Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 September 25 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Theta Phi[edit]

Gamma Theta Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a fraternity with no claim to significance nor achieving any level of notability. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on the discussion here, it seems like none of the sources on offer satisfy the WP:SIGCOV criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swingtips[edit]

Swingtips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contrary to claim, band wasn't part of swing revival. Can't find them in any of my sources (books) or online. Not notable, not enough sources exist for an article of substance. Orphaned article for almost ten years. Vmavanti (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should remain as it is but with a few added corroborated links and citations as it is all factually correct and can be verified. You didn't do your research, and yes these links may not be in the article already, however, they verify information in the article marked as "citation needed." It is a blind, bold statement to claim that The Swingtips weren't part of the swing revival, as there are many sources here (some biased) as well as music compilations that show the importance of The Swingtips. Can we please keep this civil and not jump to conclusions? This has already jumped to a bad start and I thank you for bringing up the uttermost importance of more citations so that interested individuals may find more information if they feel it necessary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simitar_Entertainment

https://www.discogs.com/Various-Next-Generation-Swing/release/2222015

https://www.discogs.com/Various-Next-Generation-Swing-Volume-2/release/5489381

https://books.google.com/books?id=6TZCAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-iu7G5-rkAhWVMX0KHfWDDcwQ6AEILzAB

https://books.google.com/books?id=Sbo_4eR-1xEC&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-iu7G5-rkAhWVMX0KHfWDDcwQ6AEIMzAC#v=snippet&q=%22Swingtips%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=_qc4AQAAIAAJ&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7o7z96-rkAhXFN30KHVffBx84ChDoATAAegQIARAD

https://books.google.com/books?id=GkhGAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik7aql7OrkAhU0On0KHUV2DqA4ChDoATADegQIARAS

https://www.discogs.com/ko/Various-A-Jazzed-Up-Holiday-Volume-2/release/6626971

http://www.davidthomasroberts.com/music/cd-compilations/diamond-cuts-turning-two

https://www.amazon.com/Swingin-Christmas-Various-Artists/dp/B00000DCU9

https://books.google.com/books?id=EQoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=swinging+christmas+royalty+records&source=bl&ots=JZHIvX9xUy&sig=ACfU3U3SqLphczvwIE9haIT2yrwy0UPKyg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1vsyu-OrkAhVsFzQIHWVoAAIQ6AEwFXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=swinging%20christmas%20royalty%20records&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakiemon (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, No reliable sources to speak of. Half of the sources in the article are just refs supporting appearances of their songs in media, while other ones seem to indicate . The sources provided by Blakiemon do little to help; Discogs is user generated and can't be used to establish notability, and even then, just because a band was featured on a few compalations doesn't make them notable. As for the google books, all of them sans the billboard one appear to be passing mentions, and are thus not usable. The billboard one seems to be talking about a compilation, which again does not establish notability. As for the last two, the DavidThomasroberts link is just about a compilation and that's it, while the amazon is one is the same thing. It exists, but there's little coverage on them beyond that. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Their Christmas album was reviewed in the article Seasonal CDs: The good, the bad, the ... eccentric.(VARIETY)(Review); Bream, Jon ; Surowicz, Tom; Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), Dec 8, 1998, p.01E. Other than that, I mainly just found promotional material.4meter4 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable sources, just some brief mentions here and there which is not enough to fulfill the WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It's approaching the threshold, but ultimately there just isn't enough independent coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The fact that HHelvis's comment and the IP's comment were posted a few minutes apart is additional evidence of socking. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paybis[edit]

Paybis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the refbombing, it doesn't appear to meet GNG - the vast majority of the sources aren't reliable sources (largely blogs, with the occasional press release), and several don't even mention Paybis (they're more justifying things like "are people buying Bitcoin," which isn't relevant to the article) or are entirely unrelated to the article. I don't see any sources which look reliable. The claim to notability ("considered to be one of the most notable cryptocurrency exchanges in the Baltics") is entirely unsupported by the references. Article looks to me like undisclosed promotion/COI. creffett (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that is fails the GNG, not enough indepth coverage in soruces that arent crypto-Parrots. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This page has a few issues, but opining on notability alone, this should definitely be deleted. Nothing I can find in a search adds up to WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The company has no press coverage from reliable 3rd party sources. Sonstephen0 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As a cryptocurrency enthusiast, I went through the resources and found mentions of Bitcoinist, CCN and Cointelegraph. These are the most popular and trusted sources in the industry that Paybis operates in.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/paybis-e-currency-and-bitcoin-exchange-planning-expansion https://www.ccn.com/paybis-leaps-towards-worldwide-crypto-adoption-by-translating-its-website-into-5-new-languages/ https://bitcoinist.com/paybis-buying-bitcoin-credit-cards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.173.185 (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep: Page is thorough when it comes to its resources. As a cryptocurrency exchange, it makes sense that most of its resources come from authorative blockchain websites. On top of that, the second sentence of the first paragraph ("The exchange provides cryptocurrency to fiat trading and is considered to be one of the most notable cryptocurrency exchange in the Baltics.[1][2][3][4][5]”) should be updated to better match the references. This would be a more fitting sentence - “The exchange provides cryptocurrency to fiat trading.[1][2][3][4][5]”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HHelvis (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just going to point out that HHelvis very likely has an undisclosed COI with Paybis based on this edit (note the use of "ours" when discussing Paybis) creffett (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wanted to add that 213.149.173.185 might also be HHelvis. 213.149.173.185 only has five edits. His writing style is very similar. Sonstephen0 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of the sources are either press releases or are primary sources. None of these can be considered independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ridley[edit]

Michael Ridley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any significant coverage by secondary reliable sources for WP:GNG (the article in The Independent was written by him and therefore primary), nor evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Note that being a FRAS is not in the same line as WP:NACADEMIC point 3 (particularly since they began taking student fellows). — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Mostly as being a Fellow of the RAS. My understanding is that this did count for rather more at one time, before the somewhat mercenary appearance it has now. I've heard his name mostly in relation to celadon glazes. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but its reliability as being "highly selective" is no longer there so it cannot be used alone for notability now. However, if someone received it when it did mean more in the past, there are probably other indicators of notability (such as the WP:NAUTHOR discussion in the other comments). — MarkH21 (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think he meets WP:NAUTHOR, as multiple reviews of The Art of World Religions — Buddhism and The Megalithic Art of the Maltese Islands have been found and added to the article, as well as reviews of his other books (not that the reviews are always very complimentary, as David Eppstein noted in an edit summary). One review states that he was also a fellow of two other societies, so I have added that info as well. He may, on that basis, meet WP:NACADEMIC#3, though it would be good to have other evidence that he is/was a fellow of those societies. I found a few other sources which I haven't added, one saying that he was curator of Weymouth and Portland Museums in 1982 [1]; one a scan of an excavation report on The Iron Age Settlement, East Cliff, Bournemouth [2]; he was co-author of Bournemouth Then and Now [3]; and an article in the British Society for the Turin Shroud newsletter #28 (possibly 1991?) about two strange exhibitions in Bournemouth put on by a Dr Michael Ridley ... [4]. I haven't found any information on where Ridley studied, however, which would be useful information for the bio of a scholar. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. Four published reviews for two different books (as listed now in the article) meets my minimum threshold for this criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments on meeting WP:NAUTHOR. Polyamorph (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 4meter4 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Luqman Hakim Shamsudin[edit]

Luqman Hakim Shamsudin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After initially putting it up to WP:PROD before it got removed, I am putting it up to Afd as the player hasn't played in an WP:FPL match despite being in a team which is eligible for this. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - GNG satisfied: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] + more. Loads of coverage across various outlets. Not terribly dissimilar to AfD/Caoimhin Kelleher. R96Skinner (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - Ok I might of pressed the Afd button too quickly as I didn't do a WP:BEFORE before putting this up for Afd. HawkAussie (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with the withdraw, but I'm actually in favour of draftifying per WP:NOTNEWS as this is a youth player who hasn't made a fully professional appearance, and the articles are all either WP:BLP1E (him signing a professional contract) or mere transfer blurbs. We can move him to mainspace when he makes an appearance. SportingFlyer T·C 07:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG. I was going to close this as withdrawn but @SportingFlyer: prefers to draftify so I won't until (if/when) they change their mind. GiantSnowman 08:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is he fails the WP:10YT. If he never plays a game, I don't think he would be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 14:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: you can get notable young players who never make it, the classic example is Sonny Pike. GiantSnowman 10:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Yes, but Luqman didn't sign for Ajax at seven years of age. He's just a youth international who signed for a European team, who's not even listed in their first team. The Caoimhin Kelleher comparison is courageously false, as Kelleher was named on a team playing in the most prestigious club match of the year, has received wide international coverage in spite of his lack of an appearance, and has gone onto play for Liverpool if only in the EFL Cup, whereas Luqman is just... a youth player who signed for a Belgian team. All of the coverage is recent and he likely fails WP:BLP1E at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's all your personal opinion, though. "just a youth international who signed for a European team" (which is what Sonny Pike literally did do, btw...) to you, perhaps, but it's (evidently) a big event to Malaysians and arguably Belgian people of interest. "All of the coverage is recent", well he is 17? What do you want, pieces on what happened on his first day at school? Joking aside, I believe your opinions are just that. Also, I wasn't even directly comparing this AfD to the Kelleher one, though you could (I wouldn't) even argue the UCL stuff was (at time of AfD) BLP1E; also, saying "has gone onto..." isn't fair or relevant, as we can't predict the future at AfDs. R96Skinner (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The recent coverage directly contradicts WP:NOTNEWS, though. I'm not looking for pieces from his first day of school, I'm looking for sustained coverage of him as a professional footballer, which hasn't happened yet because he's not even signing until March 2020. No one here has shown there's any sort of lasting notability which would pass the WP:10Y test - it's also WP:TOOSOON. We do not typically keep players who fail WP:NFOOTY unless they clearly get beyond WP:GNG, and especially not youth players - I still don't see any reason why we would be making an exception for him. SportingFlyer T·C 05:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, as seen at AfD plenty of times, NFOOTY is, not that I agree, practically worthless - it's all about GNG, which is always arguable; that's why I'd say SNGs are a better way to go, because at least it's a consistent notability line which leaves no, or little to no, questions. The fact (I missed that, good spot!) he doesn't join until 2020, in my opinion, emphasises how notable this player is - this much coverage for something that is a while away from happening, clearly high interest. Even away from the Kortrijk stuff, Luqman is/was still getting attention: [15], [16], [17], [18]. R96Skinner (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFOOTY actually isn't useless. Per User:Levivich/NFooty_AfDs#No_NFooty, if you don't meet WP:NFOOTY, you're almost certainly getting deleted, though I agree many of those don't have sources presented. With regards to the final four sources you've just presented, see WP:YOUNGATH - they're all game/routine coverage of a youth player. SportingFlyer T·C 11:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can see we aren't going to agree here, which isn't a problem - this is what AfDs are for I guess. Happy editing! R96Skinner (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Risk and Uncertainty[edit]

Institute for Risk and Uncertainty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass WP:ORG, and I am not seeing evidence of notability separate from the parent institution. The sole non-primary ref in the article [19], a news story from Guardian, does not mention the institute at all. Nothing of substance in GNews, GBooks and GScholar searches. The page was prodded and deprodded twice since its creation in June 2019. In the current state the article is pretty promotional and WP:ORish. Already had to be revel-ed once, due to copyvio issues. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to parent institution Atlantic306 (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it's not still a copyvio, it sure reads like one. I'd be uncomfortable with merging content written in that style and supported by sourcing of such low quality. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, my feelings exactly. The only references cited that actually mention the institute are primary non-independent sources. The page itself reads like a PR piece. I am not seeing anything in the page that is merge-worthy. Nsk92 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There's a fair amount of agreement here that the title should be repurposed as some other type of navigation aid, but the page as is should be kept, if for no other reason than to maintain the attribution history. Any ideas for reworking the page can be worked out on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT-related films[edit]

List of LGBT-related films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List that has outlived its usefulness and been supplanted by other, more specific lists, for a subject that has become far too large to be maintainable in this one-stop format anymore. Just to be clear in case anybody misunderstands, I am not proposing that we do away with all lists of LGBT-related films; we already have many other more specific lists by year which should absolutely be kept, and I just don't think we need to keep a massive A-Z master list alongside them anymore.
When this was first created in 2003, there were a lot fewer LGBT-related films to list at all -- the original version literally had only around 100 films in it total. But with the sheer explosion in the visibility and sourceability and mainstreaming of LGBT-themed films in the intervening 16 years, we now have over 3,000 articles about LGBT-related films before you even take into account the considerable number of LGBT-themed films that are currently still redlinks, and the literally unfathomable number of LGBT-themed films still to come in the future. So in 2012, we started a comprehensive set of LGBT-related films subgrouped by year of release, which is highly developed and very well-maintained -- and with those lists in place, the value in trying to maintain a comprehensive A-Z master list alongside them is significantly reduced.
The sheer number of LGBT-related films that need to be listed now also poses a serious maintainability problem -- films frequently get added to the by-year lists without being added here, and the sheer number of films involved makes it virtually impossible to actually undertake any serious effort to get all the missing films added here anymore. And, by comparison, if a country has "List of [Country] films of [Year]" lists in place, then we just use "List of [Country] films" as an index of links to the year lists and not as a redundant master list of all the films that are already in the sublists -- and the sheer scope of this topic means we should treat it like a "country" in that sense.
TLDR, I believe this "comprehensive" master list has outlived its usefulness. We should just delete it, move List of LGBT-related films by year overtop the redlink, and let the by-year lists stand on their own from now on instead of trying to compile a reduplicated master list alongside them. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repurposing this title as the move destination of one of the other lists is exactly what I proposed. The discussion is fundamentally about whether there's any value in maintaining a massive A-Z master list alongside the other lists anymore, so AFD is the appropriate venue for that discussion — but deletion of this list would not preclude reusing the title for a different purpose, because deletion never precludes redirection or repurposing of its title to cover something else. So the ability to repurpose the title into something else is not a reason why we would need to retain the content of this list in its existing form, which is what a keep result would mandate. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal is to move List of LGBT-related films by year to this space, however, List of LGBT-related films by year (which has multiple lists) is not the same as List of LGBT-related films (single list), it is in fact more Lists of LGBT-related films. This is something that should simply be a move that can be proposed in its talk page, discuss, move then adjust the content. Much simpler and less likely to result in unnecessary mistakes. Hzh (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, the goal is to preserve the attribution history. I agree that we don't need a list, but I do not agree that we need to explicitly delete the list as it never existed. The history of this goes back to 2003. The list now persists in more specific forms, and it has not been proven that these forms have never relied on the original list. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The matter of whether the by-year lists ever relied on this list or not is completely impossible to prove or disprove in either direction — how, exactly, is anybody supposed to prove anything either way about whether the year lists were compiled by pulling films directly from this list, or from the same outside sources that were used to build this list? And secondly, as of the time that the year lists started getting spun out, the list was half as long or less as it is now — so by far the largest group of involved films were (a) added to both the year set and this list concurrently, (b) added to the year set first and then added here later, or (c) added to the year lists and never actually added here at all, and thus never relied on the existence of this list as their source. And even for the far smaller number of films that were already in this list before the by-year lists got spun out, the question of whether the by-year lists relied on external sources, or on this master list per se, is not my responsibility to prove. And precisely because external sources do exist for the classification, and we're supposed to be relying on those outside sources rather than self-citing ourselves in violation of WP:CIRCULAR, the question of whether the by-year lists relied on this list or on the external sources isn't even an important consideration at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I agree with converting this into a "lists" article. I don't understand why you want to delete the entire page history. Look at list of science fiction films. It redirects to lists of science fiction films, and we can see the oldest edits going back to 2001. That's what I favor. Not the outright deletion of the original topic editing, which was completely valid and likely spun off into the specific lists. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of the need to preserve copyright. Editor Dev920 began "splitting list" on July 31, 2007 with List of LGBT-related films and List of LGBT-related films by year. Later, in August 2012, editor Lugnuts split that (and contributions in between) out into individual years here. The page history of the original list should be preserved. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that if you bold the word "delete", it would look like you are choosing to delete the article, which is in fact what's recorded in your AfD stats. Bold either keep or delete. Hzh (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I changed it from bold to underline. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider repurposing into a navigation page. ミラP 19:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per arguments re preserving attribution history above (as I happen to just so log into my account for the first time in a couple of years just as this kicks off...) Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 23:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Crazy timing! I almost didn't tag you. To be clear, are you in favor of converting this list into a list-of-lists article? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider repurposing into a navigation page.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese terms mistaken for gairaigo[edit]

List of Japanese terms mistaken for gairaigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic of this article is incoherent: by whom is the mistake supposed to be made? It is almost completely unreferenced; fails notability, because there is no evidence of a literature on the topic of this ragbag of mistakes. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Followup by proposer: This article is >10 years old, and has collected seven entries in the list:

  • arigatou: This in itself is perhaps notable, because yes, it is a famous bogus etymology. I can't believe that any native Japanese speaker would imagine this to be a loan word -- it is not written in katakana.
  • baba: This is probably a general phenomenon that there are very similar words across almost all languages.
  • chakku: This might indeed be thought by native speakers to be a loan word, but isn't.
  • chari: Nobody seems to know where this came from.
  • emoji: This is a recent import into English. No native speaker would imagine it was a loan into Japanese (of course moji came from Chinese originally).
  • garou: A very strained story... unreferenced.
  • neta: Yes, many Japanese speakers might not know its origin; it's written in katakana.

@T.c.w7468: The latest entry (emoji) is obviously good faith. But it really has no coherent connection to the other entries. I contemplated deleting it, but it is so unclear what the topic is supposed to be that it seems unfair to privilege the other entries above it. I can't see quite what the reference says, but it appears just to mention that this is unrelated to "emoticon". True, but not notable.

I would guess that anything up to 10% of the entire vocabulary of Japanese (or any other language!) would have faintly plausible mistaken guesses as to its meaning. I suggest that trying to collect a comprehensive list is therefore not encyclopedic. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: (I hope I'm formatting this correctly) I suppose what you are saying makes sense. I added the entry for emoji because I thought that the article was for a list for words mistaken for gairaigo in general, as opposed to ones being commonly mistaken specifically by Japanese people. The reference was taken from other Wikipedia articles referencing the fact that the two aren't related, and was meant to demonstrate that the statement was true, which at the time of editing I thought was sufficient for this article. Perhaps it was bad practice on my part. I do not feel confident enough in my understanding of Wikipedia's policy to form an opinion on whether or not this article should be deleted, though I think you do have a good case. I'm just writing this in case my (flawed) thought process behind the edit becomes useful for further discussion. T.c.w7468 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research (possibly via synthesis). I also don't see any case for notability under WP:GNG nor WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I'm not aware of any treatment of this topic outside Wikipedia, and I couldn't find any literature on the topic in EBSCO or Google Scholar. Cnilep (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cnilep. Without proper sourcing, it would appear that the bulk of this list is the result of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Rorshacma (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't think of a way this article could be substantiated with reliable sources, with rigid criteria for inclusion. Nardog (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the nominator says, who is the mistake made? Vorbee (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. bd2412 T 17:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Richards[edit]

David L. Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. This is a stub of an article, with very little information and only a list of papers. This doesn't show that they've had a significant impact on their discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Nor have they received a highly prestigious award. In fact, they appear to fail all criteria of NACADEMIC, which is why we are here. While the page has many sources, they are mainly just sources to the papers the professor has written, not independent sources. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The strongest argument for notability seems to me to be that he cofounded the CIRI Human Rights Data Project, which is mentioned in the infobox but not in the article text; see this UConn Today article about the book he co-wrote (not cited in the article). I'm not sure that's enough. What tips me toward recommending deletion is that Richardsdl!!, saying he was the article subject, tried to have it deleted in 2016: blanking, speedy templating. (There were also photo substitutions by Sophia1778, who apparently said on Commons that she was Richards' wife.) In cases of marginal notability, we usually respect the subject's wishes. Things are complicated by suggestions that the article creator, Daver68, was Richards ... but I'm going to assume that if that was so, the subject had a change of heart about the article, and come down on the side of honoring the request. Since Daver68 has been notified of this discussion, I'll also drop notifications on the other two account talk pages in addition to my pings here. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that per this AN thread, it appears that User:Mrdavid1729 is the article's subject (and simply lost their old account) and would very much like it deleted. Said thread is also the reason I opened this AfD in the first place. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a David L. Richards whose book Poland Spring: A Tale of the Gilded Age, 1860-1900 has multiple reviews on JSTOR, but I strongly suspect he is a different person than the one described here. For instance this site describes the Poland Spring author as a 1997 graduate alum of the University of New Hampshire, at a time overlapping the subject's time as a doctoral student at Binghampton. The same search did not turn up any reviews of Violence Against Women and the Law, however. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is probably a case here for passing WP:PROF#C1, based on GScholar citation results. However, there do not seem to be any other significant indicators of notability, and, since the subject has requested deletion in the AN thread linked above, I think we should respect his wishes here. Perhaps a redirect to CIRI Human Rights Data Project can be created afterwards. Nsk92 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and the borderline nature of the case for notability evident here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at subject's? request. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete'. Marginal per WP:PROF/GNG plus subject preference for no article is a clear delete from me. Guy (help!) 23:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough source to establish notability. Barca (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not clearly pass any academic notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. His work was critiqued and the main subject of the peer reviewed article "Response to David L. Richards", by Ann Marie Clark and Kathryn Sikkink, Human Rights Quarterly, May, 2016, Vol.38(2), p.493-496. There he was acknowledged for playing a critical role in maintaining the CIRI Human Rights Data Project, although it was critical of some of his interpretations of that data set in published peer reviewed journals. His work was also the central focus of the journal article Seeing Double: Human Rights Impact through Qualitative and Quantitative Eyes, Hafner-Burton, Emilie ; Ron, James, World Politics, 2009, Vol.61(2), pp.360-401. He has over 60 published peer reviewed journal articles in my university library, and there are many many more that cite his research. There are also three books to which he is a contributing author in my university library.4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would appreciate re-evaluation from User:Yngvadottir, User:David Eppstein, User:Johnpacklambert, user:JzG. User:BarcrMac, User:Nsk92, and User:CaptainEek.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. bd2412 T 17:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Rimer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Josh Rimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately referenced WP:BLP of a television personality and male beauty pageant contestant. Neither of these are "inherent" notability freebies that guarantee him a Wikipedia article just because he exists, so getting him over the notability bar requires demonstrating him as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. But of the five sources here, two are WordPress blogs, one is a podcast and one is his own self-published Patreon, none of which are notability-supporting sources at all -- and the only one that is an acceptable, notability-assisting reliable source, The Georgia Straight, is not enough all by itself if it's the only acceptable, notability-assisting reliable source you can show. GNG requires a lot more than just one piece of real-media journalism amid a bunch of blogs and podcasts. Note that despite the earlier discussion, this is not eligible for immediate speedy as it's written and sourced differently than the original version -- but the sourcing being shown here is still not actually changing the notability equation at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Three additional sources have been added; however, two (Vancouver Courier and Daily Hive) are still community hyperlocals, which are okay for verification of facts but not contributors of notability points; and the Red Deer Advocate, which is a start down the correct path as a real daily newspaper but still not enough. And all are still stacked on top of each other in violation of the citation overkill principle that we do not need three or four separate citations to be piled on top of each other as reduplicated support for the same fact. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neither "keep" mentions any reliable sources. No sources, no article. Sandstein 13:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is sourced only by primary sources. It also seems more like a game guide than an encyclopedic article. Not a very active user (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to Creature type (there is no need for disambiguation), and expand to cover the concept of creature types as employed in other gaming systems. bd2412 T 17:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • bd2412, do you have any sources to show that this is a notable topic? When I do a web search, I mostly get RPG source books, which are neither reliable nor independent. Rockphed (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am finding it more difficult to pinpoint sources than I would have expected. Nevertheless, typology of monsters is a ubiquitous characteristic of role-playing games. Perhaps the solution is to find a more appropriate term to head this under. bd2412 T 19:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oranjelo100 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The article is nothing but a primary-sourced game guide. As mentioned by both the nomination and BD2412, sources on this topic showing notability are not readily available. A properly sourced article, potentially under a more accurate title, on a similar concept in general, as proposed by bd2412 has merit, but doing so does not require the retention of this primary sourced game guide. Rorshacma (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rorshacma and nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure WP:GAMEGUIDE content.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marlen Kruzhkov[edit]

Marlen Kruzhkov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is written like a résumé and doesn't indicate why this individual is notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:MILL. A guy with a job doing his job. All the sources that are independent of the subject are not actually about the subject; all the sources that are actually about the subject are not independent of the subject. TJRC (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to get rid of the article in some way (excluding a "keep or merge" argument that gave no reason for its suggestion). There are two redirect targets, one of which has more support but also more opposition; I'll punt the redirect-or-no question to editorial decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monstrous spider[edit]

Monstrous spider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Generic non-notable monster class that fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel like there might be an article we could write about giant spiders in fiction. I'm not sure there is any sourcing to back such an article up and I don't want to look for it because pictures of spiders make me very uncomfortable (yes, I am a wuss). Even writing this comment is making my skin crawl. Rockphed (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gas spore[edit]

Gas spore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional monster that fails WP:GNG. The name is also pretty vague and can refer to various IRL things. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable fictional creature. There are no non-primary sources being used in the article, and searches bring up nothing but a few brief mentions in a couple of "Top Ten" style humor pieces. There is no substantial coverage to indicate any sort of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The reception is completely trivial, so it still fails GNG. TTN (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Greenberg[edit]

Brian Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass notability guidelines. Given references are mostly of him as a guest contributor on Forbes and Entrepreneur. Csgir (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: None of the references used are independent. I did a search and couldn't come up with anything better. The subject of the article does not meet GNG. JSFarman (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Csgir (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creature template[edit]

Creature template (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Literally just a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Fails WP:GNG as a non-notable aspect of D&D. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable concept with no secondary sources. This is just an attempt to explain game rules than an actual notable topic. Rorshacma (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Wolf in sheep's clothing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing[edit]

Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor D&D monster. A search did not turn up any external critique, analysis or what have you from reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Wolf in sheep's clothing. Super minor, unnotable fictional creature, so it certainly should not be an independent article. And, while it isn't the most obvious search term, I'm willing to bet that people who would actually do a search for this is looking for the article on the well known idiom. Rorshacma (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Titanium[edit]

Transformers: Titanium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable toy line, collection of minor details with no independent notability. TTN (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a search found nothing notable about these toys. Fails WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The argument that this is a case of WP:BLP1E is persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Alif[edit]

Arman Alif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

who fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. not enough to establish notability Singer, Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG. fails WP:GNG. this singer seems to be too early in the concept phase for any such coverage to exist then it means WP:TOOSOON for this young singer. obviously, this article main issue WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON. It is just due to single event that is 'Oporadhi'. all of source are single event related news. and also fail WP:NMUSIC because he just Nominated on 'Meril Prothom Alo Awards' So, isn't means that he did won something or receive any an award. Even i didn't find any notable album or any duet song with top popular singer in bangladesh. this article should be Delete.--Nahal(T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Nahal(T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Nahal(T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. --Nahal(T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If you consider him as a musician, the article should be kept. According to second criteria a musician should have a single/album on country's music chart. His song "Oporadhi" is the only and first Bangladeshi song to feature on Global Chart of YouTube. If you consider him in the criteria of any biography, he is notable. His song "Oporadhi" is the only and first Bangladeshi song to feature on YouTube Global Chart. And the news was published by international (Deustche Welle), Indian (Ei Samay, News18) and Bangladeshi (Dhaka Tribune, Prothom Alo, Kaler Kantho) media. The song was so popular that it was covered by crickerers. This song was before Adele and Taylor Swift's song on YouTube Global Chart ([see this link in English]). A people can get much coverage for single event. If his/her article fulfils notability criteria, he/she will be notable. For example, Dinesh Phadnis, Aditya Srivastava, Dayanand Shetty, Shivaji Satam etc.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
  • Alif does not pass WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2 because the Global Chart of YouTube is an unsuitable chart, it is a WP:SINGLENETWORK one. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a point on WP:MUSICBIO that if a person has a single or album on a country's topchart, the person will be notable. How many song he/she sang or how old was he/she, it doesn't matter at the criteria. There is no WP:TOOSOON possibility at that article as he made historical record. I think all will be agree with me that Oporadhi was the most popular Bangladeshi song in April and May of 2018. There is a point on @Worldbruce: words. If you see Alexa Ranking of Bangladesh YouTube is in the second position and Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Amazon, Yahoo are behind YouTube. Adele and Taylor Swift's song were behind a Bangladeshi song on YouTube Global Chart and the Bangladeshi song isn't the most popular song at that time, I won't believe it (I think anybody won't believe it).
    There are clear references of his historical record. His song is the first Bangladeshi song to feature on YouTube Global Chart. The news was featured on most of the newspapers and tv channels of Bangladesh.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @S. M. Nazmus Shakib: The popularity of YouTube is not the point. The reliability of the chart is the point. When the criterion says, "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart", you have to read the linked material to understand what qualifies as an acceptable chart. According to WP:SINGLENETWORK, the YouTube Global Chart doesn't count. Basically it's meaningless. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Worldbruce: Yes, your words are true as YouTube is not only way to listen music. But there is a point on Wikipedia:Notability (music) that a notable singer has to win or been nominated for a major award. Meril Prothom Alo Awards is a major award in the enterteinment arena of Bangladesh. But, according to nominator's words, the article doesn't fill the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music) as he didn't win and there are two delete votes as per nom.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @S. M. Nazmus Shakib: Being nominated for an award does not make anyone notable.--Nahal(T) 08:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @NahalAhmed: check criteria no. 8 of Wikipedia:Notability (music) where it was written that a musician who was nominated for a major award or won a major award is notable. Meril Prothom Alo Awards is a major award in the entertainment arena of Bangladesh. He was nominated there as Best Singer (link on the article).--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Per nom, fail Fail WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E.ChotoBhai (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a singer's single secure its place on national chart, he/she will be notable according to notability guideline of Wikipedia. And the singer has his song. He also made historical record. His song Oporadhi is the first Bangladeshi song to feature on YouTube Global Chart. So, his article also fulfils general notability guideline. And Oporadhi is not a duet song, it is a single by Arman Alif and It is not his only single. So, it should not be deleted.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The basic notability criteria for biography is: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This biography subject clearly meets this criteria as he has got significant coverage in at least 3 leading mutually independent daily newspapers in Bangladesh. The "Too soon" concept applies when the basic criteria is not clearly met. -- Arman (Talk) 13:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draft: Basically he is known for his song "Oporadhi", its clear WP:BLP1E. I have no doubt that he has a lot of news coverage in Bangladesh. But for a single song, he is a notable person or pass WP:NMUSIC I do not believe it. Let wait for some time to let him win any music competition or award.--Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zacharias David Idris[edit]

Zacharias David Idris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am on a borderline with regards to the notability of this politician to warranty a wikipedia page. The first source is primary and much of a blog, the second is a government parlimentary site which does'nt mention him. The third is but only a searching link. The last source is more or less similar to the first. There is not much significant coverage of the individual in reliable independent sources that would signify his notability as a politician or real estate mogul 10MB (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep He's a member of a national legislature and therefore passes WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm all for saying that just because he passes an SNG that doesn't mean he's not notable. But as GPL93 points out there is verifiable evidence he is a member of a national legislature. While English is the official language, there are many other languages and I would reasonable expect for a member of the national legislature that there is notability proving sourcing somewhere. As the nom missed that he can be verified as a member of that body I'm going to think an adequate BEFORE was not done and default to the SNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuclear Powered Speedy Keep per GPL93. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Mera González[edit]

Juan Mera González (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league). GiantSnowman 11:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalez has appeared for s gijon b and for an I league side i.e. fully pro leagues so his article won't be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHISHIR DUA (talk • contribs)

Sporting Gijon B do not play in a fully-professional league, they play in the Segunda División B which is not listed as it is semi-pro. He has not yet appeared in the I-League. GiantSnowman 12:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, Juan appeared only in Segunda B. From November I League will also start. So, then the criteria of fully-professional league will be met. And regarding "no significant coverage" criteria, it will take time. Since many people dont know that this article page exists. 😄  S a  h a  13:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "he will be notable in November" is WP:CRYSTAL, while saying that obtaining coverage "will take time. Since many people dont know that this article page exists" is the wrong way round - coverage exists which is put into the article, not that the article will create coverage! GiantSnowman 13:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can add more stuff in the article, but if the article gets deleted, adding wont make any sense. 😄  S a  h a  17:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacek Deniz Troshupa[edit]

Jacek Deniz Troshupa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances for Skenderbeu despite what infobox says. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.transfermarkt.com/jacek-troshupa/leistungsdaten/spieler/402028
  • Delete - He never played in a competitive match for Skënderbeu, and although there is some online Albanian-language coverage it is routine stuff like that (transfer announcements, match reports). Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (Not the clearest case, would like some feedback) I found some decent coverage: [20], [21], [22], [23] - WP:THREE? Four different outlets providing, admittedly not aware of them before now. A fair amount of sustained "routine" coverage too. Interested to hear some thoughts: Piotrus, FkpCascais, GiantSnowman, SportingFlyer, Jogurney + anyone else. Happy to be proved otherwise, but wanted to ask before this is rushed to deletion - worth double-checking. R96Skinner (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [24] - not at all, routine match report; [25] - interview, not used to establish notability; [26] - routine transfer report; [27] - could be fine, but I can't judge whether the source is notable. Still a strong delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appreciate your response! A match report that exists because of Troshupa - he's the story. Interviews seem to split opinion, some say they count some don't - is there proper consensus for them not counting? R96Skinner (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Match reports are WP:MILL and don't count towards notability, and interviews on the source topic are too close to the source topic to count towards notability. There are some exceptions, I don't see that here in this case. He's simply at the moment a non-notable semi-professional footballer. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am simpathetic towards players in leagues of former-Yugoslavia, but I really can´t find any argument to keep him. If he had played even one game in Polish Ekstraklasa, even Albanian Superliga, but he didn´t, can´t do nothing for him, sorry. FkpCascais (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kelly (Irish footballer)[edit]

Jack Kelly (Irish footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails NFOOTY and GNG. Half of the article isn't about the subject himself. BlameRuiner (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frustrated delete vote, as the prose is good but the referencing is terrible. Philfarrell any other sources to save this one? I know he may be discussed in newspapers of the time, but good luck searching for Jack Kelly. SportingFlyer T·C 06:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Ping me if sources can be found. GiantSnowman 09:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This is a player from the early years of Irish football so sourcing maybe tough to collect, I am inclined to keep per Cite #2 that reveals some good history. Govvy (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article just meets WP:V with Herald.ie (ref #4), RSSSF [28] (listed at WP:WPFLINKS), and this book by Grüne. I don't know if this page (ref #3) is from a reliable source. I don't know if this History Ireland article is about the same Jack Kelly. I don't have ref #2 and can't access this article to see if there's any substantive mention of the player. But it seems we can verify that there was a Jack Kelly who played for St James's Gate and was the top scorer in the inaugural season of the League of Ireland, which strongly suggests to me that if we were to search Irish newspaper archives in 1921–1922, we would find articles written about this player, and there may even be coverage in books about Irish football in the 1920s. Not to canvas a !vote, but because I think she's familiar with historical Irish sources, I'm pinging BrownHairedGirl in case she has suggestions for places that might be searched, and also GiantSnowman to take a look at these new sources per his note above. Right now, though, I'm not seeing any GNG or reliable secondary sources upon which we can base this article, but I'm strongly feeling WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. – Levivich 03:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich, football isn't one of my interests, so I;m not the best person to ask for sources. A note at WT:IE might do better.
My own thoughts are that the contemporary newspapers might help. I doubt that the (subscriber-only) Irish Times has much on football, tho other archives are probably available through the (subscriber-only) British Newspaper Archive, which has archived some 19th-century Irish papers and continued some into the 20th-century. See e.g. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/titles/evening-herald-dublin
I hope this helps a little. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich: check out [29], though I've tried three different (narrow) searches with no luck so far. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to both of you! – Levivich 04:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree there must be sources ... being the top scorer in the first season of a 100-year old league is surely of note ... there's no end of match reports in Irish newspapers in the 1920s that I can find, even in other nations of Kelly scoring for big stuff. But hard to find anything in-depth ... normally books would be the prime source for that era. I did add one 1922 source for the FAI goal. It's not an easy search term, that's for sure. I'm surprised I can't find even a passing mention of his death ... is the date correct? Nfitz (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – reluctantly, because I'm unable to find anything, and without sources, we can't write a proper article. – Levivich 02:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kelly was my grandfather. There are not many sources, especially online ones of soccer in the early days in Ireland. I have read match reports on microfilm in a Dublin library but not online. Match reports tend to be sparse and lacking description. The Thomas Walsh book is out of print but is available in the national library of Ireland. The Joe Dodds book is also out of print but I have a copy, provided by Joe himself. I have researched my grandfather extensively and for now there aren't any other sources that I can find. Eoghan Rice who has contributed to this is a respected soccer historian in Ireland. As more and more materials become available online it may be possible to add to this article in the future. I have just added further references to this and will do my best to find more. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoe shine boy mo (talk • contribs) 09:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Bloch Rodwin[edit]

Lisa Bloch Rodwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a family court judge, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for judges. Family court (which is the level of jurisprudence that covers things like divorce and adoption and child custody issues) is not an inherently notable level of judgeship that guarantees every family court judge a Wikipedia article just because she exists, but this article is not demonstrating any evidence that she's much more notable than the norm for her level of significance -- the notability claims here are that she won not-inherently-notable local awards and that she appeared on national television talk shows to talk about cases. But every award that exists is not always an automatic free pass over WP:ANYBIO -- and she has to be the subject being spoken about by other people, not the person doing the speaking about other things, for television content to be a notability claim. And the vast majority of the content here is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the little bit that is actually real third-party third-person journalism about her is purely local news coverage of the type that any local figure can simply and routinely expect to receive. Nothing here passes the ten year test for enduring significance, and none of it is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - while I could quibble with some of the claims in the article, she does seem to pass WP:GNG. As far as my standards go, she would not normally pass the bar, pardon the pun. However, the media has treated her as an expert in her area of law, and she presided over a major case. So those are factors in her favor. I know that winning an award from a regional or specialty bar association isn't that big of a deal. I think this article should be kept, but it needs some editing down. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. FWIW, I don't know her. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abomination (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Abomination (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced stub about little-known Dungeon & Dragons monsters. Fails WP:GNG. Not a very active user (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If there were a list of dungeons and dragons monsters article worth throwing this in, it might be worth redirecting. As it is, this is completely referenced to D&D books. I could see referencing to the autobiography of Gary Gygax as being a borderline real-world information source, but I do not believe such a document exists. Also, by the time this line of monsters was dreamed up, Gygax had ceased associating with the property. I think WP:NOT includes several reasons to not include indiscriminate lists of D&D information. "Wikipedia is not for something you thought up one day" applies to pretty much all D&D articles (though it is not in WP:NOT). Rockphed (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... there are plenty of lists of D&D monsters, but they are all up for deletion because they are literal directory listings without context. D&D monsters are not something "you" thought up one day, but they do fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE if they are unreferenced.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant was that there isn't functional difference between something I conjure up from the aether in my basement and something some writer conjures up from the aether on behalf of wizards of the coast is nil until some third party starts talking about either idea. Rockphed (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Poorly sourced article on non-notable fictional creature. The only sources used are primary, and I have found no secondary sources that demonstrate notability. The list that the previous AFD recommended merging to has, itself, already been deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition monsters[edit]

List of Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same thing as List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters and List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters. A list of each monster from each guidebook of the game is not very useful. Not a very active user (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet again per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ZVCVBNM. It suffers the same problems as the already mentioned and nominated lists. This one does try to include non-primary sources, but actually looking at them reveals that they are not about the monsters at all - they are generally information pages or reviews on some of the D&D books, and either don't talk about the monsters included at all, or mention them in extreme passing. The only non-primary source here that is actually talking about 5th edition monsters in detail is the one on the Oblex, and having one in-depth look at a singular monster does not justify the rest of the list. Rorshacma (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think D&D players (which, full disclosure, includes me) have much too high an opinion of the noteworthiness of their hobby. As I mentioned in one of the other deletion discussions, I don't think edition specific lists are viable. Maybe a list of the D&D specific takes on monsters (both the monsters they invented and ones they uniquely interpreted) would be viable, but this list does not have sources to support its notability. Rockphed (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all just have one list article listing all the monsters from the series. There are many articles that exist for these monsters unique to the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. As long as they exist a list article showing links to them makes sense. There can be a column to list which ones were in each edition. Dream Focus 02:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Existence =/= notability. One has to demonstrate something passes GNG to be notable, which most of the articles in the list, if there is one, do not.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then go nominate them for deletion. I see plenty of those listed have their own articles, specifically for the (Dungeons & Dragons) versions of the characters. Dream Focus 11:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting every entry in a list should not be a prerequisite for deleting a list. That's just Wikilawyering, not common sense.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As with the other lists, this is game guide material. TTN (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters[edit]

List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly sourced list with no indication of the subject's real-world notability. Due to the lack of sources, this might also count as original research. Not a very active user (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. A list of notable monsters (blue-linked or which can be sourced to third-parties) from the D&D universe across all editions would be reasonable, but not a list of each monster in each guidebook. --Masem (t) 05:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well as WP:GAMEGUIDE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This list suffers the same problems as the other D&D monster lists also currently on AFD. There are no sources showing notability specifically for the 4th Edition group of monsters, and the list is just a transcription of the contents of the various 4th edition books. Rorshacma (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It certainly isn't badly sourced as claimed, as every monster is listed in a section corresponding to the book it first appeared in. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - D&D definitely has plenty of notable elements worthy of articles, but it does not need list after list of game guide minutia. One single list of those with articles and maybe those with some notability (one real world source but not enough to hold an article) would be appropriate. TTN (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdraw my nomination. There is now enough WP:RS to satisfy notability criteria (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral Support Payment[edit]

Funeral Support Payment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent secondary sources cover this topic. Fails GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from the nominator - It is essentially a local or regional topic of concern in Scotland which has garnered no widespread coverage. It is probably a sub-topic of the Social Security Program of Scotland. I don't see anything remarkable or notable about this topic. This page seems to serve as notification more than an article. Hence, the following applies: WP:not a directory and WP:indiscriminate---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numerous independent secondary sources cover this topic.----Pontificalibus 11:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment withdrawing my nomination. There is now enough WP:RS to satisfy notability criteria. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guðmundur Andri Tryggvason[edit]

Guðmundur Andri Tryggvason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not appeared in a fully professional league, and does not seem to pass WP:GNG. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per sources found during the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Louis Chamber Chorus[edit]

Saint Louis Chamber Chorus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAND. No significant coverage outside of St. Louis, no tours, no recording contract, no noted performers. Rogermx (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete total lack of sources with any even remote indepdence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being fan of choral music, I tried to find sources, but they were all local or in passing. They seem to have held a few concerts outside of St. Louis, but Belleville, Illinois is not that far. I see some evidence they performed with Frank Sinatra, but that's not enough. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. It's a professional chorus with years of history in Saint Louis (founded 1954). A history of the chorus is given in pages 49-54 of The Pullitzer Prize Archive -Cultural Criticism 1969-1990: From Architectural Damages to Press Imperfections, Heinz-Dietrich Fischer, Erika J. Fischer, Walter de Gruyter, K. G. Saur Verlag, 1992 (see here) Their concerts have been regularly critically reviewed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. This review, for example, described the ensemble as "the region’s finest a cappella choir". Here are other reviews: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], etc. There's over one hundred concerts reviewed in that newspaper alone. Professional regional ensembles for classical music are typically verified on wikipedia through critical reviews in their city's paper. Additionally, the ensemble's work at performing and recording unusual repertoire has led to it's appearance in a number of academic publications; including [43], and [44]. Here is a snippet view of a Gramaphone review of one of their recordings. The chorus was also the main subject of an article in The Classical Outlook, Volume 77, Page 29.4meter4 (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but expand and reference, per 4meter4. I am convinced they are notable but that should show in the article, not only in this discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 4meter4, who gives ample evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. I also agree with Gerda Arendt that the article should be accordingly expanded, with relevant citations. Smerus (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 4meter4; clearly meets WP:NBAND. However, the article badly needs to be expanded with the references 4meter4 found. Zingarese talk · contribs 21:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above that indicate that the group are notable and the article should be kept and improved, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo de la Cadena[edit]

Rodrigo de la Cadena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMG. Cannot find any reliable sources significantly covering his work. I also feel like this an autobiography. I am thinking of nominating 2 of his works (can be seen in the discography section) for deletion. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epinoia: thanks for the in put. If you don't mind me asking, what do you think of his two works in the discography section? Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- they both look like candidates for Redirects to Rodrigo de la Cadena if the article is kept - if the article is deleted they are probably candidates for deletion - Epinoia (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources articles identified above so that WP:GNG is passed. Regarding his album articles they should be the subject of a WP:BEFORE and if no rs reviews can be found then redirecting would be the simplest option imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_September_24&oldid=1142224961"