn ✉} 10:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It didn't take very long to find additional in-depth sources directly about the subject that aren't even used in the article currently (e.g., [16] [17]). GMG ^talk 12:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - decent sourcing in the article and found by GreenMeansGo. More than enough to meet the WP:GNG bar. Hug^syrup 13:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:GNG when I look at it. Roundrobinguy67 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 10:05, 11 August 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 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hardwick[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person not properly sourced as passing any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. The notability claims here are serving in a county legislature, which is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass; previously serving on a smalltown city council, which is not an automatic NPOL pass; hosting a local talk radio show, which is not an automatic free pass over our notability standards for radio broadcasters; and being a professor at a minor college, which is not an automatic free pass over WP:ACADEMIC. But for referencing, what we have here is 5/7 primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with just two pieces of purely routine local reportage of election results for reliable sourcing, which is not enough in and of itself to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass any actual SNGs. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator and town councillor. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As IntoThinAir notes above, the subject fails WP:NPOL as a fairly minor local politician. Also fails WP:PROF. The GoogleScholar link in the template above produces several highly cited entries, but they are by a different scholar, Kevin G. Hardwick. The subject of this article, Kevin R. Hardwick, has a rather modest citability record, see here, with the h-index of 3. Nothing else in the record appears to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dlete just because a county body calls itself a legislature does not make its members default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 9 August 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 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Marinelli[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a person with no strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. Her elected role was in a county legislature, and then she was appointed to a middle management role with a regional office of a state agency, but neither of these are roles that confer automatic notability freebies on a person just because she exists -- and for sourcing, what we have here is two primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and just one piece of reliable media coverage, which is not enough to get a county councillor over GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator and being the regional executive of a state agency doesn't pass either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county legislators are almost never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 9 August 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 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Dixon[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a politician at the county level. As always, county is not a level of office that confers automatic notability on a politician -- a person has to serve in the state legislature before they get an automatic notability freebie, and local (including county) politicians only if they can be referenced to a depth and range and volume of coverage that demonstrates a credible reason why they could be considered a special case of significantly greater notability than most other county councillors. But this is referenced 8/9 to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- and while there is one reliable source, that's not enough coverage to make a county-level politician nationally notable all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non-notable county legislator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 9 August 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) 06:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SCP: Secret Laboratory[edit]

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

Article has no reliable sources and no claim of notability, let alone a well-sourced claim of notability. Appears to be a very minor genre game that has not yet achieved mainstream acclaim. Prod was deleted by the author. Railfan23 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Railfan23 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable game._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 06:18, 10 August 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) 06:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranetki Girls[edit]

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

Non-notable band. I searched and can find no reliable independent sources that discuss them. The article claims the group to have won some awards, but these are non-notable awards. The page has no acceptable sources, only a listing of promotional links. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No valid references. Concur with nominator. This makes just enough of a credible claim of significance so it isn't A7, but it certainly fails musical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS and a quick check doesn't find anything except this that basically has 1 sentence saying they EXIST. Agricola44 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 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) 06:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Senicha Lessman[edit]

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

I don't think this passes WP:EVENT. It's a sad murder, but I fail to see how it is separated from any other murder. SL93 (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that this was a dual-racial crime, as opposed to a single-race crime, is possibly what has gotten it the extra visibility to some, by dint of its being featured on far-right sites. StonyBrook (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mainly local coverage and limited to 2017 (initial arrest, and another burst on conviction) - fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE, WP:GEOSCOPE. Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Icewhiz. StonyBrook (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Icewhiz. No coverage since arrest and conviction in late 2017. Yoninah (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as of today she fails WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are approximately 15,000 murders a year in the United States and this one, though sad, is no more notable than most of the others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White Mountains Insurance Group[edit]

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

It's very difficult to find any substantive sources for this company. Fails WP:NCORP Jacona (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on google scholar [18], google books [19], WP Refs [20], and news [21] contain plenty of sources that are reliable. This article passes the WP:GNG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi AmericanAir88, can you please post links to just two references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? Your logic of "plenty of sources that are reliable" is a small subset of the criteria for establishing notability - please take a read of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: [22], plenty of articles on them being on the NYSE, Court case, [23] and An example of the Stock talk. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanAir88 thanks! I have found analyst report. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of this appears to be WP:ROUTINE.Jacona (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NOTCLEANUP The company is WP:LISTED on the NYSE (roughly 2,800 companies are listed on the NYSE). Being listed is not a guarantee of automatic notability... WP:BEFORE was needed to find "independent press coverage and analyst reports." Company is Profiled in Forbes, Reuters, The Street. Non-trivial coverage exists New Hampshire Business Review Seeking Alpha, Insurance Journal, Valley News, Business Insurance, Mayfield Recorder, etc. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article requires major cleanup but in my opinion the notability isn’t there yet. Trillfendi (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although most of the references provided above fail the criteria for establishing notability, since this is a listed company, one of the easiest ways to immediately pass the criteria for establishing notability is to point to analyst reports (as per WP:LISTED, analyst reports are specifically mentioned as good for the purposes of establishing notability). Here's a list of various reports on WTM from Zacks (but from different analysts/firms!). Topic therefore meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTED & per analyst reports available. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 11 August 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. (non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advitya (Assamese film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. All coverage referenced in the article is based on either releases by, or 'interviews' with, the director. "A feature film that has begun shooting but not been released ... should generally not have their own article" (WP:NFF). By the director's own admission there are production and budget issues. The outcome of the previous AfD for this film was delete. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be the only cause of deletion. Read the report again and you can see that he also stated that they have managed everything. A budget of a film should not determine if it deserves to be on wikipedia. The official teaser has come out on June 20/2019. Many other news articles say that the film is scheduled for an early 2020 release. You can not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpp1111 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep this source was written since the last AfD and would appear to both 1) comprise significant coverage 2) make specific claims attesting to the historic nature of the film (first superhero film in Assamese cinema). I don't think the sources currently cited add up to GNG yet, but I think we can assume WP:NPOSSIBLE in this case. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The links in the ref section proves the notability for this article and so I request to approve the article and remove the Afd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpp1111 (talk)

@Tpp1111: We know you think the film meets the criteria, but it is up to other, independent editors to decide by WP:consensus. You can help by putting forward arguments that show specifically how one or more references meet the criteria. I think time will tell whether this becomes a notable film. If, once it has been released, it proves to be a box office success and many people such as newspaper journalists write about it then that will be the time for an encyclopedia article about it, not now. At the moment, all we have is the director trying to promote it before it is release. See WP:NYF. Curb Safe Charmer (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Vinyl[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, and a WP:BEFORE sweep does not bring up enough significant sourcing to satisfy GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep poorly sourced is not an argument. If sources such as the rolling stone exist to support the facts.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the owner and devotes little more than a passing mention to the store itself, thus not being significant coverage. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep - Sourcing in RS showing WP:SIGCOV are plentiful. Here's Billboard for example. FOARP (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: Same issue as above - even though sources are “plentiful”, the only one you mention only gives a couple sentences to the store and is not about the store, it is about the store’s owner.

WP:SIGCOV requires that the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail". This does so by telling you where and when the store was established, how many records it stocks, and who received inspiration from it. Hence, this is WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to see your plentiful sources, as the Billboard source was the only one mentioned in this entire AfD. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me Google that for you, and this, and this, you get the picture. FOARP (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The coverage I found was mainly local and/or passing mentions. However, I think this squeaks by the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:52, 5 August 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gray (mastering engineer)[edit]

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

Notability concerns. All 4 references are trivial mentions supporting line-items in his CV, but there's no substantial coverage of him. His personal website has a more detailed bio for background purposes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the strongest sources on the subject are an interview (https://waxtimes.com/kevin-gray-on-mastering-records/), a podcast episode (https://bobbyowsinskiblog.com/2019/04/12/episode-260-kevin-gray/) and a chapter in a book, of which I could only find the very beginning online (https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315707501/chapters/10.4324/9781315707501-6). Not sure if these are solid sources, except for the book. Jeremiah (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I got access to the book material through Amazon. I tried to improve the article with that source. It's definitely stronger. Jeremiah (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the book source seems significant coverage but the paste link is a wrong link and more sig cov is needed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:48, 5 August 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) 06:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blanca Blanco[edit]

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

I would have proposed speedy deletion under G4 as the article was recreated after being AfDed I don’t have evidence that it’s similar to the previously deleted article. All that aside: this actress isn’t notable, her biggest career highlight was defying the implicit dress code of the Golden Globes which gave her a blip of press (that’s not an act of notability), and the article is littered with problems. Upon deletion the page should be SALTED. Trillfendi (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also this COIN thread regarding the article creator. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was promotion but I’m frankly amazed at the extent of it. And they still manage to get paid for terrible articles. Trillfendi (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same opinion as last version of this article...actually worse if this was PAID. Agricola44 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable actress, Imagine paying someone to write an article ... just for it to be deleted a month or so later .... imagine that. –Davey2010^Talk 13:31, 11 August 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. bd2412 T 04:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Krause[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources to satisfy WP:GNG, just routine game reports. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, either. – Levivich 03:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 03:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nom HawkAussie (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this fails the GNG as said above. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- On those grounds we should delete well over half of our articles on cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we limited default inclusion to those who played in the top tier league in their country when such a top tier league is fully professional and stopped letting any not top tier league allow inclusion by default at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 9 August 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. Already deleted by Deathphoenix as G5. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Alex[edit]

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

All of the cited sources are actually press releases. I can't find any independent sources about this person. This does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article, likely created in violation of WP:COI or WP:PAID. No independent reliable sources provided, the current "sources" is actually only 1 re-published press release from various PR platforms. A Google search for '"Star Alex" model' did not reveal any reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article that doesn't have any WP:RS. I previously declined draft here at AFC on July 5. Lapablo (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, naked PROMO with no RS. Agricola44 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 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. bd2412 T 04:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magpie (comics)[edit]

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

Minor fictional character with no real-world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mosty keep: The character had had coverage post-Gotham. I will try to show links when I have time.

Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the appearances in other media meet my criteria for a standalone article. At minimum, merge to List of Batman Family enemies. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you do understand that your criteria are not valid WP criteria? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My criteria align just fine with NCOMICS, I just provide additional detail. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT: To List of minor DC Comics characters#Magpie if it can't get better than this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can be but Wikipedia:IMPERFECT. That list article is still more stupid to me. Minor DC Comics characters is subjective. All we are using it for is merge characters. That don’t mean a character is minor. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 06:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the sources listed above, the character gets an entry in The Supervillain Handbook. She seems as notable as other recurring Batmain villains with bonus points for being remarkably lame. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 5 August 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sena[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PERP The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy It certainly was reported worldwide: I have included the New Zealand press and other international news sources. I think the crimes are so mind boggling, as to make this criminal and his crimes extremely noteworthy. Sex with the dog - boggles the mind. Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as textbook instance of situation for which WP:BLP1E was created. The subject is only covered in the context of a single event, the person is otherwise likely to remain a low-profile individual, and the event itself was not significant enough to merit its own Wikipedia article. All boxes ticked. It's WP:BLP1E, and should be deleted. As the person who tagged the article for notability, I note that the de-PROD of this article was conducted by an editor who "did not think to look" for a talk page discussion before de-PRODding and removing the notability template. When challenged, the de-PRODding editor compared the case to Jeffery Dahmer, then immediately backed off when asked to show similar levels of coverage in reliable sources. Subsequent edits by the same editor included changing the infobox to feature a prison, for some reason. Whatever is driving this behavior, it's not helpful to our readers, and it's not grounded in an adequate understanding of policy or guidelines, particularly around biographies of living persons. Bakazaka (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not very collegial of you to be this offended and insulted because your PROD was removed. WP:PERP is the relevant policy which also benefits our readers. This was a criminal that garnered world-wide attention for extremely unusual deviant behavior. You can try to fit it this article into WP:BLP1E but that only serves you, and not our readers. I think by now you should realize that for every Wikipedia policy there is a contradictory one, and your interpretation of WP:POLICY is myopic and tailored to your own viewpoint. So lets keep comments to the subject AfD and not slip and slide into this abyss of personal attacks. I can't believe I gave you a barnstar for civility. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put the PROD on the article, and actually you have given me two barnstars (but one was from one of your previous accounts). Bakazaka (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, after I added references and then I removed your notability template. You restored it. We had a discussion on the talk page. Then I gave you a barnstar for civility. But...back to the AfD. How many WP:BLP1Es have been sentenced to 54 life terms for their unusual and abhorrent behavior? I am guessing there has never been a WP:BLP1E that matches this description. However WP:PERP fits. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E is policy. The conditions for deletion under policy are satisfied, as I itemized above. Bakazaka (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plausibly re-title to the crime and not the individual due to BLP1E, though it seems that RSes mainly title per the individual in this case. The crime itself has had national coverage dating back to 2014 (e.g. [24]) had has had wide international coverage since (e.g. NZ Herald). As the subject has been convicted, WP:BLPCRIME is not longer an issue. Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As WP:CRIME demanded, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article if the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual, Sex with a dog or multiple counts of sexual abuse and child abuse, forcing his seven children in having sex with him are not usual!Saff V. (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLPCRIME is misapplied in this case due both to convictions and to wide coverage. Note that especially in light of the fact that two of his ex-wives (not sure how many ex-wives he had,) were also convicted, renaming the crime is probably a good move. Las Vegas sex ring, used in many sources, might work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notes WP:PERP and WP:CRIME are redirects to the same notability guideline. In contrast, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS are content policies. Citing a notability guideline, right or wrong, does not override content policy. And of course WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant for a convicted criminal, which is probably why no one has used it to argue for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - brilliant, Bakazaka, simply brilliant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:45, 9 August 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. Solid enough majority for keep; no need to relist this once more. (non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gatt[edit]

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

Non notable bit part actor. Lacks significant roles in notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prolific actor/voice actor that easily passes WP:NACTOR. I removed a defunct website from refs and added 2 interviews. Also note that article appears in no less than 8 other languages, with the Russian having a decent set of references. StonyBrook (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The actor meets our general notability guideline. Actors are known for their work, rather than how many times they were in the headlines for drunk driving, or other chicanery. I see some non-trivial coverage, Hollywood Reporter He also gets some attention for his condition: alopecia, The subject has a large body of work. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a prolific actor does not make one notable if none of the roles are significant ones in major productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This actor passes the WP:GNG as a result of the sources and listing of films. The condition he has as well also gives him media attention. AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. I would think that a large enough body of small work would be comparable for notability purposes to a small body of large work. bd2412 T 01:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Sources do not satisfy WP:NACTOR. A plethora of weak sources or bit parts does not compensate for a lack of solid, independent, in-depth RS, or major roles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:NACTOR criteria 1 requires that an actor "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." It seems accepted that he's been in notable films, but would like to see discussion of the significance of those roles. I don't think anyone is arguing that criteria 2 or 3 apply (but feel free to correct me). For WP:GNG arguments, I'd like to see more discussion of sources, as the existing references come up a bit short, IMO.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the series episodes he has appeared in of The 100 and Z Nation, for example, I believe that he has had significant roles. The 3 episodes of The 100 that he appeared in were the last two episodes of the first season and the first episode of the second season: Gatt's character commands a group and leads an attack on the 100. In Z Nation, Gatt played "The Man" in 6 episodes of season 3. Quoting from Z_Nation#Main_cast: "The Man first appears in the first episode of season 3, "No Mercy". Following a list created by his Zona employer, it is his job to collect people by any means necessary and ship them to Zona. He is ruthless and will take out anyone in his way. He is known to have completely decimated at least two survivor communities to obtain the people on his list. He has a perfect success rate and has yet to lose a target. As of the second episode of season 3, "A New Mission", The Man's current list contains only one name: "Alvin Bernard Murphy". His fate is unknown to the group following the season 3 finale, as he is not mentioned again." In Banshee, Gatt appeared in 6 episodes in Seasons 1 and 2, playing a man who served time with the main character, and, as one newspaper said, "was given the job of making his life behind bars a living hell", and the main character has flashbacks to that time after his release. These are not forgettable bit parts, they appear to be crucial to the seasons/episodes in which he appeared. I haven't yet checked all the productions he has been in - and I note that the article states "Gatt also performed in many musicals in London's West End and in national tours", but none are listed yet - but they are certainly enough to show that he meets WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your well thought out comment. Unfortunately to me it comes across as original research. You seem to be presenting your personal opinion of what is a significant role in those series. My personal opinion is that they are not significant. Why, because of the lack of coverage around him and his roles. On the musicals, searching a newspaper database I didn't find any verification of that beyond a passing mention. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He did play the main antagonist or at least one of two main antagonists on Cinemax's Banshee. His story arc lasted at least one season if not two. The show was well received and his role as The Albino was notable. I am sure if you google some combination of his name, The Albino and Banshee you will find a lot more coverage. Along with his other credits, i would vote to keep at the moment. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 01:52, 12 August 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) 01:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Edward Stokes[edit]

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

Non-notable actor per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This apparently was kept in a 2005 AfD because the nomination was withdrawn. However, the only source I'm even finding on a web search today is IMDb, and that's not an indicator of notability as its content is user-contributed. Highway 89 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus IMDb seeks to cover everything, which is not Wikipedia's goal. 2005 was the dark days of the wild west of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That is not fair to Kept this only to go unnoticed until now, but I agree with the nominatior. Sheldybett (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have so many articles only sourced to the non-reliable IMDb that we should make that a special speedy deletion category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 9 August 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) 01:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narcosatánicos Asesinos[edit]

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

No significant coverage and the only review in the article is to a blog. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a lack of reliable sources coverage of this film. Couldn't find anything much, for example there are no critics reviews about it on Rotten Tomatoes, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Kentucky State Regulations: Private Schools". Kentucky Department of Education.

[2] "Sample Letter of Intent". Christian Educational Consortium.

[1]

[2]