Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 November	21 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Nabi Shah, (Kashmir)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neither meets General nor musician notability. Sources are terrible - they do not show significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit Santosh Mishra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. The author seems to have addressed the issues brought up in this AfD and largely rewritten the entire article with an expanded scope. The sources are still largely sources from the universities offering the courses themselves, but the content is no longer promotional. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Business Information Systems[edit]

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

While we could conceivably have an article on this topic, this article as written seems largely to be promotional for a course offered by Kathmandu university. Sources are either from that university, or from other universities about their offerings for similar courses (primary). I'm actually not finding any high quality sources discussing this particular degree in detail anyway, even if we wanted to rewrite it in it's entirety in a non-promo way. In any case it would need a good amount of WP:TNT. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Heart[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT: the current sources are an interview and two award listings. The awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for new sources and found only a passing mention in Out[1] and a name-drop in the biography of a gay community leader[2]. An editor at the previous AfD suggested two other sources: one is a mention in a photo caption[3], the other another industry award roster[4]. gnu 57 23:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. Yet another BLP-violating pseudo-biography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of many run of the mill porn actors. Nothing particularly remarkable about him. Graywalls (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue. Merge discussion moved to Talk:Fireal#Merge_proposal. Michig (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bleak (band)[edit]

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

The primary issue with this article is that there is a separate article for the same band because they changed their name to Fireal. I think these articles should be merged. They are featured on the theme song of the film Jadesoturi, and the track received an NRJ Radio Award for Best Nordic Song in 2007, but finding sources that cover this track or anything else for the band is difficult (be aware when searching that several other bands use the name Bleak). Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of limited service World War II combat vehicles[edit]

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

Unclear scope. It's completely unsourced and the idea of "limited service" seems to be entirely subjective, and of little historical value. Some of these were rare because they were extemely specialised, and yet there was no shortage of all those needed. Others were of clear value and in demand, yet unavailable when needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A whole heaping helping of stinky OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 20:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, extraordinary that it has survived this long. Cavalryman (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, given the unclear scope --DannyS712 (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTCRITERIA: selection criteria... should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Per nom, the notion of "limited service" is entirely subjective, and there is no clear-cut rationale for inclusion in the list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fuselier[edit]

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

I am re-nominating this article for deletion under the same rationale (below) because it closed as no consensus and the only "keep" vote was an IP who was almost certainly User:Billy Hathorn evading his block.

Non-notable county sheriff. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The sources used in this article are: 1) a link to the funeral home memorial description for his predecessor, which appears to have been deleted by the funeral home; 2), 3), and 4) are simply a list of election results; 5) the bio of his successor on the St. Martin Parish Sheriff's department website; 6) a copy of a speech recognizing him on the LA state house floor (not uncommon); 7) a resolution more or less doing the same; 8) a link to the LA secretary of state's website that simply establishes that he and his wife are registered to vote; and 9) a list of members of the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame which he is a member of but its not a particularly notable achievement. GPL93 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pinging @Johnpacklambert: the only account to take part in the last deletion discussion. GPL93 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - I feel like this article has enough material from RS that it could have maybe one or two sentences work of information about the subject, but in its current state...probably can't be salvaged. Then again, I've heard of the user who created this page, he had a reputation for copyright violations, which taints the article more. Jerry (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheriff's are not default notable. The sourcing is not significant enough to meet our notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for procedural reasons. While it's anyone's guess on whether or not anything on him counts for notability, this article is subject to indiscriminate deletion per WP:CCI/20110727. ミラ P 16:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per the rules of WP:CCI. There might be enough sources to re-create the article as a perma stub, although it'll then be a target for Billy's shenanigans. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being in the Louisiana Political Museum and Hall of Fame nor being a "National Sheriff of the Year" are instant notability freebies that exempt a person from having to actually have a GNG-worthy volume of reliable source media coverage just because they exist — but the references here are entirely blogs and primary sources, with not even one piece of real media reportage being shown at all let alone the several pieces of real media reportage it would take to get him over GNG. Billy Hathorn was wrong about how notability works for local politicians — a person has not automatically cleared GNG just because you can find a single obituary in their local newspaper. And that goes double if that obituary isn't even an actual journalist-written news article, but merely the paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds that every person who dies at all automatically gets if their family deigns to place one. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he was a member of the Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns football team, which could possibly clear WP:NCOLLATH/WP:GNG if anyone searches hard enough for contemporary media coverage of him playing for the team (circa 1960-1964), so I've added him there. ミラ P 02:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the [Louisiana Tech record book] he played two years of varsity, but that's just about it. No awards, records, or all-conference or all-american teams made so highly doubtful. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obituaries and funeral home announcements don't really make good sources for WP:GNG and those are the least biased of anything in the article; without anything else presented I don't see it. If additional sources were presented, I'd certainly reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- additional comment those sources may be good for verifying information and can be useful, but they don't establish notability. That was my intent in my comment, I don't think I was clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable individual who lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Marquardtika (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The sentence that he won "'Sheriff of the Year' in Louisiana by the Farm Bureau Federation" (emphasis added) is not a real claim of notability. The Farm Bureau awards these annually in almost all 50 states, which means hundreds of such local officials have gotten their award. Arguably, the 4-H award is notable. There's no major crimes sprees or other such crimes he investigated. The reforms he instigated were efforts made by many sheriffs across the United States in the past 50 years. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone in life gets an obituary in theory; he still fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 03:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Model High School, Pattoki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Störm: WP:NCORP explicitly does not apply to non-profit educational institutes. Whilst this is a private school, I see no evidence that it is a for-profit one. Do you want to invoke different grounds for deletion? I think this is probably a straight WP:GNG fail since I only see one actual reference to it in a potentially reliable source (and that just a drive-by reference). The school definitely exists but this, by itself, is not enough. FOARP (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, although admittedly their might be foreign language RS that wouldn't come up in an English language search. @FOARP: WP:NSCHOOL ultimately cites WP:ORG which is the same thing as WP:NCORP (both redirect to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)), so Störm wasn't exactly wrong in citing WP:NCORP, although WP:NSCHOOL would have been preferable.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 - WP:ORG Explicitly says it doesn't apply to non-profit schools: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions" FOARP (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: NCORP goes to the same place as NSCHOOL/WP:ORG so I am not seeing how citing that would be implying anything different then what you just cited from that page. You are essentially arguing something from the cited policy of the nominator. In other words, everyone agrees with you and there is no reason to think they don't. Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations is on that page so in someways that proviso isn't exactly true. 4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Darken[edit]

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

Being a prolific studio musician hasn't garnered the subject more than passing mentions in sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete although he has won two notable awards I couldn't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources on google. If good sources are found please ping me, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Striking delete vote as reviews have been found in reliable sources so changing to Weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I did WP:BEFORE before prodding and couldn't find any. You and two other editors seems to find sources when I can't so it's reassuring to see that you couldn't find any sources either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes criteria 8 of WP:NMUSIC per his wins of a Country Music Award and a Dove Award. There are several reviews of his music and recordings. His solo Christmas album was reviewed in Billboard. See Armoudian, Maria (August 28, 1993). '93 holiday product showcase: Deck the malls. Vol. 105. Cincinnati. p. H3, H6. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) See also [5], [6], [7] which are reviews that mention his contributions in other recordings. Ultimately there is just enough RS in the reviews to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he seems to be much more prolific than the average ~~bear~~ studio musician, and has had a solo career covered to some degree in great sources such as Billboard. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, has won multiple awards. Also added a couple third-party reviews of A Drummer Boy's Christmas which suggest further notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With that change, it's safe to withdraw. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Markaz al-Islami Skardu Baltistan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:ORG does not apply to this as it appears to be a "non-profit educational institution" (or alternatively as it is related to a religion or sect). Therefore the only question to be answered is whether it qualifies for WP:GNG. The only reference I could find in Gbooks to it was here, where the snippet reads: ""This is why we did not witness any major retaliatory act of violence in Skardu and Ismaili majority areas," Hussain says. In Skardu, some disgruntled protesters did try to attack al-Markaz al-Islami —the main Ahle Hadees madrassah in Baltistan...". Therefore, at least one reliable source (The Herald of Pakistan) refers to it as an institution of at least some level of notability (an important institution for a notable Islamic sect). However I don't think this snippet by itself is enough to keep the article. At the same time I am hesitant to vote delete unless the non-English-language sources have been reviewed by someone who speaks the language. This is especially because of the difficulty in trying to assess the notability of this article given the wide range of different romanisations of the various parts of the name of the place. FOARP (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS - the article references "Jon Krakauer (2011-07-01). Three Cups of Deceit: How Greg Mortenson, Humanitarian Hero, Lost His Way. Anchor Books. p. ?. ISBN 978-0307948762." - has anyone had a chance to review this? FOARP (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless somebody can find non-English articles to support notability. There don't appear to be any in English. Ira Leviton (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loktak Day[edit]

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

Not meeting basic requirements of WP:NEVENT. The coverage is limited to local news agencies. Does not appear to hold encyclopedic significance in its current form. Not meeting WP:GNG. Hitro talk 07:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As there is sources and references

Awangba Mangang (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Lacks in-depth WP:RS from multiple sources to pass WP:GNG, fails WP:NEVENT.--Wakowako (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only coverage is local. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanisha Singh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recipient of run-of-the-mill non-notable awards with no reliable sources to back them up. The sources given are either not significantly about the article subject, not independent, or not reliable. GSS ^💬 08:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 08:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 08:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 08:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per GSS. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - let's just agree that the formatting is terrible. On the other hand, her Item songs have gotten attention. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: got attention, but unfortunately not in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 17:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see four India Times articles, which I believe is the gold standard for media coverage in that nation. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first one in the list sound like about someone else's wedding, and rest does not satsfy WP:SIGCOV and mostly talk about the same topic. P.S. Indian media is known for writing this kind of promotional fluff piece. GSS ^💬 18:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that she has had significant roles in multiple notable productions - of the three blue linked films, two say she had a "Special apperience" (and the IMDB entries say exactly the same thing, with the same spelling - no info about what these "Special apperiences" were). In the third blue linked film, IMDB has her as a 'lyricist'. I don't see anything in reliable sources about her songs, either. Several news reports (in the article, and others) say things like "has done some small roles" [8], "Another small time actor" [9], "Wannabe actress" [10]. Admittedly, they were from 2014, in reports of her wearing dresses made of meat or roses or stripping for Rahul Gandhi, but I don't see anything more recent, apart from attending the non-notable Bright Awards or the probably non-notable Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar Nobel/Noble Awards. And this coverage is not significant enough (or independent -often quotes from her, her mother, etc) to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bucharest Metro. czar 21:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metrorex[edit]

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

Please can I suggest that this is redirected to Bucharest Metro - Metrorex does not seem to be referred apart from in the context of the Bucharest Metro and all information is currently duplicated across two pages already Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CHEAP and nom. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed by Bearian. The Bucharest Metro article is only about the system itself and I imagine an article could be written about the company (where is it headquartered, how many employees, etc). However, unless/until someone finds sources and writes such an article, the redirect is reasonable since everything is presently duplicated. MB 02:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katzun[edit]

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

Non-notable youtuber, no independent coverage. Fails GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only source that seems to be reliable is the Pride.com citation. NewNowNext.com and Toonado.com seem very questionable. –Matthew - (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is simply no coverage of this person at all. This is written in more of a promotional tone, and easily fails WP:GNG. Handoto (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there's been some coverage but this appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. She looks like she's up and coming, so a timely re-creation in the future would appropriate when she becomes notable. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines, without prejudice to recreation per Bearian --DannyS712 (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I appreciate RHaworth's willingness to have his speedy deletion reviewed by a wider audience. However, the state of the article and the rapidly growing consensus here support speedy deletion as non-notable, as made up by the article creator, and potentially as a hoax article / fiction written as fact. I am not willing to leave this article in mainspace for a week while the AfD plays out, and the outcome of this debate is already clear. I have speedied the article, and per WP:SNOW, am closing this AfD early. If the article creator or anyone else wants to contest my speedy deletion, they're welcome to avail themselves of WP:DRV. ST47 (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Republic of Cycoldia[edit]

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

The author of this piece seems to be male but calls himself Christina I and refers to himself as 'she'. He has been pleading on my user talk page so could a few more people tell him that it is unencyclopedic rubbish. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC) It's called being trans - User:Ari Telford[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for something you made up at school one day. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no independent coverage of this entity. I did find that Grand Duchy of Flandrensis and Aerican Empire have each "recognized" Cycoldia, but no coverage or mentions in reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A11. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Meets the speedy delete criteria WP:A11 and possibly WP:A7. Being recognized as a nation by two nations that have not been recognized as nations does not make you notable. Hog Farm (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would like to say that Cycoldia has multiple references, such as recognition by both states mentioned, attendance to MicroCon 2019, and technical recognition by the United States Department of Education via a stamp on one of our passports. I also would like to say that it is rude as hell to use me being transgender in the talk about a micronational page. ~Sincerely Her Imperial Majesty Christina I of Cycoldia
Speedy delete. This was CSD'ed and deleted yesterday; the author objected a now we are here for a formal deletion discussion. I see no actual RS to substantiate anything about this article. Concur with the original CSD MB 23:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article just got restored around 4 hours ago! More time is needed to be able to change and edit it!--Real DarkLuke2005 (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Real DarkLuke2005, the point isn't the state of the article currently; it's that multiple editors have tried to find significant coverage in reliable sources and failed. There are no reliable sources referenced in the article. None of us can find anything to support that Cycoldia is notable (in the Wikipedia sense of notability. Schazjmd (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I am getting people who have worked with me on Cycoldia, such as it's attendance at MicroCon 2019, in which I met Kevin Baugh of Molossia. As well some would say that a full article on the Foodfight! movie is not notable or Pennsylvania, Exeter, but there is a Wikipedia page for it. As well Cycoldia is very notable for the 73+ citizens of it, the multitudes of allies of Cycoldia, and the multiple other micronations that recognize us. As well the article doesn't have many references because I am adding those, so really I think that the suggestion for deletion before the page even got off the ground is ludicrous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real DarkLuke2005 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Slater (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

This appears to be a paid piece about a non-notable "philanthropist" (really, a socialite) and I can find no significant coverage of this Sam Slater aside from the sources included here, which offer nothing in the way of actual coverage. It's all name drops of "look who attended this gala!", primary sources or unreliable sources.

I see no evidence from this persons career that they would satisfy NARTIST/director/producer/whatever you want to call it as there's no coverage of their work on Drinking Buddies beyond the "producer:xyz" standard tag line. Praxidicae (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails WP:NARTIST, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 12:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill producer, whose articles we almost always delete. Some of the sourcing is quite shallow and the rest consists of him hobnobbing with the Rancics and their crowd at charity galas. 17:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Lyons[edit]

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

This person article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY, was previously deleted, and has no citations at all. Cheers! Central Time 301 20:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cheers! Central Time 301 20:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A1. Can't identify the subject of discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. I've contacted the original editor, and if I don't get a reply very soon, I'll be deleting the article under that criterion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. czar 21:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Entertainment[edit]

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

No significant coverage, fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Independent RS coverage does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Citations in the article are a routine directory entry, incidental mentions, a promotional trade article and industry award fluff. An independent search for reliable secondary source coverage yielded almost nothing substantial. The best hit was a Stuff article that looks borderline routine. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Short stubby promotional oriented article and lacks notability or indication of general interest. Graywalls (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to Delete, and while the unanimous view was towards Keep, there is also a strong view that the content, structure, and positioning of the article needs to be improved (e.g. "tourism in Ponce" proposal). (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife in Ponce, Puerto Rico[edit]

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

A personal reflection / tourist guide article. Sources are non-reliable sources. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. I did WP:BEFORE and found only tourist web sites. To put this in context, the only other "Nightlife in ..." article that I can find is Nightlife in Bangkok, which also looks like it's on shaky ground; Ponce only had a population of 166,000 in 2010! A New York Times article from 2008 says "But you don't go to Ponce for thriving night life. The city is best for those who admire art and architecture and can enjoy soaking in its ambience." Indeed, all of the included photos of Ponce nightlife are of a city strangely devoid of people. Lopifalko (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Ponce, Puerto Rico, with intent to edit for concision and tone. This is more fitting for WikiTravel. Even if there was some substantial content in this article (boiling this one down to an encyclopedic tone would remove a substantial amount of length), it would be more appropriate as a heading in Ponce, Puerto Rico until it proves important enough for its own article. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~I realized my vote didn't reflect what I actually think here. The content has merit— I just don't see justification for a separate article. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep per discussion below and edits by Mercy11 Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The arguments in the nomination lack merit:

"Sources are non-reliable".........The "Faulty generalization" fallacy --- "Because the article had 1 unreliable source, all other 7 sources must also be unreliable."

"I found only tourist sites".........The "Blind men and an elephant" fallacy --- "Because this is all I saw, this must be all that exists."

"The only other article is Nightlife in Bangkok"......... An example of WP:OTHERSTUFF --- "Because there aren't articles like this in WP, this article should be deleted."

"Ponce only (Weasel word) has a population of 166,000".........The "Appeal to probability" fallacy --- "Because the city has x # of inhabitants, it couldn't possibly have nightlife."

"In 2008 NYT said don't go there for nightlife".........The "Historian's fallacy" --- "If it was so before, it's got to be so now."

"Photos are devoid of people".........The "Fallacy of composition" --- "Because there weren't crowds of people the nights of the pics, there are never crowds of people."

In any event, the article isn't missing sources or notability, what it might be missing is some additional work: it could, for example, be improved with more relevant photos, although photos aren't required for an article to exist, and it could have more cites than the 7 government, sociology and cultural sources currently there, so it can do full justice to its current "Level C" assessment. Mercy11 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercy11: Any argument as to why this is better as a standalone article than an expansion of the main article on Ponce? I'm with you that it doesn't need to be purged from the encyclopedia altogether, just not seeing the benefit to it being a standalone. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeletor3000: I expanded the article to address what I perceived are issues of concern. Let's hope I was on target; if not, no loss, I can still invest a bit more time in that article. Since your update above and my recent update of the article a few minutes ago seem to have crossed, please advise if you have standing concerns. Ditto for Lopifalko. Mercy11 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon re-reading your statements above, my thought was that this would be too much weight in the Ponce, PR, article. I could make a summary in the Ponce, PR article and head it with a Main hatnote. Will that work? Mercy11 (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercy11: I hadn't seen your edit, thanks for pointing it out. My idea with merging was to trim down unsourced content so that it wouldn't be so much weight in the main article, but I think after your changes, you're absolutely right that it's too much to add there. I agree with you on the hatnote and summary. I'm changing my vote above in light of these changes. I think there's still a few small issues with tone in the article, but you've resolved a large part of those. I'll watch the article too and might do some minor edits for POV once I clear up some other things I'm working on. Thanks! Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As nom notes, it is weird that "all of the included photos of Ponce nightlife are of a city strangely devoid of people." If no user-supplied Commons pics of actual nightlife in Ponce are available, how about:

add pics of life in daytime in Ponce?
add pics of nightlife elsewhere?
get some stock footage / Getty images? (Please make sure these suggest racial diversity.)

--Doncram (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: I am not sure what's all the focus on pictures:

Lack of pictures isn't a reason to delete articles.

Still, if someone wants to see relevant pics, here are some:

HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE

Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well my "suggestion" wasn't really serious. Hey thanks for those links. I see the last one is video about the Carnaval in Ponce, and I would think that should be mentioned. Hmm, it _is_ mentioned by a link to a separate Carnaval de Ponce article, but that link is buried in second paragraph of a section titled "Family-oriented events". Maybe there was intended to be an end to the "Family" section; perhaps a new section title is needed, and/or there could be different organization and more coverage about Carnaval, say.

But also BTW i think

Carnaval de Ponce has no pic of Carnaval (and i am not sure but might not include any link to that video; it would be a better first "external link" than what is there imho)
Ponce Jazz Festival has no pic of jazz
Fiesta Nacional de la Danza has no pic of danza
Día Mundial de Ponce has no pic of Monday (?)
Feria de Artesanías de Ponce has no pic of artesanias
Festival Nacional de la Quenepa does have pic of quenepa, but not of the festival :(

I think these are okay as articles, but someone oughta get out there and snap some pics! :) --Doncram (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Tell me about it. I was in P.R. snapping pics while I was driving. I've tried to recruit people in P.R. to take pics and post them but so far, no cigar-I mean luck. I even sent my cousin a camera, a good, expensive camera and asked him to post to Flicker. I think he's too busy surviving to help me with what he feels is my little hobby. Not fair! When I went to P.R. in May, my sister suspected that maybe I'd gone just / only to take pics for Wikipedia.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know Doncram, like the bulk of the millions of articles in WP, this isn't like the NRHP articles for which, the second a place has been nominated and published, you know we can immediately go and choose from a wide assortment of FREE PD pics made available to us courtesy of the US Govt and immediately available for download. Let me see what I can come up with -- perhaps I can abstract a frame from one of the events in the "HERE" list above. I know pics are important but also know this sort of pics can be considerably more difficult to come by because it's not your everyday Joe who will be out the streets, with a good nighttime camera, deep into the late night (aka, past 11PM), and most likely in the weekends, shooting flash photography into the crowds. As far as the Carnaval de Ponce, Las Mañanitas, Fiestas patronales, and even theatrical presentations at Teatro La Perla, etc., all are part of the nightlife of a place, but for some reason some seem to think that unless there's a pic of a huge billboard of Bacardi or a huge super-sized (i.e., 20 ft high) bottle of Don Q, or pics showing crowds of people chin-to-chin and elbow-to-elbow drinking and dancing salsa or rock-and-roll, then, it's doesn't qualify as nightlife...a very narrow view, imo. Anyway, I took down the pics that were there and will try to post better ones. IAE, if anything, this exercise may be helping leapfrog the article to into GA level! (a blessing in disguise!) BTW, yes, external video was my thought too. take care, Mercy11 (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

jealous, much? :) However most of the 78,629(!) illustrated NRHP places (83%!) have non-PD pics, and only in very few cases (when Federal employees took the pics or when the PR SHPO contracted out pic-taking for a series of churches that i think u might be thinking of) are the pics submitted in NRHP applications PD. Except rarely there are HABS pics, which are pd. And someone is telling me that pre-1978 pics are PD. But extremely few nrhp articles or list-articles have been promoted, so if u do that then i will concede Ponce > nrhp . :( --Doncram (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you make a few great points. Thanks for the facts! Mercy11 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While some authors refer to Ponce's nightlife as "destructive malevolence" (while analyzing a famous folk, Plena song about a woman named "Elena" who was slashed and rushed to the hospital...)^[1] I thought Ponce's nightlife was amazing and will never forget it.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination makes a claim but lacks merit because none of the 6 arguments used to support the claim are based on WP:PG, or any other WP guide (MOS, etc.) -- at least not once their inherent fallacies are removed. Frankly, the 6 arguments just seem "thrown at the wall to see if anything sticks". This is not how we operate. Mercy11 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Mercy11 is the original author of the article in question. The only notability policy I put this AfD forward on was whether or not it passes WP:GNG. I also state sources do not pass WP:V and that I did WP:BEFORE. The other points mentioned in the nomination merely fall under "To put this in context..." My point about WP:GNG still stands, even against the article as it now looks having been exentsively worked on during this AFD: do any of the sources pass WP:GNG? Are they independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject (nightlife in Ponce), or is the notability of Ponce's nightlife a made-up construct from lots of little pieces that do not in themselves focus on the whole subject? The article reads like an advert for nightlife establishmentnts in Ponce. The first half of the sources are travel sites, generic sources to support basic claims (e.g. "Puerto Rico Laws governing the sale and purchase of alcohol"), and a directory. The latter half of the sources regard some specific festivals that take place, rather than ongoing nightlife, not enough to base an article on the notability of its nightlife on; and from sources such as Primera Hora (Puerto Rico) which isn't reliable; and La Perla del Sur which is a local newspaper. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is the sort of topic our core readership -- students -- will look for. The sourcing and text are not great, but do not throw out the baby with the bath water. There's many, many reliable sources online. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Are you able to list some of those reliable sources here? -Lopifalko (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in accordance with many of the above comments and on the grounds of recent improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep, but not necessarily as it is now: The main article on Ponce, Puerto Rico is already big, it does not need this to be merged in, but an article on tourism in Ponce would be a good home for this, and could be expanded a lot, probably with adequate verifiable and sufficiently notable sources. My suggestion is to consider moving to a general tourism article for Ponce, and expanding to meet that scope. Some of the current tourism related content in Ponce could be split out to the new article, with short summaries left in the original, which will help with the size problem. Lopifalko, would this remedy your concerns? Mercy11, would you consider this a reasonable compromise?

Some of the information could also possible find a home on Wikivoyage (they do not require references there, and original research is welcome, so it could also be expanded a bit based on personal experience for that article). Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: Yes, this sounds sensible. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will try make some additional adjustments to address new concerns from the nominator regarding the article reading like an ad. The intent here, however, isn't readying it for WP:GA status. Mercy11 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:WIAFA, Main article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long and has been shrinked by using daughter page as per Wikipedia:Summary style. However, The Article needs Major Improvement. Stalin Sunny^Talk2Me 12:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sueann Caulfield; Chambers, S.C.; Putnam, L. (2005). Honor, status, and law in modern Latin America. Duke University Press. Retrieved 23 November 2019.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus of the discussion supports a WP:NEXIST keep based on the assumption that an actress with a lengthy career (better documented in the French article) will have sources that are not in the article currently. RL0919 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laure Killing[edit]

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

She's a French actress who appeared in films from 1986. And....? A handful of edits were made over a four year period since this article was created. The most recent edits came due to her death. Only one reference thus far. Even her corresponding French article isn't very detailed. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Her death is reported in multiple major French sources, indicating she was fairly well known. They all focus on her being the actress from the 2017 soap opera Tomorrow is Ours. However, I found almost no significant coverage of her before her death, so this may be borderline. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fr entry does however detail somebody who has been a jobbing and film actor since the mid-80's. I think there is probably a mountain of coverage available if somebody does the work. scope_creep^Talk 10:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Snickers2686 --DannyS712 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:NACTOR, with significant roles in multiple notable productions, including the TV shows Paris enquêtes criminelles and Tomorrow is Ours, and film The Teddy Bear, among others. There are certainly other obituaries which could be added as sources, as well as older sources which confirm her roles in things like Une femme en blanc [fr] [11]; Écrans de Sable / Écrans de sable [fr] (different Wikidata numbers, unfortunately) [12], etc. I agree with scope_creep that there would be more coverage in French media from the late 1980s on, which could be added by anyone with access to it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator @Curb Safe Charmer: (non-admin closure) ミラ P 23:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bacon (politician)[edit]

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

This is an old biography dating back to 2006. His role as a judge and politician can be verified, but I don't think that qualifies him for WP:NPOL in itself. The gist of his claim to notability seems to be that he was also a singer. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. WP:NPOL states members of legislative bodies at the sub- national (e.g. state level) are presumed to be notable. --Kbabej (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject passes WP:NPOL as the Missouri House of Representatives. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need improvement, but properly verifiable state legislators pass WP:NPOL #1 right on its face. This is simply an old article that was created according to old standards, and hasn't been maintained or improved lately — but state legislators do not have to demonstrate that they were appreciably more notable than other state legislators to qualify for articles, they merely need to be verifiable as having been state legislators. And reliable source coverage will most certainly exist — it's just that for a person who held office 50 years ago, he won't be in the current news cycle and his sources will be found in news archiving databases rather than out on the Google. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN I would like to withdraw the nomination. Thank you to @Kbabej, CASSIOPEIA, and Bearcat for graciously putting me straight on how cut-and-dried NPOL is. Facepalm Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Christian Meyer (publications)[edit]

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

Completely WP:UNDUE. Mario Christian Meyer is not a Albert Einstein/List of publications by Albert Einstein. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the truncated version of this in his article seems undue. He is not notable for scholarly publications. I can't even find most of these in Google Scholar. So we should not try to pretend that he is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Wikipedia not a free web hosting service. Salt because there is no circumstance in which this could be an appropriate article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to Delete, and a consensus that while the article has structural issues that need fixing (title, scope, detail and referencing per Doncram's proposals), the subject is sufficiently notable to merit Keeping. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of large council estates in the UK[edit]

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

"Large" appears to be an arbitrary figure of 10,000, who is to say this is large? The article contains only two references, one of which would appear to negate the inclusion of the entry it is referencing since it says the Byker estate has, or had in 2007, a population of 9,500. A browse of a few entries on the list seems to show the majority of the time they link to a suburb of a town or city rather than an actual article about a council estate, and that the population is either not mentioned or the population of the entire suburb does not even meet the 10,000 limit even ignoring the fact that there is no evidence the entire suburb is a council estate. FDW777 (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tempted just to rename it to List of council estates in the UK instead of deletion. The lack of sourcing is a problem, but it could become a decent list, if someone put the time and effort into it. Failing that, then just delete per WP:TNT. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly unsourced so the issue of WP:OR comes into play. Also the fact that almost all of the estates are non notable.Ajf773 (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sure, it is currently problematic to identify exact populations of each estate and hence also to determine exactly which ones are largest. But this can obviously be transformed to be more broad (move probably to List of council estates in the United Kingdom) and to be fully well-sourced (implicitly, by mentioning and linking to all the many individual articles in large Category:Housing estates in the United Kingdom). That category has many subcategories going down to individual estate articles, i dunno about 100? It doesn't need to use the word in its title, but the revised list should be understood to be a list of only "notable" council estates, i.e. the ones which have individual articles, which naturally includes the very largest ones, but also includes others famous or notorious for other reasons. It is too large to be included in Public housing in the United Kingdom and/or can be seen as a valid split out of that top-level article.

Note that wp:CLNT gives us guidance that lists, categories, and navigation templates are complementary, and it is pretty much a corollary that it is okay/good to have a list-article corresponding to any valid category. A list-article has advantage that it can/should include footnotes, sensible overall introductory discussion, and summary information about its members. It also can/should include redlinks where it is known that another item is notable and needs an article, supported by footnote(s) establishing significance.

We are obligated to seek wp:ATD alternatives to deletion, and here is a good one, so "Keep" with direction to modify in this way. --Doncram (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I wouldn't mind reworking the list in this way, though I'd be glad to have help. I have constructed lots of big, completely valid/good list-articles; some aspects of developing them are easy for me now. --Doncram (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps to be presented in a sortable table, e.g. something like:

Map all coordinates using OpenStreetMap

Download coordinates as:

	Estate	Image	Dates	Location	Size (units)	Notes/Description
1	Churchill Gardens		1946-62 built	Pimlico area of Westminster, London 51°29′13″N 0°08′24″W / 51.487°N 0.140°W / 51.487; -0.140 (Churchill Gardens)	1,600	Designed by architects Powell and Moya to replace Victorian terraced houses extensively damaged during the Blitz; won RIBA London Architectural Bronze Medal (1950); model for many later projects.
2	Austin Village		1917 built	Northfield, Birmingham-adjacent 52°24′04″N 1°58′23″W / 52.401°N 1.973°W / 52.401; -1.973 (Austin Village)	200	Cedar prefabricated bungalows erected during the First World War to support Austin Motor Company's manufacture of tanks and aircraft.

Subject to improvements, of course, about definition of which places are deemed council estates, and otherwise. --Doncram (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the alternatives listed at WP:ATD, but not seemed particularly relevant. I would have no objection to that, as @Lugnuts: has suggested something similar they obviously have no problem either. @Doncram: if you want to rename the article and make it solely about notable council estates I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination unless @Ajf773: objects? FDW777 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good. I kinda look forward to doing this and learning about these. It would be good to get other general and specific sourcing, besides what's in articles about the individual estates.

It would be fine and convenient if Ajf773 returned and changed their !vote, but they certainly can't be forced to do so, and don't have to come back at all. No problem, we can wait out the rest of 7 days for the AFD to be closed. --Doncram (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - so obviously notable I'm speechless. Ordinary editing can fix the issues noted or moving the list to a new name. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who mentioned notability? FDW777 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the only thing that's relevant in an AfD! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL#REASON begs to differ. FDW777 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All are either related to notability or reasons for speedy deletion, not AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, as anyone capable of reading and understanding the list can see. I repeat that nobody has ever mentioned notability as a reason for deletion, other than Bearian. FDW777 (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a list of council estates although this isn't it. The current list is almost worthless, it is basically unreferenced, and links to many places like Huyton which is certainly not a council estate. I would advise that it's totally reworked to list actual council estates, perhaps starting with notable ones. The size criteria should be removed as it skews the list to London and other densley populated places whilst excluding notable estates in other parts of the country. ----Pontificalibus 09:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as List of council estates in the United Kingdom. The topic is clearly notable, but needs a major rewrite. And we generally avoid "UK". -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Council house makes it clear that we don't need to specify a country at all.----Pontificalibus 14:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Consensus that it should be draftified on the basis of WP:TOOSOON; also, the name does not need to be disambiguated (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Boleyn (musician)[edit]

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

There is hardly any information about this person beyond the fact that she has a single out. This alone does not qualify her for a page. WP:TOOSOON ubiquity (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am inclined to think we should move to draft for now. There is already some coverage ([13], [14], [15]) though not really enough yet to justify an article. Realistically though, unless she packs it all in tomorrow, she's probably going to get a lot more press before long. --Michig (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her stuff is already being heavily remixed for the club circuit, so there is quite a strong awareness of her music. There is no coverage so it is all underground. I agree, I don't think it will be long before she is huge. WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 11:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as there is some coverage in reliable sources as shown above but with only one single released so far it seems WP:TOOSOON at this stage Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this looks like it is going to be draftified, which seems sensible to me, but I would note that the disambiguator "(musician)" is unnecessary here and if the move to draft happens it should be moved to Draft:I Am Boleyn. Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Dobson[edit]

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

It is too soon for an article on this singer. Most of the article's current sources are routine gig announcements, reviews of larger events in which she is only briefly mentioned, and self-created promotional sites. She has a media profile in a publication called Fishponds Voice (currently footnote #4) which appears to be a reliable local news outlet, but the article uses hyperbolic terms like "flourishing career", "sensation", and "giant leap forward" for a local gig by a singer who had not yet released any product at the time. I can find no other significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything on her. Very very early in her career. Cant even find the music, which would suggest the article is promotional. scope_creep^Talk 11:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ku[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL: A run-of-the mill local politician. He's received the sort of standard local news coverage you'd expect for any minor politician, plus a bit more attention for being a Democrat and a gay man of Asian heritage. I don't believe that being one of five commissioners for one of Georgia's 159 counties is a significant political office. I am also nominating the article for one of Mr. Ku's business ventures:

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

Cheers, gnu 57 14:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the reasons stated above. (Redacted) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have strong evidence that the author of this article has an undisclosed COI but I cannot share it. It was oversighted from my previous comment. So I will just state that I believe there is an undisclosed COI at play. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County commission is not a level of political office that confers a free pass over NPOL #2 just because the person exists — the lowest level of office that always guarantees the right to a Wikipedia article is the state legislature, not county anything, while politicians at the county or municipal levels qualify for articles only if you can show a depth, volume and geographic range of coverage that marks them out as much more special than most other local politicians. But "first member of an underrepresented minority to do an otherwise non-notable thing" is also not a free ticket to being special, either: if he had been the first LGBTQ person of colour ever elected to political office in the entire United States, then we might be getting somewhere (but even then, his includability would still depend on being much more sourceable than this) — but if he's merely the first such person in his own county, while dozens or hundreds of others have already preceded him in other parts of the country, then that's not encyclopedically significant at all. And at any rate, this is written so much more like a public relations advertisement than like a neutral encyclopedia article that I'm utterly unsurprised by the COI suspicions. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:POLOUTCOMES. We'd create a terrible precedent just because we may think he's attractive and we like his politics. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Li (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page is not required (per WP:2DABS). The primary topic has a hatnote to the only other use. A previous PROD by @Red Slash: was removed by @GB fan:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator's assessment, and hatnotes can handle any possible confusion. To be safe I have added a new hatnote to the top of Li Xiaoyun's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, especially with Doomsdayer520's additional hatnote. Cabrils (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems reasonable. scope_creep^Talk 10:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's rationale. NavjotSR (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce and Charger[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nomination appears to have been made by a bot and not an actual person. A look at the nominator's edit history shows no useful or constructive edits, only repetitive, dishonest boilerplate nominations of articles concerning notable fictional characters. Thus, it appears to be some kind of bot just indiscriminately nominating articles in fictional character categories. Any interactions beyond the nomination are of such an incoherent nature that CleverBot conversations make more sense. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC) — 131.123.51.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of permabanned troll A Nobody Reyk _YO! 17:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is most likely banned User:A Nobody per their usual MO. TTN (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources or Merge - I created this article back when I was still new to Wikipedia, and ignorant of how notability worked. There are zero citations in the article, so unless anyone really thinks these two characters are notable, and is willing to find and add reliable, secondary sources demonstrating this, the article should be deleted, or merged into some relevant DC character list article. Nightscream (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failure of WP:GNG, nothing worth preserving. I considered a selective merge to or redirect to Fearsome Five, but I'm not certain that is notable either. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it should be kept just for the heck of it, but even though it fails WP:GNG, it may or may not pass WP:NOTABILITY. Cheers! Central Time 301 20:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. That's completely nonsensical. B. You do realize "WP:GNG" and "WP:NOTABILITY" are the same thing right? TTN (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)1[reply]

That editor got blocked, unsurprisingly enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My initial instinct was to merge, but based on what Killer Moff said, I don't know there's really a good place to merge it. Unless somebody comes up with one, I'll say to delete this pairing that doesn't have (evidence of) coverage in out-of-universe sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure fancruft defended by socks and banned editors. Who wants to join them, eh? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unsourced fancruft. Reyk _YO! 17:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Comments calling for Keep were either completely implausible or explicitly contrary to notability guidelines, and have been discounted accordingly. RL0919 (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Moon[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article successfully establishes notability. --199.123.13.193 (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC) — 199.123.13.193 (talk) has made few or no other The edits outside this topic. blocked sock Reyk _YO! 13:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Keep and comment: As accordance with 199.123.13.193, I also chose this article as kept. Anyway, the Doctor Moon article sucessfully passes WP:NOTABILITY, and there is no reason to start a deletion discussion for this. The article may or may not have citations and reliable sources, but it should be kept just for the heck of it. --CentralTime301 01:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you're trolling and have no actual substance to add to the discussion? "Not a vote" and all that. TTN (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. The other two contributors are right about their claim. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you really need to read some of the policies and guidelines on fiction because pretty much every comment from you in AfDs is "let the page stay" while latching onto someone else's comment. See WP:N, WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:WAF. This isn't meant to be an insult at all, but I really think you'd be happier on a fan wiki. TTN (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He has been a notable enemy of Batman and the Outsiders. If people want him merged, perhaps it can either be merged with List of minor DC Comics characters or List of DC Comics characters: C once it has been fully modified like how @Jhenderson777: did with List of Marvel Comics characters: A. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I respectfully disagree with the first two keep voters. The article in its current state only uses primary sources as its references. Per WP:GNG, there should be significant coverage about the topic in reliable sources. A stronger keep argument would point to evidence of this coverage. I think it is already pretty clear why CentralTime301's argument is not correct (i.e. "but it should be kept just for the heck of it."). Just wanted to point it out to anyone who looks at this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or retarget to Silence in the Library. Googling reveals that the character who appears in that Doctor Who story is the more likely target. A Doctor Moon (comics) does not need to be created. The character makes few appearances across a variety of DC comics, so lacks a viable redirect, and individually fails WP:GNG. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Doctor Who character only appeared in that episode and the episode after that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet is still the more likely search target. I'm not proposing an article on the character, just suggesting that the DC character is not the primary topic. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure fancruft defended by a sock and a banned editor (first two votes) and then by WP:PERX. Seriously, people... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor character that does not have much in the way of non-primary sources. The proposed target articles for merging are already huge, crufty messes themselves, and are evidence that not every single minor comic character needs to be covered. Rorshacma (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double Dare (comics)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to notability (characters that appear in multiple versions of a mainstream media publication familiar to thousands and possibly millions of people in the real world as verified in reliable published sources) These characters have appearances spanning 20 years in both print and video mediums. The nominator may be ignorant of or not care about these, but so what? Her opinion is largely irrelevant, because there is no actual reason for deleting this article that does anything for the good of humanity or even this project. Coverage of these notable characters here is clearly relevant to the numerous people who edited this article since 2006 and the probably larger number of readers who have benefited from the information contained within it. Deleting it serves no practical purpose other than to appease some self-appointed judge with no actual edits ever made to building any articles on this site. --199.123.13.2 (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sock Reyk _YO! 13:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and therefor also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These longstanding policies show that we cannot allow articles without reliable secondary sources to stay. This article lacks any, and I cannot find any elsewhere. Term is generic, and therefor a redirect would not be worthwhile. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft defended by a WP:SPI sock. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor fictional characters without sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. The only sources being used for the article are primary, and the usual searches turns up nothing substantial. Rorshacma (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrius Rukas[edit]

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

Contested prod on the grounds that the player "passes GNG". However, the player, fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG despite statements to the contrary. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of the article fails WP:NFOOTY. He previously transferred to FC Dynamo Moscow and FC Arsenal Tula but failed to get any minute under his belt. His current club U.D. Leiria is not a professional league. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see WP:GNG being met with those two sources, and a WP:NFOOTY failure like his requires a healthy showing of WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Andrew Base (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Babylon 5 (franchise)#Novels. Tone 11:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon 5: Clark's Law[edit]

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

Just like (apparently) all B5 novel articles, this article is basically a plot-only summary in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT and has been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY for ages. I did an online search, and (I am no research expert in literature) the best I could find were things like [16] that discuss all novels as a group. This is excellent for Babylon_5_(media_franchise)#Novels, but not for stand-alone articles. So, especially with the WP:NOT#PLOT concerns, delete (or redirect this to the franchise article), or leave it around for another 10 years in this sorry state? – sgeureka ^t•c 12:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Babylon 5 (franchise)#Novels. No sigcov found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Babylon_5_(franchise)#Novels per FOARP. I also was not able to find any significant coverage of the book in reliable secondary sources, but it would serve as a plausible search term to be redirected to the main list of books from the franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above to Babylon_5_(franchise)#Novels. Little coverage of the individual book in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019 North American cold wave[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS and synthesis of ideas. Prod declined without comment. If this is a thing then it's WP:TOOSOON. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Record low temperatures were set in the majority of United States east coast population centers on Wednesday morning. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: And how is that a reason to keep? How is it noteworthy and not just a random news blurb? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The weather is responsible for at least 8 deaths. Over 1200 airline flights at O'Hare International Airport were delayed or cancelled. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not an assertation of notability. Weather deaths and delays happen all the time. 8 deaths is nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I disagree, but OK. If the article can not be kept, it can be renamed to "2019-20 North American winter". --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . However, article may be considered for Keep if it has significant informative content like January–February 2019 North American cold wave. Maybe if someone takes it up? SerTanmay (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing especially noteworthy about this cold wave. People die in all weathers; there is no moratorium due to the temperature. Also, why is there a list of only October records set? Have the months merged into Novocter without my noticing? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Loehle[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO generally as there do not seem to be multiple independent sources written about the person. The sources in the article are all either WP:SELFPUB, articles he published, or extremely incidental notice that do not highlight the importance of the person. Note also that there may be some WP:SOAP going on at this WP:FRINGEBLP. jps (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources are either his own work or information about The Heartland Institute, an organization he belongs to; many of those sources about the Heartland Institute don't even mention him directly. Neither membership in an organization or publishing papers makes one qualify for an article by even the most generous interpretation of WP:GNG or WP:42. --Jayron 32 19:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability by independent sources, other than passing mention in relation to The Heartland Institute. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Google search did not reveal any sources that pass WP:GNG. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loehle is a scientist who has worked at research institutes throughout his career. So WP:NPROF is the standard to apply, rather than GNG. And his citation record looks like it passes WP:NPROF C1 — 7000 citations, nearly 20 articles over 100 citations, etc. He is certainly fringe, and the article needs to put the fringe-ness in better context in some places. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced by this argument. C1 states "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." and I don't see independent reliable sources really making this claim. Relying on citation metrics alone for an argument is very problematic as it doesn't really speak to the ability for us to write a coherent biography of the subject. If I recall correctly, this is the very reason why WP:NPROF does not explicitly state any threshold for citation numbers for notability. jps (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The citing works are independent, generally reliable sources. I believe that a bigger reason that WP:NPROF doesn't (and shouldn't) specify thresholds is that the numbers differ so widely between fields. I compared him with other climate scientists having wikipedia articles, and the numbers looked comparable. I agree that caution is called for on the fringe. I did look through his articles some, and there's a mixture between papers published in Energy and Environment, for which there is cause to be skeptical, and more mainstream-looking journals. He seems to be cited some in the mainstream (though of course he's also brought out by climate skeptics).
    In short, I looked for reasons to treat his citation record as non-notable, and didn't see them. (I've followed this discussion, and will pay attention if others find thoughtful such reasons.) The discussion in the article of the Medawar zone and of his 2007 article (which seems to have been taken seriously enough by the mainstream to push back against) helps bring me over to a keep.
    Certainly any case for delete should discuss WP:NPROF, and I don't see that from the cases made so far. Apologies for writing an essay here! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Because of this 28 Sep 2018 edit made by the subject of the biography expressing his desire to keep a large block of content out of the article, but I could go either way. 5Q5|^✉ 17:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TES Public School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just existing isn't enough for an article, and that's all we currently see about this school. —C.Fred (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candlemaker (DC Comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. TTN (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like 1000 other fancruft minor comic book characters, not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable fictional character, but delete the crufty nominator of this discussion. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC) — 131.123.51.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of permabanned user A Nobody Reyk _YO! 17:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that this character is notable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe discuss it in articles about the stories. Nothing indicates real-world significance. Geschichte (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doom Patrol. After reading the article, I thought for sure it would be a delete, but due diligence WP:BEFORE made me think it's at least a searchable term. The 2-3 sentences he's in almost summarize the article entirely anyway (see #Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol (volume 2, part 2) ), and redirects're WP:CHEAP.
A few mentions in Grant Morrison: Combining the Worlds of Contemporary Comics aren't terrible, but don't meet GNG alone. I saw speculation about future incorporation into the TV show, but you know, WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. -2pou (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#PLOT, no indication of (in-universe or real-world) notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love this guy and the Morrison Doom Patrol in general but there's just not enough to him to justify a separate article. Maybe redirect to Dorothy Spinner? Artw (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Computer Science Academy Pakistan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find sources sufficient to demonstrate this institution exists. Searches reveal a National Institute of Computer Sciences, a National Academy of Computer Sciences, et al. but all references to a "National Computer Sciences Academy" appear to be mirrors or non-RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tantara. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Evil[edit]

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

I can't find any sourced to show this work meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Blabbermouth.net offers a press release of the album pending release Sputnik music offers a user review and the AllMusic entry doesn't even have a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the album was reviewed in two Norwegian newspapers, Tønsbergs Blad and Østlendingen. This is underground music. Geschichte (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to confirm that those papers reviewed this album. If it comes up for air and generates WP:SIGCOV, then it can be re-created. Until then, it doesn't appear to qualify under WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: me saying that they reviewed the album is confirmation. However, it's undoudbtedly underground music. Geschichte (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A date and page number for the reviews would go a long way to help confirm that the reviews exist. No offense, you're not a reliable source. August 2012 is not that long ago. It would also help to know who the reviewer(s) was (were). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last re-list to see if Geschichte, can provide RS at this AfD, otherwise it is leaning to Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tantara where the album is already referenced. I am suggesting a redirect as opposed to a deletion as this could be a useful search term/redirect for anyone looking for information on this album. I agree with Walter Görlitz in suggesting that Geschichte provides further details on these supposed newspaper sources to prove their existence. However, with that being said, I do not think reviews in two newspapers is enough coverage to justify an independent article as those reviews could be added to the article on the band. Aoba47 (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoba47. Additionally the article is almost completely unsourced and fails WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Kids in the Hall. There is sourced material in this to-be-merged article, while the merge target doesn't any sources for this character. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Lady[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, the article was previously nominated back in 2005 with the result being no consensus. Thinking second time’s worth a shot for this to get deleted and to have the article on The Kids In The Hall mention this character briefly if a redirect were to happen to this article. Pahiy (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep Standout character easily sufficiently notable to justify separate article. Artw (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete by merge and redirect to The_Kids_in_the_Hall#Recurring_sketches_and_characters. Nothing here suggests this passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current sourcing is insufficient for notability. TTN (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is best to merge with the article of the original series. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to The Kids in the Hall per Piotrus since the character is mentioned there._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to The Kids in the Hall per Piotrus since the character is already mentioned there. There does appear to be coverage on this character, but it is rather limited and not enough in my opinion to support an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Wisła Kraków season[edit]

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

Possibly fails WP:NSEASONS as it hasn't been improved enough to be deemed notable. Also listing these articles for the same reason.

1912 Wisła Kraków season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1913 Wisła Kraków season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1914 Wisła Kraków season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all WP:PRESERVE not sure how the nominator hopes that we can update these when they are 100+ years old. WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Lightburst (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no evidence of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 Wisła Kraków season. Giant Snowman 11:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Low participation at AfDs. In any event WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can change. Lightburst (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"it hasn't been improved enough to be deemed notable" - what does that even mean? A subject is either notable or it isn't, an article can't be "improved" to make a non-notable subject notable, and a notable subject is notable even if the standard of the article is poor.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "[The article] hasn't been improved enough to be deemed notable". As a logical extension of that argument, we should have no new articles. If the article doesn't exist, the topic is not notable. Narky Blert (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude and Narky Blert: I think what the nominator meant was that "there is so little information/sources about these articles that it cannot be extended beyond what it currently is" or similar. Giant Snowman 11:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Yeah that is what I meant so you can't really use WP:PRESERVE when their is no resources to add to this page. HawkAussie (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Lightburst's argument does not hold since there is nothing be preserved here as it's referenced only to a fan wikia, and there is no appropriate page to WP:ATD redirect these since Wisła Kraków has no mentions or seasons sections. As every of these fail WP:V (I am unable to find reliable references to support the article and is a policy), and WP:GNG (there is no significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches), plus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 Wisła Kraków season which was attended properly... delete is the only choice here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – per nom, GS and jovan, to which I'll add: WP:NOTSTATS. We don't need and shouldn't have stand-alone pages about football seasons for which we do not have reliable, independent secondary sources that allow us to write prose, as WP:NSEASONS guides us to do. Pages listing games and scores without prose are not for Wikipedia. I'm all about a football almanac wiki on the web, but not on enwiki. – Levivich 05:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tua Tagovailoa#Personal Life per ATD and CHEAP. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taulia Tagovailoa[edit]

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

Per WP:NCOLLATH, and the statement in the article that as the backup quarterback he "sees little playing time". Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to only gain coverage in relation to his brother, and notability is not inherited. Hog Farm (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my before search only brought up coverage of his family member - it's possible there was some of him in there but nothing at all jumps out. WP:NOTINHERITED and if he becomes notable and is just WP:TOOSOON no prejudice on recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 11:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although WP:NOTINHERITED is an integral part of this encyclopedia subject of article clearly passes general notability guidelines as he has been covered in reliable media which discusses him solely apart from his brother. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
userfy subject hasn't met notability yet, which is not uncommon for backup QBs even at Div I. I believe it is only a matter of time--which of course, means notability has not been met yet and the article should be deleted... but then when he does pass the notability threshold (almost a guarantee) we re-create the article... so let's just userfy for now. I'm confident there's an enthusiastic editor that can store the article in their user pages until that day comes. I think that's the best solution.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: Are you volunteering? —Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else will, sure... but I'm not all that enthusiastic about it. I'd go with whoever was enthusiastic enough to create the article in the first place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tua Tagovailoa#Personal Life, since he is discussed there and that would preserve the history for use if and when he meets our notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify / Userfy (prefer Draft: namespace) or Delete (1) per Paulmcdonald above. I'm seeing lots of coverage, in BleacherReport, CBS Sports, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and local TV affiliates (all reliable sources even if not explicitly named at WP:RSP), but can't assess the degree of WP:SIGCOV. I'd say WP:GNG is likely met, the SNG seems likely to have been met, but would prefer to see this go through AfC. And, at the end of the day, if it gets abandoned, we can speedy delete (from 6 months from the last edit. I don't get the redirect idea, though—seem like two people. (2) if WP:GNG is not likely met per SportingFlyer below (not sure I agree but he may have looked into the depth of WP:RS coverage than I have), I feel a redirect would be confusing to the reader in this case due to the similar names; they may wonder if this is the longer name or a pseudonym for his brother. Doug Mehus T·C 23:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: If the article gets moved to AfC, I would have to accept it if it were to pass an AfD - I've never seen an AfD article "sent to AfC" but rather would suggest draftify "sit in draft space until X event happens." He's not likely to become notable in the next six months in my estimation - unless he becomes the starter. He only gets coverage because of his brother, so if we redirect to his brother, people will not only find what they're looking for when they search for him, but all we have to do is restore the old version if/when he becomes notable. SportingFlyer T·C 10:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, True, but I think a redirect would be more confusing in this case because the names are similar looking, it would lead to reader confusion. I'll say "delete" as my second choice. Doug Mehus T·C 13:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rlendog. Notability is not inherited, but the subject is only a freshman and may become more notable in the future. Redirects are cheap and will enable us to preserve the page history for later. Lepricavark (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tequila Mockingbird (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Article creator seems intent on creating articles for every single song co-written by Roxanne Seeman, and I strongly suspect a COI, but that's irrelevant here. I've redirected a couple of the creator's other articles, but this one is more complicated as (a) it's been recorded by three notable artists, (b) the song is the title track of the parent album and therefore has the same name, so a redirect becomes pointless. I know some editors will say "it's been covered by three notable artists, that must count for something", but there is literally no reliable in-depth coverage of the song itself to write an article about it – if you read the article all it says in long-winded terms is "it was recorded by one artist and later covered by two others", and the AllMusic and Billboard sources simply point to albums where the song is merely included in the track listings, without any discussion of the song itself. Richard3120 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: since being notified of this AfD, the article creator has been busy adding more passing mentions from non-reliable sources, YouTube links, and unsourced verbiage, but there is still not a single source that actually talks about the song at all apart from mentioning that it exists. Richard3120 (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:GNG, and WP:BOMBARD won’t change that. There’s just no reason this needs to be spun out into its own article. Don’t be fooled by the reception section, it’s either mundane passing comments or massive direct quotes that appear to be there mostly to bulk up its size, as they are far too long and meander from discussing the song itself. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Sergecross73 has noted, the article creator has spent most of the last 14 hours online (don't they ever sleep??) adding a huge amount of refspam to pad out the article and make it appear notable. The editor has seen fit to mention that the song was named by the record label no fewer than four times – even stating it once wouldn't make the song notable, as notability doesn't depend on who came up with the song's title. A couple of the sources in the "critical reception" section are now reliable ones, but they either mention the song in passing within the context of an album review, or as part of a live show, with a one-line description of how the band members played. There are now over 40 references, but still none of them say anything more than "it appeared on an album" or "it was played at a gig". Richard3120 (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sergecross73 and the nominator's statement. Aoba47 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has been improved per the criticism, which does not appear altogether in the spirit of good faith. In the time spent reading more deeply into your wikipedia guidelines, I read in a wikipedia essay deletion is not a goal. Improving an article is. The writer was not trying to pad anything, just not into cutting and trimming a journalists' review to a line or two for the context of wikipedia but that's done hopefully to your satisfaction. For your information, in fact, allmusic.com is rife with errors and omissions. Any professional musician, engineer, etc has errors and omissions in allmusic.com and has found no way to get them corrected - even with a request. If you really want a reliable source for whom the song writers of a song are, you could look it up at copyright.gov, ascap.com, bmi.com, sesac, and there's a fourth US PRO, and then there are the foreign PROs - Performing Rights Organization - but even these have errors. In the case of Tequila Mockingbird, though you may not find it a reliable source, the images online of the Ramsey Lewis 7" 45 single should have the songwriter listed: Larry Dunn. Roxanne Seeman wrote lyrics for the song but is NOT the writer of any instrumental version, although Roxanne Seeman is listed at allmusic.com as a writer of the Ramsey Lewis recordings of "Tequila Mockingbird". The problem is because the instrumental version and the lyric version have the same title, whomever is taking down the information at allmusic.com is not taking it from the source. The problem with this is that when the registrations have errors, royalties are not paid out correctly - and if you would like to be informed further on this, then I would encourage you read about the current passing of the Music Modernization Act, which requires an MLC Board to get all registrations in order. I divurge here with this, but it relates to Wikipedia and how information is being vetted. So please understand that if something was repeated, it really had more to do with the writing needing to be revised than any attempt to pad or push or make something appear to be something it is not. In one of those wikipedia essays there was a point made about information going back to decades where it is simply hard to locate online - hence you go to the library to get Music Week but even if it's possible to come up with an old chart or article clipping from Billboard, Record World or Cashbox or Radio & Records or Music Week, how do you post it to make it a reliable source? Re "notability", somewhere it is written that inclusion on a compilation or significant compilation, counts towards notability. What the measure of this is, and anything, is up to varying opinions of editors in this discussion and there are only three, all of whom have been in this together for awhile and coincidentally jumped on the page as soon as it was nominated for deletion. It is impressive to read the research done at UK libraries reading back issues of Music Week. If there were a library that had back issues of Radio & Records or one of the Radio Station Trades, then it could satisfy the proof of jazz radio airplay. The fact that The Roots played "Tequila Mockingbird" on Jimmy Fallon as a nod to Jeff Daniels walking to his guest seat on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon where he will be speaking about his role as Atticus Finch in "To Kill A Mocking - all of this is for the audience of the show which is a US National Broadcast network show - due to the familiarity with the song and the humor in the name "Tequila Mockingbird" and "To Kill A Mockingbird". Maybe it's an inside joke to fans of Ramsey Lewis and the song, but every journalist writes about it and The Roots and Jimmy Fallon chose to play the song because of the song title as it is an idiosyncratic part of the song. So that has been explained and cited with a reliable source. Furthermore, this is a song that is relevant over forty years - and somewhere in one of those wikipedia essays, that alone could count for notability - not just for something. As has been commented by the initiator of the nomination to delete, something to the effect that there are three notable versions of the song so that must count for something, then it would seem if it were wanting, it could have been tagged as a stub or asked for more inline citations, or had one of the tags that says something like it is too wordy in the Critical reception area. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion

Furthermore, it would be in the interest of Wikipedia, should the editor wish to delete the page without it being perceived as overzealous, the information that is on the page being redirected would have at least been best to merged into the article it is being redirected to, instead of just getting rid of it, which appears to be something in the order of "blanking" though that may not be the exact terminology, all of the information is gone.

The notability of the artists who have recorded the song and the musicians that have played on it and the writers who have written the music and the words, is such that the tone of the comments could appear offensive. It was never the intention to "BOMBARD" OR REFSPAM or whatever wikipedia codes are used to refer to this, but in terms of this entry it was in an attempt to satisfy the extraordinarily high standards being asked to be met, sort of like asking a dog to jump higher to get the bone. Wikipedia is supposed to be a community but the issue is that even if there are over 1,000 administrators - and administrators are reviewing the pages created without incident until now - it looks like three are voting to delete without having said a single word about the revision of the page. Instead, a nomination to delete another song page came up and with the comment that the song was on an album, Love Island (Eumir Deodato) that not notable and does not have a wikipedia page of it's own. The problem with that is that that album was on the Billboard chart for over 25 weeks, and had a hit single charting on the Dance Chart, and other songs that were sampled, had covers, and other activity. Besides that, the album page was redirected to the artist page so if ever an editor wanted to create an album page for the Love Island album that Tahiti Hut is on, unless they were highly advanced with wikipedia, they would not know how to revert the redirect which additionally is targeted to a section. It might even be that the redirect is hidden or the page is protected. Why the editor who did not check this out before making the disparaging comment is worth asking as again, the idea is to encourage contribution, not for deletion. The comment about article creator writing about every song Roxanne Seeman has written is such that it negates the dozens of songs in television alone listed on imdb and hundreds of songs in the ascap database. Professional writers write hundreds of song in the course of their careers. It is a wholesale effort to create an editor war or whatever it is that is done, rather than a peaceful atmosphere encouraging contribution. That lead to reading about other songs and album pages the same editor nominating deletion for this song has done on others and the replies of the innocent editor who wishes to include an album page and is less wikipedia-guideline savvy and is suddenly confronted by a nomination for a deletion -- which again is all up to a discussion which most likely will be three or more to one or maybe two if someone happens to come along fast enough. It's all very troubling and deserves a piece on 60 Minutes: Understandable that Wikipedia has concerns on businesses, politicians, organizations, Church of Scientology, but deleting song pages of note recorded by artists of notability, written by writers of notability, with more than one recording of same and additional activity including US National Network Television live performance of the song by a notable band in connection with a notable actor and Broadway show (maybe a person who is based in the UK and Colombia is not familiar with the reference but it does not make it less notable), and in the case of the second song Nominated for Deletion being used in a podcast from a web series created by a critic of allmusic.com whom Wikipedia relies on for sourcing, written in good faith? That comment about 14 hours and when does this person sleep?...that's right, by appearances it could appear that wikipedia has gang leadership and cyber bullies that could cause anyone to lose sleep.Rosedelune (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosedelune (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: Rosedelune (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Blocked Sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you have added 51 references to date on this article, and not a single one of them is anything more than a passing mention or demonstrates any notability per WP:NSONG. The comment about "Tahiti Hut" is irrelevant in the context of this AfD but there would be no problem for a Wikipedia editor to create an article for the Love island album, so I don't know why you are worrying about editors being unable to do so. And you seriously think Wikipedia's deletion procedure is worthy of a 60 Minutes investigation? By the way, i have no connection whatsoever with the other two editors in this AfD – I've never met them or spoken to them, either in real life or on Wikipedia, and I never solicited them or anyone else to make a statement here. Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the verified facts to Tequila Mockingbird (album article) -- Allow me to offer a compromise. I have been following this bizarre discussion and must conclude that everyone has made valid points, though Rosedelune could have done it with 95% fewer words and without the accusations of bad faith. Everyone here is a volunteer and consensus is one of the basic philosophies of Wikipedia. What matters is whether this song is notable enough for its own article, and I must conclude that it is not, because it does not have enough specific and in-depth coverage in its own right, beyond passing mentions in works that are actually about the albums on which it appears or events at which it was played. The song certainly has a place in jazz history, but Rosedelune has not made a convincing argument on why that history must be in a separate article as opposed to saying it within the album article, where it is entirely valid to say something like "The title track was remade with new lyrics by Roxanne Seeman etc. etc." Rosedelune, if you would like to respond please do so in a reasonable number of words and consider paragraph breaks too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: I'm quite happy with that suggestion, although there are very few "verified facts" to be merged, once you go through the article – I think probably just how the song/album was named, and who has covered it. Richard3120 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are a few verified facts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just came across this and couldn’t believe it – I’ve edited pages using my IP address not a user id and wanted to respond to this but because I have never done this before and don’t want to do it without a user id, I created one. I’m interested in learning more because I’ve done edits that were deleted or changed and did not know what to do about it.

I looked up notability for song and found this:

“Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions.”

Ramsey Lewis recorded it at least 3 times, Dee Dee Bridgewater recorded it, multiple compilations including the song, and a live televised version recorded by The Roots on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. Detailed Wikipedia page for The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon – the viewership is millions worldwide. Are you saying if there isn’t press about it, it didn’t happen? Or The Roots on Jimmy Fallon doesn’t count? The Ramsey Lewis and Dee Dee Bridgewater recordings and compilations don’t count? Hiroman60 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked Sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're saying there needs to be reliable press discussing the song in detail. The notability argument you looked up says the song may be notable if it has been released by several notable artists. But if there aren't any sources discussing those recordings in detail beyond their existence, then it is difficult to justify an individual article. Tunefind is not a reliable source, and there aren't any reliable sources that state that the song was performed on the Jimmy Fallon show. That the show is famous and watched by millions has no relevance to the notability of this article if they never mentioned the song. Richard3120 (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the song is listed at imdb.com on the Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon page and the Larry Dunn page. Imdb has controlled editorial oversight. The Youtube Video is an external link. The song was a 7" single released in 1977. Your rigidity is a matter of concern as Wikipedia is creating an industry standard by your insistence on sticking to guidelines which obviously, at this point, should be subject to review and revision. It seems from what I've read, Wikipedia has had deep issues over politicians and their staff making edits, Church of Scientology, businesses. You are making judgement calls on legacies of musicians, artists, and their intellectual property and sometimes this cannot be judged by Music Week or Billboard chart activity or reviews in the press. A song that is being played by The Roots on the Tonight Show after 40 plus years is not a lark - and there needs to be a higher body that considers this outside of press reviews which probably did exist in 1977 but are not available, same as the Radio & Records radio airplay charts. Most people cannot spend time going to the library looking through decades old Music Week magazines and as I have asked, even if one were to have a clipping with the review - from Sony, the label, BRE Magazine, or other trade magazines of which many are no longer in business - to what site would it be uploaded that would acceptable to you under Wikipedia guidelines? Even Music Connection which is still actively being published in print and online, does not have it's archives online. Rosedelune (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosedelune: no, iMDb is not considered a reliable source (see WP:USERG) as artists can pay to edit their own articles and users can add their own content which is sometimes not checked. I know the song was released as a single and that there are YouTube videos of the song's performance, but they only prove its existence. I am not responsible for Wikipedia's guidelines, I and other editors can only follow them. I do agree with you about the problem of older records that predate the internet era not being as well represented as more recent ones due to the lack of online presence – this is an issue with Wikipedia and not one that can be solved easily. I have spent considerable time in the British Library going through back issues of Music Week, Billboard and UK and US music magazines to find information to improve song and album articles, but it's a slow process. Regarding your question, the clipping or photocopy does not need to be uploaded – if you can provide details of the article (title, name of publication it appeared in, date of issue of publication, page number, and article author if there is one), that is good enough for a Wikipedia citation. WP:PUBLISHED and WP:SOURCE say it only has to be published in a reliable source for verification purposes, but the source doesn't necessarily have to be online. Richard3120 (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an article Tequila Mockingbird (song) adheres to WP:Notability (music)#Songs under sub note 3 and WP:Notability (music)#Recordings under sub notes 1, 5 & 6. As a result the article is thoroughly notable and should thus be kept altogether.Woojy88 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Woojy88, some of those assertions are completely incorrect. WP:NALBUM#1 is "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician" – no, we don't have multiple, non-trivial works... we have a couple of very brief passing mentions within the context of album reviews or live concerts, so the song is not the subject of the review and the mention is trivial. WP:NALBUM#5 is "The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show" – apparently this is the case, but there are no reliable sources to support this. WP:NALBUM#6 is "The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" – this is untrue, we have a record of it being played once in 2007 and once more in 2014, both times during segments that were focusing on Ramsey Lewis, and one play of another version on a local radio station in Las Vegas. So all we are left with is WP:NSONG#3, and this is just a list of the various versions of the song that have been recorded, with no other details other than they exist. Richard3120 (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from blocked sock

Comment. While this may not yet have evolved into an edit war, per se, and the revision made were an improvement which are appreciated, it would appear in my opinion, an unreasonable and targeted effort going on to redirect and delete pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars

"Occasionally, even experienced Wikipedians lose their heads and devote every waking moment to edit warring over the most trivial thing, wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or wrestling over questions whose answers hold no practical consequence. This page documents our lamest examples. It isn't comprehensive or authoritative, but it serves as a showcase of situations where people lose sight of the big picture and obsessively expend huge amounts of energy fighting over something that, in the end, isn't really so important." Rosedelune (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think a guideline should be suggested if not in place, that before an editor Nominates to Delete a page that has been reviewed by an administrator, the administrator should be "pinged" to review that editors' Nomination to Delete - and that editors Nominations to Delete and their rationale and the tone of the commentary should be reviewed and evaluated before creators and community members are dragged into a discussion wasting time better spent on improving an article or creating a new one. Rosedelune (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following is an entry on the Tahiti Hut Nomination to Delete page to the creator of these Nominations to Delete which, after being disturbed by all of this and trolling through Nominations to Delete and other tags on pages that have previously been reviewed by administrators and have had little or no significant edits, are not limited to these two songs. Doomsdays520 I understand you do not wish to read a post of this length and would not have done any of this at all, but in my opinion the guidelines need to be revised so please skip it if you are bothered by it. I have taken note of your comment and please forgive me as I do not wish to be writing any of this at all.

Richard3120: I don't know yet how to address you with the proper codes and I don't have the time that you do to learn all of this now - but since you have begun by disparaging the Love Island album as not being notable and my creation of articles - and now have conceded after I cited a Billboard chart showing the album was still on the charts after 25 weeks, it is notable and you could have easily looked that up as you have explained that you spend innumerable amounts of time in UK libraries researching Billboard, Music Week and other publications and charts, and since you did not answer my query as to how to undo the redirect -- and since I am coming to the conclusion that you mean well but are of a rigid and literal mind and interpretation of rules and life and have a special interest with all of this which makes you a specialist in the details which your pursue so zealously - and since I have great admiration for people with knowledge, know-how, and talent, may I suggest that since I cannot for the life of me figure out how to undo the redirect for Love Island album -- that you direct your energies in a positive direction to the creation of the Love Island album page and take the contents of the Tahiti Hut page and merge it there without deleting any of the information. I am suggesting this as a compromise and a request that you consider what would help improve the situation which you are well-aware of with the rules that you are intransigent about following simply because as you say they are the guidelines, you didn't make them and you need to follow them. This community can propose new rules and you are an expert on what they are, so how about considering what would help to keep articles that have merit though not to the standard that you are following simply because in your mind there is no alternative and I understand that. There is a new movie coming out "Just Mercy" which happens to take place in Monroeville where Harper Lee, writer of "To Kill a Mockingbird" lived and wrote the book. It is about the justice system. I recommend it highly to all who are serving on these jury panels.

Here is the tracklist for Eumir Deodato's Love Island (album). Personally I don't agree that the Tahiti Hut article, which was reviewed by an administrator previous to your Nomination to Delete, should be merged here unless you should expand the album page to include information for Whistle Bump, San Juan Sunset and Love Island, but would gladly accept it if it would allay all of this discussion. The disparaging reference to Tahiti Hut as a session outtake, however is incorrect - a session outtake to my understanding would be when the song is recorded multiple takes, one take is chosen, and the others are the outtake of that song's recording session. To understand when and how that song was recorded and why it did not appear on the album would be a question for Jermaine Jackson to answer or Bobby DeBarge, who is deceased but was the subject of this year's biopic: https://tvone.tv/show/the-bobby-debarge-story/ , or the writer of the song might know but that would have to be documented by an interview in a reliable source. Maybe you could think of a way that Wikipedia could start it's own reliable source publication so that facts could be submitted and verified. Many thanks. {{Track listing | title1 = Area Code 808 | writer1 =Deodato, George Parrish, Jr | length1 = 6:45 | title2 = Whistle Bump | writer2 =Deodato | length2 = 4:32 | title3 = Tahitti Hut | writer3 =Maurice White | length3 = 4:27 | title4 = San Juan Sunset | writer4 = | length4 = 4:15 | title5 = Love Island | writer5 =Deodato | length5 = 6:40 | title6 = Chariot of the Gods | writer6 =Don Juan Mancha, Edwin Starr | length6 = 3:09 | title7 = Pina Colada | writer7 =[Deodato]] | length7 = 5:55 | title8 = Take The “A” Train | writer8 = Billy Strayhorn | length8 = 3:48 Rosedelune (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Rosedelune (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the sock puppetry, go for another re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after the relisting -- I voted to Merge (to the album) above as a suggested compromise, in the belief that a debate had gotten out of hand with hard feelings. Now that one of the parties had been deemed illegitimate, my vote above can be considered Delete while the associated album article can be updated slightly with a few verifiable tidbits on this song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hailey Wishers College Daska[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally inadequate sourcing. The procedural keep of the last debate is one of many sad cases in Wikipedia where we kept low quality articles on technicalities that undermined the quality of the product.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as a run of the mill secondary school. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gawade[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No notable people with this surname; fails WP:NNAME. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, relevance not shown through sources discussing it. Geschichte (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little Folks School[edit]

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

Started by a WP:SPA User talk:Sunny b1979. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nominator. Geschichte (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Model School[edit]

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

Started by a WP:SPA User talk:Shahgofthana. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing there to work with- not even a location ClemRutter (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Baltistan Al- Islamia Shigar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small, not obviously notable religious school. Doesn't look like it meets WP:NSCHOOL. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tafheem-ul-olum High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Störm, since this is one of a number of school articles you've nominated today please be aware that the 2017 RFC said that editors should not "flood" AFD with nominations of schools. Of course, there was no definition of what "flood" means so I'm not saying you're necessarily at that point, but it's worth keeping in mind. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools per an earlier comment at a AfD by Power~enwiki on 26 May 2017 (UTC). FOARP's interpretation of the RfC is correct. Scouring the entire encycopedia for schools in South Asia to delete is counter-productive to the mission of Wikipedia. The vast majority of these stubs are totally harmless. Störm,The effort should be made to invest one's time more constructively and not creating unnecessary work for your fellow editors at AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Too late for procedural keep. Anyways, Kudpung, this will not help the project. Articles which fail WP:GNG should be deleted, and this one fails WP:GNG. We are not listing site or directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the fact that the nominator has nominated several schools at once, this specific page does not meet notability standards. Jerry (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Smith (Irish politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. The subject does not meet the notability criteria for politicians (WP:NPOL), in that local councillors in Ireland do not meet the expectations of an international or national office. The subject also doesn't meet the general notability criteria for people (WP:SIGCOV/WP:NBIO), in that the only non-trivial coverage is the very recent (and minimal) coverage of the subject's candidacy in a by-election. Otherwise, for example, a search for the subject in the main newspapers of record in Ireland (Irish Times and Irish Independent) returns only one or two pieces like this one which does not meet the expectations of SIGCOV. Article was created because the subject is seeking national office. But, standing in a by-election doesn't contribute to WP:NPOL. Being a candidate for national office is some distance from holding a national office. (The de-PROD argument "articles on other local politicians exist" is not relevant. Given WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE guidelines. Subject's are notable on their own merits. Not by association with other subjects.) Guliolopez (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For my reasons stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lawlor —Iveagh Gardens (talk) —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County councillor is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over NPOL #2 just because the person exists, and his candidacy in a Dail by-election is not grounds for a Wikipedia article either — he would have to win the by-election to collect notability from the by-election. But the referencing here is a mix of primary and unreliable sources (e.g. profiles on the self-published and directly affiliated websites of the county council and his political party, podcasts, blogs) that are not support for notability at all; purely routine local coverage of the type that every local councillor everywhere is simply expected to get in the local media, which is not enough to make him a special case of greater notability than most other county councillors; and glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that are not fundamentally about him. Obviously this will be recreatable after election day if he wins the national by-election, since his basis for notability will have changed, but this is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a local councillor or an as yet unelected by-election candidate already notable enough for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Bearcat and Iveagh Gardens. Spleodrach (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Maher (Irish politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. The subject does not meet the notability criteria for politicians (WP:NPOL), in that local councillors in Ireland do not meet the expectations of an international or national office. The subject also doesn't meet the general notability criteria for people (WP:SIGCOV/WP:NBIO), in that the only non-trivial coverage is the very recent (and minimal) coverage of the subject's candidacy in a by-election. Otherwise, for example, a search for the subject in the main newspapers of record in Ireland (Irish Times and Irish Independent) returns nothing relevant, and I can find only one or two other pieces of otherwise trivial coverage like this like this one. Where the subject is tangentially mentioned among other candidates. In a mannger which does not meet the expectations of SIGCOV. Article was created because the subject is seeking national office. But, standing in a by-election doesn't contribute to WP:NPOL. Being a candidate for national office is some distance from holding a national office. (The de-PROD argument "articles on other local politicians exist" is not relevant. Given WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE guidelines. Subject's are notable on their own merits. Not by association with other subjects.) Guliolopez (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For my reasons stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lawlor —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County councillor is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over NPOL #2 just because the person exists, and his candidacy in a Dail by-election is not grounds for a Wikipedia article either — he would have to win the by-election to collect notability from the by-election. But the referencing here is a mix of primary and unreliable sources (e.g. profiles on the self-published and directly affiliated websites of the county council and his political party, podcasts, blogs) that are not support for notability at all; purely routine local coverage of the type that every local councillor everywhere is simply expected to get in the local media, which is not enough to make him a special case of greater notability than most other county councillors; and glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that are not fundamentally about him. Obviously this will be recreatable after election day if he wins the national by-election, since his basis for notability will have changed, but this is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a local councillor or an as yet unelected by-election candidate already notable enough for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Bearcat and Iveagh Gardens. Spleodrach (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Lawlor[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. The subject does not meet the notability criteria for politicians (WP:NPOL), in that local councillors in Ireland do not meet the expectations of an international or national office. The subject also doesn't meet the general notability criteria for people (WP:SIGCOV/WP:NBIO), in that the only non-trivial coverage is the very recent (and minimal) coverage of the subject's candidacy in a by-election. Otherwise, for example, a search for the subject in the main newspapers of record in Ireland (Irish Times and Irish Independent) returns only one or two pieces like this one which does not meet the expectations of SIGCOV. Article was created because the subject is seeking national office. But, standing in a by-election doesn't contribute to WP:NPOL. Being a candidate for national office is some distance from holding a national office. (The de-PROD argument "articles on other local politicians exist" is not relevant. Given WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE guidelines. Subject's are notable on their own merits. Not by association with other subjects.) Guliolopez (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's evident there's significantly more than 'trivial coverage' if you look online. There's over 200 results in one of the searches linked. Lawlor has been notable before by-election coverages unlike the two other articles you've nominated for AfD, and therefore this shouldn't be here. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hiya. Thanks so much for the note. To confirm, as part of a WP:BEFORE exercise (and as per the linked search above), I did of course look online before opening this AfD. While, granted, Lawlor is perhaps "more notable" than the other two subjects I'd recently opened threads upon, I don't necessarily agree that the 200 results indicate that the threshold of SIGCOV is met. Many of the results returned by that query are, for example, "false matches" or trivial mentions (events that the subject attended locally and the like, rather than articles in which the subject is the primary topic). There are, granted, a number of local news stories, where the subject is a principle subject, but these are in the regional/local outlets of the Independent News & Media stable. Rather than the national publications. And many are relatively recent rather than sustained over time. In any event, while I'm absolutely delighted to hear other editors' opinions as part of an articles for discussion thread (that obviously being the point of opening the discussion thread), I don't agree that there shouldn't be one. That being said, obviously, if there's a clear consensus otherwise, I'll be delighted to close this thread myself. If WP:SNOW applies.) Thanks again! Guliolopez (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you very much for the eloquent response, I could not have asked for a nicer one. I would believe that the amount of coverage (insignificant attendance records ignored) would be considered significant enough really. The aforementioned story about the financial transaction between him and another politician is one of these, and while I understand totally that a lot of the articles in the search are insignificant, there are a lot more within the search. Thanks again! Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was created during his by-election campaign. I'm not sure beyond that what makes him notable. The mere fact of him being referenced in the cited articles is not sufficient. Should every borough and municipal district mayor get an article? Everyone mentioned in local newspapers, if part of coverage of national campaigns? I just deleted a lot of inline references, on the WP:OVERCITE principle. There seemed to be an element of WP:MASK given the number of them, some repeated, for a local politician. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County councillor is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over NPOL #2 just because the person exists, and his candidacy in a Dail by-election is not grounds for a Wikipedia article either — he would have to win the by-election to collect notability from the by-election. But the referencing here is a mix of primary and unreliable sources (e.g. profiles on the self-published and directly affiliated websites of the county council and his political party, podcasts, blogs) that are not support for notability at all; purely routine local coverage of the type that every local councillor everywhere is simply expected to get in the local media, which is not enough to make him a special case of greater notability than most other county councillors; and glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that are not fundamentally about him. Obviously this will be recreatable after election day if he wins the national by-election, since his basis for notability will have changed, but this is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a local councillor or an as yet unelected by-election candidate already notable enough for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Bearcat and Iveagh Gardens. Spleodrach (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CADers[edit]

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

Articles is regarding an obscure computer club at a Bangladesh engineering university. No citations at all, and only mentions I could find were on blogs and profiles of student and faculty of the university. Clearly fails WP:GNG ƒin (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this article lower important, no reliable source fails WP:RS.-Nahal^(T) 11:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I think this could have speedily deleted.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Abdullah[edit]

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

The subject does not meet the criteria for presumption of notability contained in WP:NPOL, and does not appear to meet the general notability guideline (WP:SIGCOV) because of a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Bsherr (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bsherr (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bsherr (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bsherr (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with User:Bsherr, this article does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG The Mirror Cracked (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article has enough refrences links to newspapers and talk shows provided to be approved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.209 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources actually cover the subject, or do they just make passing mention of her in the context of covering other subjects? Can you provide examples? --Bsherr (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above by @Bsherr: is the most imperative I have seen today people forget in-depth coverage of subject and not mere passing comments are what reallly matters & constitutes WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has valid refrences that refer to different newpapers and tv talk shows that strongly back this article. Thus recommended to not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.209 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nothing found Urdu name on google, Fails WP:GNG. not enough established notable politician, She is a Just Politician member doesn't meet WP:NPOL.-Nahal^(T) 08:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low level party official. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL & fails WP:GNG on all levels and almost can be categorized as a hoax I don’t think I saw any google hit whilst conducting research on this name.Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Krishna's flute (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsbad Village Drive[edit]

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

Another non-notable local street created by 21rojasjustyn (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alton Parkway, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hill Avenue, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard Avenue, Irvine, California for more context. David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps merge with major roads in that region but otherwise the article is pointless. SVUKnight (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article creator has been removing deletion notices from these articles, in this case leading The Mirror Cracked to accidentally create a second deletion nomination for the same article. I have redirected it to this discussion, but their nomination statement was lost in the process, so here it is again. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete `Article is unsourced and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Per the US Streets wikiproject, streets are generally not notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hill Avenue and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alton Parkway, suffering from the same problems, (re-)created by the same author. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOROAD even though I disagree with this, it does state that :
International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable.
as such, this road qualifies as notable. Were it up to me, I'd request reliable sources showing notability, but that's not what this policy says. This isn't a county road, it's described as the main road in a town, so yes, it's notable. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—not notable. @Wekeepwhatwekill: it's not a state highway or higher classification, so under WP:GEOROAD, the article must pass the WP:GNG without any benefit of the doubt based on its classification. Imzadi 1979 → 14:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reiterating what Imzadi says above, there is no indication of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wekeepwhatwekill has misunderstood GEOROAD. An arterial road or even "main street of Carlsbad" is not a highway. Reywas92^Talk 22:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable road Celestina007 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it's notable, there'd be available sources... fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with others; fails WP:GEOROAD. MB 02:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Avenue, Irvine, California[edit]

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

Another non-notable local street created by 21rojasjustyn (talk · contribs). Previously deleted by prod under Harvard Avenue (Irvine, California) and then re-prodded under this name, but the second prod was removed (as it should have been as prod can only be used once). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alton Parkway, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hill Avenue, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsbad Village Drive for more context. David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG pretty easily. hewhoam areismyself 06:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—not notable. Imzadi 1979 → 14:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to run through a rather nice public park, but otherwise completely non-notable - it's just a piece of tarmac! -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 00:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourced indication that is anything more than just another non-notable road. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG I did some WP:BEFORE and found only stores that occupy that avenue. Lightburst (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom and others. MB 02:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no question that this fails WP:GNG. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sharrah[edit]

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

This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. There are namechecks in a couple of RS about his Kid History YouTube series, but I don't find anything in the way of RS in the two pages of GHits that are actually about him, rather than by or promoting him. Guy (help!) 00:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Guy (help!) 00:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The YouTube channel seems no longer to be adding content, and I don't see any independent coverage of Sharrah personally. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Not notable. Context of article is promotional without solid references. Abtehas98 (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. His list of film appearances needs to be updated but a visit to IMdB shows that he is actively appearing in movies and television shows, with a lead role in several of them. Tyler (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, and we see Bored Shorts TV has its own good page. MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC) user indefinitely blocked for spamming.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [yak] || 05:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A handful of appearances in obscure shorts and TV series does not not even come close to satisfying WP:ACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Adshead[edit]

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

I've been unable to find any suitable citations/references for this page via searches online, or via a ProQuest database news search for Australian and New Zealand offline news sources. Without any references it is difficult to see how this director is notable: while he has directed many episodes of several TV series, my understanding is that is that that is not sufficient alone to pass WP:DIRECTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs) 05:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Prodcedural keep. The consensus is not to delete, but a merge or redirect is possible. Tone 10:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Hornburg[edit]

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

Fictional battle. References are all to primary sources, including fan observsations on a movie. This belongs on a wikia, not here. Fails WP:PLOT (no analysis, just plot summary) and WP:NFICTION/GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fancruft.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:FANCRUFT is not a WP:DELREASON, it merely describes a sort of article that is likely to be deleted if it cannot be improved. Similarly WP:ALLPLOT is not a WP:DELREASON if the article can be improved so as not to be an all-plot summary. WP:NFICTION is an essay - it actual failed to become a guideline because of the flaws in it. So the question is: can this article be improved based on the sourcing available?

I find the answer is "yes it can" given the substantial coverage of it in numerous reliable sources which focus not simply on summarising the events but the differences in the portrayal of it between the books and the films and the special effect techniques deployed to portray it. See particularly the following (keeping in mind that "Battle of Helm's Deep" is an alternative title): 1 2 3 4 5 6. Essentially the portrayal of this fictional battle is a notable cultural phenomenon and this article should be kept for this reason (i.e., it's a WP:GNG pass). FOARP (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per FOARP. Also, specifically the film/CGI creation about Battle of Helm's Deep is a big deal. I have seen the battle included in lists like "top 10 battle videos", and I have seen technical/movie production film about creating it. --Doncram (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:INHERITED, a discussion of how a video about X topic was made does not make said X topic encyclopedic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think you're possibly misunderstanding WP:INHERITED here. WP:INHERITED means that you cannot argue from coverage of a larger phenomenon that the smaller phenomenon of which it is part inherits its notability (e.g., arguing that something is notable because it is part of LOTR). It specifically says that this is the case ("Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects"). It does not mean that coverage which is explicitly of the subject cannot be used to show that the subject is notable just because the subject is part of a larger work. This is clearly the case in every one of the references discussed above - they are explicitly about the fictional battle and the different ways in which it is portrayed. Wiki has long recognised that a specific part of a television program or film (e.g., famous catchphrases, specific sections, theme music etc.) can be notable independently of the larger work of which it is part. FOARP (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I think I am not mistaken. CGI of Battle of Helm's Deep or such might be a notable topic, whereas the fictional battle itself is unlikely to be so. If the current section on the CGI/movie wasn't completely unreferenced I'd be open to some form or a rescue of this article, but as it stands I don't believe it merits anything but a mercy WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - You're welcome to open a rename discussion to rename the article to CGI of Battle of Helm's Deep on the article's talk page if you believe it will improve the article, but rename discussions are not for AFD. This is not a WP:TNT situation as the article is eminently savable, and the lack of referencing in the article does not matter for assessing deletion per WP:NEXIST. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline and so it is not our practice. At the Hornburg, "blasting fire" was the "devilry of Saruman". He lost. Andrew D. (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Two Towers#Book III: The Treason of Isengard. It's a plausible search phrase, but has no independent significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm more familiar with this as the Battle of Helm's Deep and that's certainly notable. For example... Andrew D. (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Helm’s Deep is heralded as one of the greatest battles ever put into a movie. Its scale is off the charts, its emotion is legitimate, and the dual mechanics of its showmanship and storytelling never clash. Really, the greatness of Helm’s Deep reflects the greatness of the Lord of the Rings trilogy as a whole. The battle’s technical mastery, sweeping spectacle and tonal balance double as the legacy for the series itself.
— 15 Years Later, No One’s Matched ‘LOTR’s Battle at Helm’s Deep
Keep. Significant event in both the works of one of the most significant authors in the English language and in the films based on it. Definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, this all relates to the CGI/SFX etc. in the context of the movies, not the fictional event itself. And actually, we have a relevant article all sources found here can be found, and I even concur we can have a section dedicated to this battle in said article: Production of The Lord of the Rings film series. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Two Towers#Book III: The Treason of Isengar because there is nothing to merge. Per WP:NOT#PLOT, "Wikipedia treats creative works [...] in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." Here, we just have (not even concise) plot and trivial book-film comparisons (WP:OR, WP:UNDUE). Per above, CGI of Battle of Helm's Deep could make a legitimate WP:SPINOUT one day, but the current article offers no content for such. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Coverage seems trivial. There is little need for paragraphs on paragraphs of repeated content. TTN (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Battle of Helm's Deep or even Helm's Deep per the common name rule. This is the name used most often in the books, and even more so in the films. It is even more so the name used in the articles covering this topic. I don't care that somewhere Tolkien degreed something as the formal name, the common name is Helm's Deep, and Wikipedia uses common names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure plot. Kacper IV (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Culture#Living space. Tone 22:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital (The Culture)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is pretty well referenced, and to quality sources as well, but the problem is that it is still 100% WP:PLOT (and I think some people may need a refresher: "[Wikipedia should treat] works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works"). If a plot element is summarized in an academic paper or book, it still is just a plot element that doesn't go beyond the "concise summary" and if there is nothing else we can write about a topic that is not a said "concise summary", it does not warrant an article here. For example, The Science Fiction Handbook, a reliable academic source, just says in essence that 'space stations are a common trope in many works of science fiction, including in x, y, z, and this one'. I don't think it means that Wikipedia needs a stand-alone article for each and every fictional space station (or a type of them) out there. As such, I think that the article on space station may merit an 'in fiction' section where some examples are given and Banks's orbitals are mentioned, but I don't think they are merit a stand-alone article (fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG). Coverage of this concept is effectively in passing and not in depth (limited to plot summaries). On a final note, this article's references contain quotations, so it is very easy to judge the extent to which this topic is discussed in them, and it is pretty clear there is no analysis of the literary significance of this concept that goes beyond 'Banks The Culture universe has big space stations called Orbitals'. This is not an encyclopedic topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ALLPLOT is not a WP:DELREASON if the article can be improved so as not to be an all-plot summary, which I believe it has. If this many edits by this many accounts have improved the article this many times over 17 years, then it has some merit. Also this is the second attempt to cull the article and the first one failed. I will admit to an wikipedia inclusionist bias for full disclosure.Timmccloud (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Which parts of the article go beyond PLOT? The sentence that states that someone has compared Banks space stations to the ones in Halo games...? I don't see much else. Hence the failures in NFICTION/GNG, which the op noted and you did not address yet... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Sponsor said this was included in list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions and it was NOT Included. I have performed this oversight. Timmccloud (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. Timmccloud (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to The Culture#Living space. Not individually notable, though articles like this suggest that the fictional civilization as a whole might be._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to The Culture#Living space Merge seems appropriate given the importance of Orbitals in The Culture.--GCUgreyarea (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The current sources are trivial. The real world information is basically just passing mentions. TTN (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Not significant, pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom "This is pretty well referenced, and to quality sources as well". But seriously: the subject is discussed in a wide range of quality sources, which could satisfy WP:GNG, and which demonstrate that its significance extends beyond in-world "fancruft", viz, that it was an inspiration for structures in the video game Halo, which have their own article. Additionally, the nominator has not shown what exactly has changed since the last AfD which resulted in the article being kept. 141.168.108.104 (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to The Culture#Living space - per above. As stated, the concept does not appear to have the sources to indicate independent notability, but should be included in the main article on the setting. Its already covered briefly in that article already, so I am not sure how much actually needs to be merged, but its edit history will be here for people to reference if that needs to be done. Rorshacma (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Chifunyise[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable musician. Have done searches for references, not finding them. All links seem to just be Wikipedia mirrors or links to their music. Not seeing any articles or discussions, significant third party coverage or awards etc. In fact finding very little other than links to his music from every conceivable source, which only proves he's good at promotion but doesn't count as coverage. Canterbury Tail talk 19:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there has been some coverage but it's more shallow than deep. Can this one be saved? Bearian (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding enough sourcing-wise to establish WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burlingame Museum of Pez Memorabilia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Burlingame Museum of Pez Memorabilia

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

Local museum that lacks notability and sources independent of the org. It’s mainly promo material SVUKnight (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article lacks sources, if you ignore all the sources in the article, yes. wp:ITSAMUSEM. --Doncram (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BEFORE not done, sources provided in the article clearly show notability, no good reason provided to consider the article WP:PROMO. FOARP (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately sourced to establish wiki-notability. Sure, it has a bit of the roadside attraction atmosphere, but it's one that people have paid attention to, and that's what we look for. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 09:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency International Bangladesh[edit]

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

This is a branch of a larger organisation that is not inherently notable. Fails WP:ORG SVUKnight (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable. We went through a similar process with Rotary International a few years ago, and generally deleted them. I'll get your receipts if you insist; just ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not believe that there is a claim of inherited notability. The subject is notable, independent of the parent branch. Coverage from national media in Bangladesh, as seen by the sources in the article and a quick google search, indicates the subject passes WP:GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had big media coverage on national level. Imtiaz ahmed rifat (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Transparency International Bangladesh is a civil society organization dedicated to fighting corruption in Bangladesh. I'm strongly recommend for check those reference. There are [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] those are reliable source and all of source prove that this article passes on WP:GNG & WP:NCOMPANY. Its is a reputed company/organization in bangladesh on 1996 to still. If Google finds out about this article, a lot of reliable source will be available very quickly. The Delete ! votes above are highly unconvincing and don’t checking or read this reference news or article. this article shouldn’t be delete.-Nahal^(T) 07:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to School discipline. Sandstein 17:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Social probation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page is not relevant and ref goes nowhere, researching the topic comes up mainly with dictionary and urban dictionary entries, maybe it should be merged with School discipline Dellwood546 (talk)

Merge with School discipline as the article is unsourced and clearly would benefit from being a sub topic opposed to a stand-alone article. SVUKnight (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a one line definition- that is unreferenced- and ungrammatical. Best explained in a footnote. ClemRutter (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia National Junior American Football Team[edit]

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

This article has zero sources and is an orphan. Doesn't help that it's about the "Junior" national team and not the senior one. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not within the scope of the guidelines for sports teams as I’ve read them. SVUKnight (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:GNG fail. SportingFlyer T·C 14:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see any relevant sources and fails the GNG as currently written. Nole (chat·edits) 18:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons cited above. Fails WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An easy there for delete if I haven't seen one. HawkAussie (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Fails WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Númenóreans. Tone 10:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Berúthiel[edit]

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

As the article itself notes, she is a "is a minor fictional character in J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium". To pre-empt future arguments, this is about her notability as a fictional character, not about her notability as a queen in the imaginary world. There is a brief allusion to her as a figure of legend in The Lord of the Rings. More information is given in a note, only a note, in the chapter on "Istari" in The Unfinished Tales. Much of this article is original research ("cognitive estrangement device") based on the sparse references in Tolkien's works or commentary about how little we know about her. This is extremely trivial. Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet again, another "I don't like it" for characters in major British fictional works, with a vast critical literature around them (Radagast has just been AfDed similarly). Yet we would never see an AfD like this for minor Spiderman characters, would we? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She is a very minor character in LOTR (only mentioned in passing), Andy Dingley. She is mentioned in a note in Unfinished Tales, and I don't think Unfinished Tales is a major British fictional work. I don't understand your emphasis on "British". I think there should be deletion of all fancruft. All minor characters should go.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet here we are, yet again, deleting British fictional characters. (The whole Phillip Reeve canon went recently too.) Yet Marvel or DC and it just never seems to happen. Funny, that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any consolation, there have also been deletion discussions for Simpsons characters recently.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for repeating Jack Upland's point, but there have been plenty of AfDs about Marvel and DC characters. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanny (comics), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar (Marvel Comics), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exiles (Red Skull allies) are three examples active at the time of this comment. There are also plenty of non-British fictional characters being nominated for deletion. If you looked through the fictional elements-related AfDs, there are several connected with the Transformer franchise and, as stated above, The Simpsons. So the claim that articles on British fictional characters are being unfairly targeted for deletion over others is simply and clearly untrue. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a count of how many Tolkien articles are at AfD right now, let alone those recently deleted. And that's Tolkien! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out how the statement, "Yet Marvel or DC and it just never seems to happen", can be seen as false by looking at the current AfDs. A lot of different types of fiction from different nationalities get nominated deletion so I fail to see how this is a particularly helpful line of discussion for why the article should be kept. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all of that said, I do not think whether or not a character is minor in their respective medium is a good deletion argument as I would personally put more of an emphasis on whether or not the character has received a significant amount of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I do not know enough about this case, but I always have found that to be a better bar for notability per WP:GNG. Just my own opinion though and I will stop clogging up this AfD with posts. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think this is merely a case of producing a couple of sources. This is a derivative article. To have their own articles, fictional characters are supposed to have independent notability, like Ebenezer Scrooge and Sherlock Holmes. This character (a off-hand mention) doesn't come close to that.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response and clarification. I am not familiar enough with this series to comment either way; one of these days though I really should read the books. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Queen is only mentioned in one offhand comment in Lord of the Rings, so I wouldn't plough through it on her account.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Númenóreans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of Númenóreans. A very minor character of no great significance or analysis. WP:OTHERAFDSDONTEXIST is not a valid argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tolkien and his works are of such stature that even his minor characters are notable. In this, he is like Shakespeare, for whom we have articles about such minor characters as the Third Murderer. It is easy to find sources which demonstrate that the character has been noticed such as this work from the Cambridge University Press, "'Who cares about the cats of Queen Beruthiel?' cried one early critic of Tolkien. Tolkien's insight was that most readers do...". Wikipedia is here for its readers, not its would-be critics. Andrew D. (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you're citing critics to say that critics don't matter?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of Númenóreans. No indication that this passes NFICTION/GNG and can progress beyond PLOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Current coverage seems insufficient for a stand alone article. TTN (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The very briefest of references in the work is not enough to show notability. She is not a character, she is a background echo, at least within the work as it exists at present. This is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of course no one is griping about all our deletion discussions on Nigerian fictional characters, because we largely lack such articles to begin with. Wikipedia is not meant to be a fan site, covering entries on every minor character in a work. I have read The Lord of the Rings twice, had it read to me at least another three times, and I have no recollection of the line where Aragorn mentions here. She is not a character in a "major work of British-fiction", she is a background echo, that is not even heard. Beren and Luthien are minor characters in LoTR, Beruthiel is something so minor that there is no justification at all in having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to admit I am unconvinced that the third murderer in MacBeth is notable. However he is light-years more notable than Queen Beruthiel. She is not a character in LoTR. She is named once, in the whole book, by Aragorn. Just one sentence. The 3rd murderer is a character in a play, which means it is an assigned role, which means who filled the role can be analized. Beruthiel is a none existant background echo wo speaks not, and has no role in any way at all. This is an extreme example of inclusion of truly minor characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is an extreme example. I have read LOTR many times, but I have no recollection of this line either.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Númenóreans. The relatively few third-party sources on the character can be covered in the list. I am against a redirect though as the character is not currently mentioned/included in the list so a redirect alone with merging any of the content would be confusing. I am not entirely opposed to outright deletion though given the very small amount of coverage I can find. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Dean[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: The current references are a database entry and an industry award listing. The award doesn't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for new sources and found nothing useful. Cheers, gnu 57 03:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This performer not only fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT but he would have also failed later interpretations of the now-superseded WP:PORNBIO SNG. The Hot d'Or Award was understood to fail the "well-known and significant industry award" test. The article cites no good sources and I couldn't find any in an independent search. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person as mentioned above fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT as well as WP:GNG. SVUKnight (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above consensus.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Trans Lifeline. Clearly not keep; split between delete and merge/redirect. Sandstein 17:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Rose Vera[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Meatsgains. I had to really look for any coverage, and the coverage I did find was definitely not significant. Very weak keep with the sources put in (thanks Czar), I think it's OK, but it requires some work still. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 03:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Trans Lifeline as an alternative to deletion. TJMSmith (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Trans Lifeline. There is significant coverage about the org that establishes solid WP:GNG but that doesn’t necessitate a separate article for this individual. Merging would be more appropriate. SVUKnight (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no stand-alone notability in this individual, therefore no need for a redirect. Solid delete. No coverage whatsoever. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trans Lifeline. (BTW, interestingly, today is Transgender Day of Remembrance.) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just added more info with many citations. I think the individual qualifies as notable. Visit page and see. Will continue adding more info w/citations. Please feel free to contribute info w/appropriate citations. Rock on! --Caterpillar84 (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete In future I do believe she’d pass WP:GNG but as per WP:CRYSTALBALL I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article. Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you all are saying; makes sense on the one hand, but as Celestina007 points out, Wikipedia is moving in such a direction as to create a case for inclusion, and not simply because of the direction but rather the notability of the organization for which she is president, along with her other accomplishments in public-facing roles. I'd say we give her a shot and let it ride. I think she's a valuable, if understated, player. Keep in mind a gender and sexuality bias; as trans people have to maintain a level of invisibility or low profile for personal safety, it could stand to reason that she doesn't often or frequently engage with mainstream media outlets. Doing so would, by relationship, make her a target by their very reportage of her existence.--Caterpillar84 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if folks read what I typed above but how do you feel about what I stated? And it seems Celestina007 sees a case for leaving the article alone as well. Does anyone mind if I eliminate the deletion nomination template on the page? Thanks so much, --Caterpillar84 (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: @Meatsgains, Puddleglum2.0, TJMSmith, SVUKnight, Scope creep, Megalibrarygirl, and Celestina007, please review the added sources?

@Caterpillar84, please do not remove the nomination template. The discussion's closer will do that. By the way, the participants will be looking for significant reliable source coverage, not just mentions. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 13:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Caterpillar84: There is no case developing for keeping this article, do NOT remove the Afd template. If there was some minor coverage perhaps enough to support WP:THREE references, enough to keep it as wee seed article, then fair enough it would be kept. Unfortunately there no coverage, not a sausage, not a single standalone reference that would support the case. Null sources. Not even the usual Apple podcast stuff that tends to have the very newest stuff, newest people, newest trends and so on, which would suggest the subject was at least on the horizon. I see no reason for a non-notable redirect that will be deleted a few short years up the road. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments. Caterpillar84 has been pointed to several policies and guides over the past month by numerous editors to help them improve their editing and creation, but this does not seem to be getting through in the slightest. This case is no different. I wouldn't be surprised to find them at ANI in the near future if they continue down this road. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaseline, ok, now you're just attacking me. Have you AT ALL looked at the numerous articles I've created, with the VAST MAJORITY meeting every last guideline and criteria, with numerous editors THANKING ME and happily CONTRIBUTING to the articles I've created?! You're implying that "numerous" editors have "disciplined" me or something like that. That is NOT what has occurred in the slightest. Save for a MERE two sort of nasty encounters, those instances have been far outweighed by KIND, HELPFUL folks who have pointed me in the right direction, lending a helping hand with NO argument, NO protest, and NO contest from me. Peaceful interactions working out kinks; there has been mutual help in the LEARNING PROCESS. Why on earth are you taking such a hostile, disciplinary approach? I am extremely well-intentioned, enthusiastic, and like I said, the VAST MAJORITY of my articles have been reviewed with NO COMPLAINT. Just because you see a CIVIL discussing occurring doesn't mean it's time to dogpile. Have you reviewed the wiki ETIQUETTE pages and "How Not to Bite New Editors"? Because YOU are in severe violation on many counts. You have now stalked me on every page that I'm engaging in CIVIL discussions with other editors on. If you don't leave me alone, I will take every measure to report you. --Caterpillar84 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again with the unfounded accusations. Don't want to get too off topic, but I'll leave it at this - several experienced editors have brought to your attention several policies on several occasions that I do not think you are taking the time to go through. If you have, you would find yourself in a much better situation when you edit and create articles. If you have, you would not have asked the question to remove the AfD template, as people have told you that is not allowed before. Perhaps you are still learning, but at the moment, although some have thanked you for great additions, I still see an overall disregard for citation and notability policies, as some of your edits and creations have been a burden to the project, when the burden should fall on you (the one adding info). We tell you this only for your benefit, well, and the project's benefit. Like someone had told you, I too believe you can make valuable contributions here, but until you familiarize yourself with some of the basic guides here, you may continue to have a frustrating experience. If you have any other comments, please leave me a note on my talk page. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope Creep--thanks so much for the feedback. I would push back a little on the point you brought up about Apple podcasts--Vera is the sole guest on Queery's Episode #93 as well as WayPoint's Save Point radio--the full episode is dedicated to her. I like your sausages joke, but how are all the citations not even worth a future save...especially in light of what I said above about the public-facing visibility issues trans leaders have to consider in proportion to the violence they face. I think we have to keep in mind that trans leaders who are not in the entertainment industry (and hence are not likely to have funds for bodyguards and the like) have to balance their exposure with the real-life threat of bodily violence. So it's a paradox for them in that they are notable/noteworthy in their roles and accomplishments but simultaneously face erasure, such as our case here on wiki. If these folks are measuring how often they speak to media outlets due to fear of hate crimes targeting them, how can we, the public, then file them in the "noteworthy" category when our tools for doing so have built-in biases? I mean, ultimately, if the page gets deleted, so be it, but I am trying to employ critical thinking, nuance, and empathy rather than just cut-and-dry bias-informed policy. Over and out, your wiki pal, --Caterpillar84 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 1952#August. czar 06:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 1952[edit]

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

We don’t have pages for exact months in a year. 1952 does the job. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a disambiguation page would be good? MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, there are no entries titled August 1952, so no, a disambiguation page is a bad idea. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per below. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 1952#August, which is the same topic, per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 1952#August and 1952 Births, August etc (concur with Andrew D. for rationale). Perhaps redirect there as well. Greenshed (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1952, which is covering precisely the same ground, splitting it into events, births, and deaths. It is not helpful to have rival list articles trying to do the same thing. Not sure whether the resultant redirect should be kept or salted. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- very good idea. Time to move on folks. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Sueann_Caulfield_Chambers_Putnam_2005_p.-1] Sueann Caulfield; Chambers, S.C.; Putnam, L. (2005). Honor, status, and law in modern Latin America. Duke University Press. Retrieved 23 November 2019.

[1]