Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 December	2 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast Center[edit]

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

A commercial vocational school. As such would need to make WP:NORG. Obviously in situ, it doesn't. BEFORE didn't yield anything better. Also, name is too vague to be useful. John from Idegon (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Nom. looks promotiional. Alex-h (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is unsourced, and I cannot find any good sourcing to establish notability; the generic nam makes it tough to search. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cited sources from within the industry or making passing mentions do not convey notability. RL0919 (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tianna[edit]

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

There is a book but the link goes to an empty page. Plus only a single fact is sourced to.suggesting it lacks depth. What is left is poor gruel for a BLP and utterly fails GNG. Porn awards no.longer offer any notability so a clear fail as a blp Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not fit the inclusion criteria for performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - John Stagliano cites her role in pioneering gonzo pornography which passes criteria 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER or criteria 1 of WP:CREATIVE.[1] "[Tianna] looked right at me, actually looking at the camera, it was the first time that something like this had really happened in porn. That to me was a vehicle for being creative and doing weird stuff. It quickly became tremendously popular". Her hall of fame status is an acknowledgment of this role. She is referenced on 10 pages in this book[2]. Other sources limited by the google preview include [3][4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In reference to the claim made above by Morbidthoughts about Stagliano, a porn producer praising a porn performer for her porn prowess does not confer notability in Wikipedia. The other sources cited are simple & routine name drops (here & here) in two books about pornography, which, no surprise, are bound to contain names of porn performers. Sources verifying her Wikinotability beyond porn are not there. Our subject blatantly fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the recently depreciated WP:PORNBIO Wm335td (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth Crusade (CounterPunch)[edit]

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

Neologism used by an opinion columnist. There is no evidence that this phrase itself has substantial, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 22:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a term does not become notable simply because a political columnist coins it.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism and flash in the pan. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, this is a neologism Dartslilly (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historically accurate record of perceptions post 9/11. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-delete (G12). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La comunidad Religiosa Hebrea "Adath Israel" de Cuba[edit]

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

All in Spanish, and unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This describes a Jewish religious community in Cuba. It seems to be copyvio to [5]. I'm tagging this G12. I will note there are passing mentions of Adath Israel in other sources as the only Orthodox synagogue in the country: [6], [7], [8], [9], so the topic may indeed be notable. But the copyvio cannot stand. Delete. Raymie (t • c) 07:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Daniels[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is not a single source (or even in combination) that provides enough detail to write a bio. Every single one is strictly about his sports career. It's quite possible this is just WP:TOOSOON, but that isn't a reason to keep it. John from Idegon (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep starting (True Freshman) quarterback from a major Division 1 team, with reliable sources passes WP:N. USA Today San Fransisco Gate, Los Angeles Times etc. Lightburst (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - N is our policy....various guidelines tell us how to use it. It exists to ensure we have adequate sources to verify an entire article's content. The WP:GNG is primary. You've not even argued any SNG coverage. So please explain how, just because this kid is an athlete, transactional coverage (all that's here...every single source) suffices to write a biography? We know 0 about his life, just his career. John from Idegon (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please list this as a biography. Perhaps then, people other than sports nuts will see this. John from Idegon (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arizona State starting quarterback named by ESPN to the 2019 true freshman All-America team (see here) after tallying 3,298 yards of total offense for a Power Five school. He was also FBS Player of the week after leading ASU to upset over Oregon (see here) and the Sun Bowl MVP (see here). Easily passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources . Examples include: (1) ASU quarterback Jayden Daniels lukewarm in own assessment of his first game, Arizona Republic, 9/3/19; (2) ASU names true freshman Daniels starting QB, ESPN.com, 8/12/19; (3) Four-star dual-threat QB Jayden Daniels commits to Arizona State, USA Today, 12/13/18; (4) Before Saturday, the country might not have known about ASU’s Jayden Daniels — it does now, The Athletic, 11/24/19; (5) Freshman QB Jayden Daniels, who was recruited by Utah, is doing big things for Arizona State, Deseret News, 10/17/19; https://www.sbsun.com/2018/12/13/cajon-quarterback-jayden-daniels-picks-arizona-state-will-enroll-early/ Cajon quarterback Jayden Daniels picks Arizona State, will enroll early], San Bernardino Sun, 12/13/18. Cbl62 (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received enough in-depth sources to fulfill GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Every single source is about his sporting career." What else would they be about? His ability to make pies? Sources clearly satisfy GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. He might be only a year into his collegiate career but he garnered a lot of nationwide coverage throughout the season for his play. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Ward[edit]

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

Semi-professional (at best) footballer, same reasoning as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Margraf. Geschichte (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any coverage counting towards WP:SIGCOV and doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL, might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Achaea (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chuck gadgets[edit]

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

List of non-notable fictional gadgets, fails WP:LISTN. The non-trivial references are from a page merger of The Intersect (Chuck) after an AfD in 2017, which itself was leaning close to deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My opinion about this article is the same as when I AfD'd the one that was merged into this one. Remains non-notable fancruft that is more suitable for Wikia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Way too much in-universe details (do we really need to know what kind of car Casey drives?). What next? List of Inspector Gadget gadgets? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above comments this is fancruft with too many in-universe details and doesn't meet required standards for encyclopedic notability Dartslilly (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Haze[edit]

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

I cant see the wapo source as its behind a paywall but its a film review not an article about the subject. An interview and article that is half promo and half quoting an advice column do not pass gng. Porn awards no longer provide notability. Not good enough for a blp Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is only supported by PR sources, no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable actress.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teagan Presley[edit]

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

Sources are rubbish. Porn Awards do not equal notability. There only decent source is about a stalker. That's not worth a biography. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the Seattle Times article[10], she has been covered in [11][12][13][14] She passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. We are offered once again in an AfD about a porn BLP claims about sources that turn out to be of little or of no value: All of them, including the impressive reference to The Economist, take us to articles about a case of banks abusing their power, in which our subject is mentioned as a victim of the abuse along with many others in her profession. (In short, banks decided for some reason that they did not want porn performers as their clients and tried to get rid of their busines; it kinda boomeranged.) In sum, there's no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a WP:NOTVALUABLE argument. Not only do those articles note her actual name. They also note her former profession and current job status along with information about what happened to her specifically rather some other victim in the same situation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed the subject has no "value", encyclopaedic or otherwise. So, invoking WP:NOTVALUABLE is without substance. But let's dig in some more: The subject under discussion may well be not just "of value" but quite notable too, though in the typical, "real-life" sense of the term. To be notable for Wikipedia, a subject has to meet certain criteria, among which, our dear, departed WP:PORNBIO no longer is, no matter how deeply its passing is mourned. Presley has to meet WP:NACTOR and the sources you present do not offer her a leg to stand on. That's all there is to it, really. -The Gnome (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources do not make the case for WP:ACTOR / WP:BIO. For example, the Seattle Times source is this: "Porn-star stalker: Pierce County man gets 4-month sentence". The actress' feud with Chase (her tweets / interview) is equally not helpful towards BIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Commander in Chief (TV series)#Characters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Commander in Chief characters[edit]

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

I'm usually more than fine with main stand-alone lists for TV show characters. But this is a 14-year-old character list for a TV show that ran for only 18 episodes, and it has the same WP:NOTDIR problems as those three listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of politicians on Veep. Commander in Chief (TV series)#Characters does the job just fine. So, delete or redirect, or (for me inexplicable reasons) keep? – sgeureka ^t•c 20:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And of course I hadn't noticed that this had a previous AfD nearly 10 ten years ago with similar points made, and I had closed it myself as keep. However, I'll counter the there-cited WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP with "this is unfixable". – sgeureka ^t•c 20:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet another AfD in 2007 that I had to hunt down to find: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Commander in Chief. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't feel bad, sgeureka. Notability guidelines were interpreted in a very different way in 2010 compared to now, and I've seen a lot of articles that were kept at AFD discussions 10-12 years ago that would have been absolutely unacceptable today -- articles that had way more problems than this. Michepman (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commander_in_Chief_(TV_series)#Characters per nom, especially the "only 10 episodes" part. The one time this is 100% plot because no castmembers are attached to it. ミラ P 21:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. WP:BLP1E properly applies here. BD2412 T 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harshit Saumitra[edit]

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

Only notable for one event, is the youngest Indian mountain climber to reach the top of Everest, which is not notable as there have been people from many countries to do it and there is a "youngest" for each country that has people who have climbed Everest. Andise1 (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear case of WP:BLP1E Accesscrawl (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For-pay article; BLP1E applies and the achievement is not sufficient to make the subject default-notable. ∯WBG^converse 06:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need really good sources to justify an article on a minor, they are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per child abuse. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Per child abuse, like Bearian said above. The srticle states subject "started trekking at the age of 3". Clearly the parents want to get fame through him. A paid article. Like Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, we should also have strict policies/guidelines for the articles about minors, especially regarding exploited children like this one. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Day (musician)[edit]

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

Sources in the article are almost non-existent and that is due to there being virtually no reliable coverage/sources of this individual on the internet. Andise1 (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG (sourcing runs from terrible to unverifiable) and because this is a run of the mill producer and scorer. I found absolutely zero relevant sources on Google news, books, and newspapers. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Costafilm[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NN. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article whose text describes productions with which the company has been involved, without indicating notability. In the absence of verifiable claim to notability. the brief mention in the article on its owner, CTC Media, seems sufficient. AllyD (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Para 66[edit]

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

This is a CONTENTFORK that could be easily merged to the Musharraf high treason case parent article. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As this paragraph is highly notable in itself since there are many sources[15] available in which this paragraph is specifically discussed under the title "Para 66". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No PAGESIZE issues though to warrant a separate standalone article. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Page size is not the only indicator or measurement for a separate article. Notability is a big measure and as I pointed out "Para 66" is in itself notable to warrant an article as you can see that there are countless sources which are discussing "Para 66" separately as a subject!

Here are few examples:

The route to para 66
Para 66 shocks all
Para 66 kerfuffle
Looking beyond para 66: Time for national introspection Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 19:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - even if the subject is notable (I'm not going to add a comment either way) and it otherwise meets WP policy, the title of the article is terrible and needs clarification. I know that's not an AfD debate but just thought it was worth mentioning. Bookscale (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion as this is the wrong venue. The proposal here is for merging, not that an administrator should hit the "delete" button. Merging is discussed on the talk page of one of the articles concerned, not AfD, as any outcome does not need admin powers to implement. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as G5. Article deleted as a G5 by Mz7, who neglected to close this discussion. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Isaac Gómez[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY – Assistant manager and youth team manager BlameRuiner (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Firm (EastEnders)[edit]

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

Pure plot summary, and does not meet WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. DarkGlow (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This storyline isn't even mentioned in EastEnders#Storylines (or anywhere in that article, for that matter), so there is absolutely no need for a plot-only WP:SPINOUT either. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Material is better suited for an EastEnders Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raaj Mohan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Also lack of sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sportsperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to This Is Spinal Tap. Will also protect to prevent further unexpected restoration. RL0919 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smell the Glove[edit]

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

Fictional album from the film This Is Spinal Tap (there have been a few actual Spinal Tap albums, but this is not one of them). The page is written from an in-universe perspective, with a fairly thorough breakdown on its appearance in the film itself and an infobox that fully buys into it— listing further fictional albums. The "other black sleeves" section is largely original research and speculation. There is a single reference here, which turns out to just be an image of a fake cover art, hosted on a Spinal Tap fansite, used within the fictional write-up; the two external links are also to fansites. The article has been listed as having issues for over five years and there have been no no significant changes made in that time. In short, this article falls afoul of WP:CRUFT, WP:UNIVERSE, WP:OR, and is just poorly maintained on top of that. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to This Is Spinal Tap. It's not implausible as a search term, but there's really nothing to say about it that the article on the movie couldn't. Nor does there appear to be anything really worth merging. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To respective movie the fictional album is from. It’s better discussed (briefly) in the context of the movie article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to This Is Spinal Tap, in complete agreement with the nominator's points on WP:CRUFT, WP:UNIVERSE, WP:OR. Also note how the article tries to fill space with irrelevant commentary on real albums that also have black covers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - up to 11, dude! I want to add in that an argument could be made that this is the MacGuffin of This is Spinal Tap. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the ultimate consensus is to redirect, note that this has already been done at least twice but then reversed years later by someone who thought the fictional album was notable. Perhaps some protection will be in order to prevent more reversals in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to This is Spinal Tap and agree with Doomsdayer520's about requesting protection if a redirect supported by consensus here is repeatedly reversed Dartslilly (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agelong Tree[edit]

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

Non notable software tagged for notability for 5 years fails WP:Notability (software) Theroadislong (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion. No independent sources. Woeful failure of WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Chuck characters[edit]

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

As per the lead, Characters on this list are those that do not contribute significantly to the plots of more than two episodes, and who are not associated with Buy More, Fulcrum, the Ring, or Volkoff Industries. (which are character lists as well, in addition to List of Chuck characters). This is basically indiscriminate WP:PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why it's called "Minor Chuck Characters." -- Ambaryer (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Minor" says it all, it's too minor and non-notable for Wikipedia and is entirely plot summary/sourced to the show. I am sure the Chuck Wikia covers it better._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appearing in only one or two episodes is not a recipe for notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This uncontrolled multiplication of fictional articles has gone insane.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above comments list of minor characters sourced only to fictional sources is non-notable and non-encyclopedic Dartslilly (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Art Rock Circus[edit]

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

No evidence of this band meeting WP:GNG/WP:NBAND. Nothing much online, though there may be more in print that I can't access. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in this version of the article here there were quite a few reviews listed and some interviews but I'm not familiar with these sources except one that could be Classic Rock which is an rs but it is a dead link, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the article John Miner (musician), there's a section of "Discussions and critical analysis", which are external links to reviews, etc. Someone needs to go through those (and the reviews in the earlier version of this article which Atlantic306 noted), and add the reliable, independent sources as proper references with inline citations. It may be that both John Miner and Art Rock Circus are notable, or only one of them, but until the existing sources (included as external links) have been reviewed, and a search for others done, it won't be possible to tell which is notable and which could be redirected or merged to the other. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Most of the websites in that section focus more on Art Rock Circus than John Miner, though I'm wary of the reliability of some. ProGGnosis is a fan site and their review doesn't leave a name. ProgressoR is similar; "a 2-man crew of enthusiasts". Prog-Nose is another fan site, but they at least list their members. This site doesn't have an 'about us' page, unless I can't find it. I'm not sure what to make of Music Street Journal. Their about page is hideous (and doesn't tell us anything). Prog Archives is "a small group of fanatic progressive rock music collectors". The reviewer in the Sea of Tranquility article isn't listed on their staff page. Progressive World put the word "staff" in quotations on their 'about us' page. They also call it a "vanity site". If you agree with my interpretation of the reliability of these sources, we're left with one long album review, one short review, and an artist page with two more short reviews (one, two). None of these talk about John Miner in detail. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some discussion on sources which seems to have gone cold since the last re-list; try one more re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was D. Lete. Sandstein 19:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. Imadura[edit]

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

Article fails WP:SPORTBASIC as it relies on routine statistical listings, with no indication of significant coverage. This RfC has confirmed that SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. Dee 03 16:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 16:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 16:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 16:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't realize there were still more of these to do. <irony>How did I miss the typo I made on Piyaratne's page? And how did it go unspotted for eleven years?</irony> This is what makes me sad and suspicious about why these are being discovered now, and why nothing was done about it then... Bobo . 17:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am always shocked at how many non-articles we have in some sports.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're not non-articles. They're articles. They just don't come up to some people's standards. Hopefully one day we will have enough information to improve these beyond where they currently stand. Please don't denegrate 14 years of someone's work by claiming these aren't "articles", when they are the best we can do with the information we currently have. I'm just sad some of these are being pointed out 14 years too late. The very issue is that in some sports, particularly Olympic sports, setting up articles takes five minutes or less. I have no interest in doing so any more given how my work is being attacked, but presumably it would be easy to expand these. I'm also sad that it only appears to be cricket articles that it's okay to attack. But I won't rise to the bait. More to the point, and not to retread old ground, I find it amazing that anyone saw any consensus in the linked conversation... I've always maintained that and I always will. Bobo . 18:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, preferably, redirect to a suitable list if there is one (I don't think there are just now). We know so little about these chaps that we're incredibly unlikely to ever be able to add anything to the article - we lack basic biographical details and in almost every case we know of only one cricket match they played in - in an arguably marginal first-class competition (the exception is Gunasena where we have a handful of miscellaneous matches that he also played in). In these circumstances I simply don't see how we'll ever be able to build verifiable biographies and I have significant doubts regarding the general notability of such players. I certainly can't find the sorts in-depth sources or even range of peripheral sources that I'd be looking for. This is consistent with the arguments made at similar AfD such as:

over the last six months. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does Christina Gough meet CRIN? (Yes, I know it doesn't matter...) I don't fully understand those brightline requirements, just like the ICC Trophy exclusions, it's a field that needs defining exactly in my head. In any case, as is clear from my first-class players' lists, there are so many initial-only women's first-class players who would probably be deleted anyway - these have purely just not been researched enough into at this time. Please forgive me for asking too many questions, I'm just trying to get these things sorted in my head. Incidentally, I see nobody after the conversation was relisted actually voted "delete", so there is now no doubt in my mind that this doesn't have anything to do with "consensus"... Bobo . 20:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it was an Old Cambrians player who we were able to find extra information about. Perhaps information from the same source(s) could be used to find more information about N. Piyaratne, Bobo . 20:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would recommend that the supporters of these articles seek to find more information about these players. Most of these players played in the 1990s; it's likely that most of these players and their teammates are still alive. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly if we don't even have the first name of a person why bother with an article? These are all better suited for a list. If we can find more info including first name, birth year, etc, we can perhaps keep. But now there is no basis for having this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In South Asia it's pretty commonplace for people to be known by their initials and surname rather than their full given name, so I don't think we should read too much into that. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- these aren't biographies. They're match score cards. All this meager statistical information would be better covered in lists of cricketers by club. Reyk _YO! 09:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited another source that adds a tiny bit to WP:GNG, but may subtract a tiny bit from WP:CRIN. I wish I could say that I'm surprised that so many people have seen fit to comment here without even mentioning the sole Google Books result from the search links at the top of this discussion, but I have got pretty used to seeing Wikipedia editors argue about things without so much as a glance at the evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did find that Google Books mention during my WP:BEFORE search and do not understand how it satisfies the "significant coverage" part of GNG. Besides, that list may have been generated with the use of a tool like Statsguru or a simple database query. Dee 03 17:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhtari Adanan[edit]

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

There are multiple trivial mentions for this investor, but he doesn't pass WP:NBIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, creating Africa's first and only AI VC fund is a monumental achievement by any measure. Otherwise, someone else would have done it by now... More importantly, it's of vital importance for Africa's AI start-ups to know about probably their only source of early stage VC funding... It's also inspirational news for Africans (1.3 billion people), and perhaps other developing regions... Everiperdia, which apparently has a similar voting mechanism to Wikipedia, has created a profile about him... Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. The rationale for keeping appears to be that he ought to be notable, not that he is. As for Everipedia, their policy (from their home page) is "Everipedia allows you to create an article about anything as long as you have a citation. This allows for a much broader scope of content in the knowledge base" DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Hi, I was referring to the fact Everipedia submissions are voted on by its members... However, I actually meant, the criteria for The Guinness of Records is being first and only, which this is, and thus by definition notable... Furthermore, encyclopedic criteria means it’s not just notable but relevant, this is the sort of information cash-strapped Africans - 1/4 of the world’s population - would actively search for given the rapidly growing impact of AI, e.g. automation rapidly replacing human workers... Incidentally, would this discussion be better had by the 1/4 of the world’s population affected, Africans, rather than those perhaps less affected - I’m a bit surprised we are having this discussion given its notability and relevance. I guess perhaps this is why some regions, e.g. Russia, are toying with the idea of creating their own version of the internet... Thanks... Nneka Francis (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for inclusion in The Guinness of Records, for which, by the way, I see no evidence, are completely different from Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Nowhere do we say that being the "first and only" grants notability, especially in such a narrow field as "creating Africa’s first and only artificial intelligence (AI) centric venture capital fund". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* ~~keep~~ Hi, the sources categorically state he is the founder, how he created the firm, and why it’s notable, by for instance describing its pioneering nature... Thanks... Nneka Francis (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out which point of our definition of notability this satisfies. The word "notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, which may be different from the meaning that you give it. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* ~~keep~~ Hi, it clearly meets the following Wikipedia criteria from our definition of notability: “the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1]”. Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 11:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to illustrate, his creating Africa’s first and only AI VC fund: meets the “remarkable” criteria by being unprecedented; meets the unusual criteria by being unique; meets the “interesting” criteria as AI’s rapid progress is probably the must exciting and worrisome development of this era; meets the “significant” criteria as it’s the only AI VC fund dedicated to cash-strapped African start-ups who serve a 1/4 of the world’s population, Africa; and “deserves attention” because it’s vital for information for the start-ups who serve a 1/4 of the world’s population - it may help to read the paragraph on Africa in venture capital to further appreciate the “remarkable” and “significant” nature... Thanks... Nneka Francis (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting this "remarkable" criterion from? I can't see it in WP:N. And we have articles on topics that have actually received significant attention in independent reliable sources, not those that deserve attention. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the preceding extract is actually cut and pasted from our definition of notability. Here it’s, literally cut and pasted again: “For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia”. However, his achievement has evidently received significant coverage in reliable independent media due to its monumental significance, i.e. unprecedented... Thanks... Nneka Francis (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see now: it's actually copied and pasted from WP:BIO, not WP:N. Why couldn't you just say so rather than make me waste time looking for it? You need to read beyond the first couple of sentences to find out what is actually required for us to have an article on a topic. We follow reliable sources rather than lead them. Now tell me which independent reliable sources have significant coverage of Adanan? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C’mon Phil, you’re being overly pedantic. I’m merely following the news... The sources of this Wikipedia entry categorically state he is the founder, how he created the firm, and describe the pioneering nature... Furthermore, he meets this criteria from the “People notable for only one event” subsection of WP:BIO: “if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one”. We really ought to be updating other entries... Thanks... Nneka Francis (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't say anything about Adanan other than that he founded the company. Why have an article about him rather than the company? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also creating an entry about the company, and linking them to each other (start-ups will research the VC and the person with the final word on their faith). I just happen to start with him, adhering to the guideline: “individual's role within it is a large one”... Like, I updated Google DeepMind’s entry with the departure of a founder, as well as his profile (Mustafa Suleyman)... Thanks Phil... Nneka Francis (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is nothing more than PR puffery. Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ @Praxidicae, why are you attacking my submissions with clearly baseless and inflammatory remarks... The rules stipulate evidence based discourse at all times... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to assume good faith - I came across your other article via page patrol which led me to this. You may not vote multiple times. Praxidicae (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicate, You said “no coverage” in the corresponding entry, which is patently untrue, e.g. Read Phil’s last comment above and my response... Nneka Francis (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in what I said should be understood to be supporting either keeping or deleting the article about the company. I simply made the point that the sources cited don't provide coverage of the subject of this discussion beyond the bare statement that he founded this company. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify too promotional. That the individual has attracted a good feal of RR does not make for notability , but a better article with mroe slective refeences might be acceptable DGG ( talk ) 12:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I'll make it more bland... However, he's inextricably tied to this "major milestone for Africa" (a 1/4 of the world's population), whom it must be said appear to be under-represented on Wikipedia... Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 13:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Abishe (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, he meets the criteria: “if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one”, from the “People notable for only one event” subsection of WP:BIO... Nneka Francis (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough sustained significant coverage to establish GNG at this time. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, from WP:BIO: “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate”: creating Africa’s first and only AI VC fund is “highly significant” for the 1.2bn Africans - against all odds (read Africa section of venture capital) to gauge its high significance... Thanks Nneka Francis (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, read WP:BLUDGEON. Secondly, given the concerns by several other editors about the promotional tone that both the articles about Adanan and his company and the language that you have used in your arguments in this AfD is prompting me to ask that you disclose any relationship with Xecced or Adanan per WP:COI. Thirdly, the significance of starting the first AI Venture capital firm (not the first AI firm, not the first venture capital firm; the first AI VC firm) is a bit of a niche and I'm not sure that that would entitle anyone to notability regardless of continent. GPL93 (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think there's enough per WP:TOOSOON. When he actually does something actually notable, it can be re-created. Userfy if you must. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93, If by interest you mean I’ve more than a passing interest in making Wikipedia live up to its egalitarian ideals, then the answer is an emphatic yes... I did say I would make it more bland... That said, Bolt is the fastest man ever, it sounds flashy, but it’s also a basic fact... It says AI VC fund not firm, the first and only fund for AI centric African start-ups, which these days encompasses most startups since AI is now part and parcel of all your digital interactions, e.g. Wikipedia bots to your Netflix and social media recommendations and the machines that assemble your car Nneka Francis (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farah Damji[edit]

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

Does not seem like an encyclopedic article, it looks like news page which has only negative and news content about person not a informational. And also, Not notable page/content. Juppalsingh (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject has received prolonged significant coverage (I found sources from a period of over 11 years: [16], [17], [18], [19]), passing WP:SIGCOV. Regarding the issues noted by the nominator, I suggest they engage on the talk page of the article and suggest the changes needed to make it less like a news page. Achaea (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sustained multiple coverage, clearly notable. PamD 10:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This person isn't in the public eye so the article isn't relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:A201:5B01:4191:72F7:356D:A859 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Madiraju[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in secondary reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. All I can see are primary sources discussing her. I also see her works being self published on Amazon in the end I see no evidence of true notability. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not have enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately it fails WP:GNG as per nom. Abishe (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find very little coverage of her, and none of her books, so she doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. The current sources are either not independent (most of them), or not reliable (the "official OnlineBookClub.org review"). Another source I found [20] is on Medium.com, so is probably not reliable either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Once Upon a Time guest characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does this TV show really need three character lists (Characters >> Recurring characters >> Guest characters)? As guest characters, these characters have little if any plot arc significance, and listing them borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Most of them are direct family members of actually significant characters, so they can also be named in that character's section where relevant. No opposition for a selective merge for some characters, as I realize that the characters' importance is on a spectrum. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly indiscriminate. Back in the early days of the show we got articles on almost every character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the nominator is correct. It does not need three; one wonders if it needs even one. Johnpacklambert is correct too: we're still picking up the mess from the anime/TV/D&D mania of yore. You wonder how and when Wikipedia ever became an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wilding (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:2DABS; hatnotes are the better option. Was prodded giving this reason by GeoffreyT2000. Deprodded by creator Deb who felt it was pointless to delete it when it has existed for 16 years. Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEOTHER which states, "[I]f there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." Although the dab page has been in existence for 16 years, its talk page has remained empty (other than for the current notice from RMCD bot), thus leaving no discussions to serve as historical record. As of this writing, the dab page has become for all intents invisible since the hatnote atop the actor's page points to the writer, not to the dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear case of 2DABS. Longevity is no excuse. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: when it was created by Deb, she had just moved the actor from primary topic to disambiguated. He has since been moved back to being primary topic, so dab page is now not needed. If someone wants to propose (again) that there is no primary topic, that's a different discussion. PamD 10:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He appears to be a real actor form an earlier era in need of sourcing [21]NotButtigieg (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, disambiguation is not required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Thorngren[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. I can’t see him scaling WP:ANYBIO as well. Celestina007 (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has an extensive body of work in the music industry, where being the producer, mastering engineer, or and member tends to garner a passing mention in the publicity, reviews and catalogues. He is one of the first to use online music publishing via sites such as Perpetuity, SoundCloud, Reverbnation and MySpace (in its early days) to get his and other artists music out independent of the major labels. I’d happily add a discography, but understandably it will take a while to collate and code for inclusion. Elastic2303 (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC) Delete The article mainly rely upon primary sources and more reliable sources should be included. It fails to meet WP:GNG as per nom. Abishe (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sources I looked at were passing mentions. Can we find anything heftier? Bearian (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Consensus is that there should be no standalone article. I will merge the useful information to CAA, and leave behind a redirect. (non-admin closure) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main Inkaar Karta Hoon[edit]

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

I think this is not notable enough for a stand-alone article like this. The poem finds mention in Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests#Slogans_and_poems and is nicely placed there. DTM (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to Citizenship Amendment Act protests. General notability of this poem outside of the particular protests is not established. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment: What you think that does not matter, you must clarify with which reason of deletion policy justify your move. Standalone article as it follows WP:NOTEWORTHY, WP:CONTN, WP:NRVE, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, WP:SUSTAINED. Dey subrata (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the poem fails general notability criteria. Whatever coverage the subject has, it is only because of Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Without the lyrics, and translation, the article is just one paragraph. Like the nomination says, it is placed in the protests' article well. No reason to have a separate article about a non-notable poem. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It follows WP:NOTEWORTHY, WP:CONTN, WP:NRVE, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, WP:SUSTAINED and it follows almost all points of notability criteria including relaible sources and citations and thus suitable for standalone article. Dey subrata (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dey subrata: Now that Diannaa has removed the entire text of the poem from the article Main Inkaar Karta Hoon for copyvio, do you really think the rest deserves a standalone article? DTM (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dey subrata: Hi. WP:CONTN states Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Thats what I am saying too. The subject of the article, the poem, is not notable enough to have a stand-alone article.
WP:NRVE says No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest[...]
WP:NOTTEMPORARY says Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. That means the subject has to have significant coverage, to pass the general notability guideline.
WP:SUSTAINED says Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.
Regarding the article's subject/poem, in a nutshell, what we are currently having are news bursts because of the protests. But notability is not inherited. Regarding WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:NOTTEMPORARY; it is too soon to tell if the subject has received sustained coverage for itself (not as a part of, or related to the protests).
WP:NOTEWORTHY states The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists. Here it means, if the subject of the article is notable, then the notability criteria do not apply to the verifiable content. We are discussing about the notability of the poem here, as I described in the previous bullet point.

To put everything together with examples: most of the articles about dead people have section for their death, or at least two-three lines about their death. Like "XYZ died at the age of 77 due to cardiac arrest." Even if XYZ's death is not notable at all, it merits inclusion in the article of XYZ. Thats WP:NOTEWORTHY is about. But just because it is verifiable, and has been covered in reliable sources, we dont have article on XYZ's death. What I am trying to say here is, we dont have an article on "Death of Stephen Hawking"; but we do have an article on Death of Michael Jackson. And even though Stephen Hawking had an amazing brain (for sure, I bet my life on it), we dont have Stephen Hawking's brain, but we do have Albert Einstein's brain. But the lack of article Stephen Hawking's brain doesnt mean he didnt have brain, or that it wasnt amazing. Just because something exists, and can be verified, doesnt mean it deserves an article.

The poem in discussion hasnt received significant coverage independently of the protests. It is too soon to tell if it has received or will receive WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage to become WP:NOTTEMPORARY. For now the article should be deleted, with the content merged in protest article. And if the poem receives significant coverage in the future, without in the connection of the protests (passing mentions to protests are okay), then the article can be created again. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests#Slogans_and_poems as it is a plausible search term. No need to delete the article as redirects are cheap.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on The A-Team[edit]

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

Contested prod (twice). Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN because the guest stars are only loosely associated with each other and the show. The guest stars are also listed in the show's respective season articles. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mission: Impossible guest stars (A–M) (2nd nomination), which is heading towards SNOW deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:PROD should only need to be contested once and not replaced later. The listing of guest stars in the season articles is hit and miss with many episodes not listing them such as most of Season 5. Also IMDb is not a reliable source to be trusted for much information, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no {{Old prod}} on the talk page, making the prod from 2018 easy to miss. Most guest star lists on en.wiki use information directly from IMDb, making them no more reliable than its source. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guest starts can be listed in season articles, no reason to have a seperate article for a seperate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians on Veep[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

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

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

Lists of non-notable fictional politicians in TV series, failing WP:NOTDIR. All noteworthy politicians are covered in List of Veep characters#Politicians , List of House of Cards characters and List of The West Wing characters, respectively. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 11:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – DarkGlow (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom in case anything else does need to be merged. Reywas92^Talk 15:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. appropriate list for major series. This sort of duplicate arrangement should be done only selectively, but it's essentially the equivalent of a sortable table. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or redirect - They're not even character lists, so their utility is near zero. The general reader won't care about the internal political structure of a series unless it's backed by real world information. TTN (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per TTN. The information offered by these lists is almost non-existent. JIP | Talk 13:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Teen Wolf minor characters[edit]

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

I admire that Teen Wolf doesn't have stand-alone articles for its main characters. But does that mean it needs three character list (Characters > Secondary characters > Minor characters)? I see "Minor" as the cut-off point to not cover characters anymore. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor character lists are unneeded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOFIXIT and WP:DINC. Why not trim the excess plot instead of deleting it outright? Important to note that the user who split this is being discussed here. ミラP 16:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Fix what? It's unencyclopedic one/two-time plot devices. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - @Sgeureka: The amount of plot, duh. ミラP 17:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I struck my comment above, as I confused this with a different AfD. However, based on your comment, I'll point out then that the original list of minor characters is still in the main LoC pre-split and can be recovered for trimming. I rest my case that three stand-alone character lists is too much. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These are beyond what could be described as necessary characters. Once you've hit "minor," you've reached the point where you can delete them without losing anything. TTN (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka Khanna[edit]

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

For-pay spam. Not seeing a passage of GNG. ∯WBG^converse 09:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 09:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete subject fails WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a promotional platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources agree: WP:UPANDCOMING. WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Tiwana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NGOLF and/or WP:GNG. Routine news-pieces, as to sports-journalism and all that. ∯WBG^converse 09:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 09:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 09:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable golfer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Win was in an event not covered by the Rolex Rankings so below our usual standard. Non-notable.

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

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

The result was redirect to Linlin. Tone 11:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zhàn Dòu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. lullabying (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Linlin. Can find no evidence in any language that this record was noticed by anyone outside of the fan community. No reliable coverage beyond fan blogs and the like. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Doomsdayer520. Aoba47 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steens Mountain Running Camp[edit]

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

Notability failure. There are only six results in the Google News and a appearing in an opinion piece on a NYT article "By Elizabeth Carey Ms. Carey is a freelance writer and running coach based in Seattle." does not create national notability. Graywalls (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If it were in fact "nationally known", we'd see lots of good sources. However, an internet search shows zero ghits on newspapers, a handful of news sources, and few books and magazine articles. Is that enough? Bearian (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reply the first two results aren't real books. They're government proceedings which mentions local papers have mentioned them. This isn't even close to notability driving source. "Register Guard and Burns Times—Herald have written articles, aptly named “Runner's High: Surviving the Steens Mountain Running Camp is a Triumph of the Mind,” and “Steens Mountain Running Camp" Graywalls (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanvi Hegde[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Child actress, who failed to make any big. For-pay article. ∯WBG^converse 09:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 09:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 09:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete had a few roles as a child, nothing leading to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable roles. Does not pass NACTOR or GNG Lightburst (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: starred in a children's program and has appeared in several other shows/films; enough to merit a "weak keep", in my opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aashna Chopra[edit]

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

Non notable model & actress who fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After some researches and clean up and I believe the article meet WP:GNG.Chris Calvin (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot notable and did not meet WP:GNG. --17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie Campbell (talk • contribs)

Few different sources claims he notability on being the first and only Southeast Asian on a cover of a L'Officiel Europe, also a few sources were used in the article and more to be find in the internet, so it is more likely to meet WP:GNG.Chris Calvin (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 09:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest fathers[edit]

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

The list as a whole is an original research. It is not full, as it contains mostly celebrities, and most of the entries are not medically sourced (therefore not sure).BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. What on earth is this? One of the weirdest articles I've seen to date. Fails GNG. – DarkGlow (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim substantially. I would put the lower limit at 80, as becoming a father in one's 60s or even early 70s is no longer a particularly remarkable thing. BD2412 T 00:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 08:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: The problem is that the list contains (famous) men who CLAIM to become fathers after a certain age. The only sure thing is usually the fact that their much younger wives became mothers... And, is it a coincidence that most of the fathers listed are notable for other reasons? BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to that quandary is to report whatever claims are set forth in reliable sources, and provide the same caveats the sources provide. BD2412 T 00:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's sourced well, and about notable people. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the article's refs can (and should) be improved, but the article is not "as a whole is an original research". As for the article not being complete, it is a classic example of a dynamic list which shall never be complete – which is no basis to delete it. There is a discussion on the page about raising the bar of entry to 75, which I support. --Voello _talk 02:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have noted my support for this proposition in that discussion. BD2412 T 22:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Kingston WezWez[edit]

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

Subject of the article hasn’t received enough significant coverage in RS hence falls short of WP:GNG Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All the RS in the BLP article seemed to have been uploaded as File PDFs but have been deleted as copyvios? Britishfinance (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 08:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An autobiography by a subsequently blocked WP:SPA. The text describes a person going about their trade; if there is notability it would rest on the claim of "Best Radio DJ" awards, but (a) these lack verifiable citations and (b) there is no verified indication that these were intrinsically notable awards anyway. Looking more widely, there is a brief in-role quotation from the subject about something else ([22]) but I am seeing nothing better in the Ethiopia Observer or elsewhere. Happy to reconsider if someone finds evidence of notability but as things stand this is simply a vanity page on a man with a job. AllyD (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD. Pretty clear vanity page. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the comments above. Its self-promotion, with large portions of unsourced personal information. Daiyusha (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rohini Munjal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:ENT. Yet to have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Hitro talk 08:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 08:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 08:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 08:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 08:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet threshold of multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why it should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3916:61BF:13DC:6EE:DEEE:5C2A (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Echoing John Pack Lambert. Celestina007 (talk) 02:39 December 2020(UTC)
delete subject fails general notability criteria, as well as notability criteria for actors. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nomination. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sandy Creek, Queensland after User:Aoziwe's WP:BOLD merger. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hubners Bridge[edit]

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

Seems to be a small modern bridge over a tiny rural creek with no clear significance: not historic and no other apparent claim to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect if not then delete. (edit conflict) I cannot find anything to demonstrate notability. Apart from the SINGLEVENT of it being washed away in a flood and rebuilt, which attracted little reporting and what there was, was very routine, I can find nothing of any note. I have BOLDly upmerged it to here. Aoziwe (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Someone has now done a WP:BOLD merge to the locality article, so I've got no problem with this being closed if there's no dissent. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Aoziwe (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - happy for this to be closed. Bookscale (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Crasta[edit]

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

For-pay spam; as well-evidenced out at the t/p. Fails WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:GNG. Complete lack of any significant coverage about the subject, other than trivial name-drops. Not a single honor confers any notability and is uniformly low-tier. ∯WBG^converse 07:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 07:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 07:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a PR platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - putting aside the clear spam/promotion, he's a run of the mill business person. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Putting aside the promo issue, the article still doesn't meet notability Dartslilly (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daan Paatra[edit]

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

The parent organization is notable. That said, there is literally zero coverage about 'daan paatra' and its claims anywhere outside iskcon's own site. Most linked sources point to the food program that the government manages, and there is no mention of this program. Daiyusha (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeasin Arafat (footballer)[edit]

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

Doesn't play in a fully professional league, hasn't played in the national team yet. Not much coverage. Looks to me like a case of WP:TOOSOON Daiyusha (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is actually local league player i didn't find any good reliable source. is not a player of national team. mostly i believe that fail WP:NFOOTBALL and maybe WP:TOOSOON.-Nahal^(T) 16:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Dartslilly (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RingMeMaybe[edit]

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

For-pay spam, part of which were not disclosed.

Fails the rigorous standards of WP:NCORP. Garnered some attention during app-launch (afais, only over the linked 3 piees notwitstanding that CultOfMac reviews products for pay) and fizzed out thereafter; thus failing WP:NOTNEWS. Page Bri as original prod-er. ∯WBG^converse 07:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 07:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there's nothing new to add beyond the 3 sources from 2013 the subject is probably non-notable Dartslilly (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women Card[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS (and obviously WP:NCORP) even if the used fringe news outlets were considered. For-pay spam. ∯WBG^converse 07:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 07:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. The product has no reliable sources in my search. It appears that this was a for pay article that even had its external link removed due to blacklisting. Not notable for inclusion. AmericanAir88^(talk) 05:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not notable enough for inclusion Dartslilly (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relay Resources[edit]

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

does not meet notability for organizations/companies. Also created by a single purpose account that has not done anything but create this article. Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herring Networks[edit]

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

This article is about a relatively obscure but emerging company that is only notable for AWE Network and the one news network that always spreads extreme right-wing conspiracy theories and disinformation while earnestly thinking that the governments of Russia and Syria are better than American "liberals". Barely reads more than a dictionary term, which is unacceptable. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 03:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 03:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 03:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am skeptical of the assertion that a network that is "only notable for AWE Network and the one news network that always spreads extreme right-wing conspiracy theories and disinformation" is, therefore, not notable. Surely a network can be notable for spreading "extreme right-wing conspiracy theories and disinformation," as this one appears to be. Here are 2 articles in the New York Times [23]. The network gets coverage in the Times of San Diego [24].NotButtigieg (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company is the proprietor of two different television networks one in entertainment the other in politics. The political tendency should have no relevance as a reason for deletion. werldwayd (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Subject clearly meets notability criteria. If the article contains inaccurate information or the subject wants to formally request deletion for whatever reason, I encourage User:Sajmeister1 to reach out to our Volunteer Response Team where they can explain their concerns and prove their identity/relationship to the subject in a confidential fashion. RL0919 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruqsana Begum[edit]

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

This is purely a technical implementation of a request repeatedly voiced by Sajmeister1, using edit summaries like "Please help delete this page ASAP". Please imagine, for all purposes including the (non-)applicability of "speedy keep" criteria, that this deletion discussion has been created by Sajmeister1, not me. See the revision history of the article for details.

The user has apparently attempted to provide a conflict of interest disclosure in the edit summary of Special:Diff/920619391. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG. Can’t see why this would need deleting. – ².O.^Boxing 09:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly notable, with much of the article sourced to Daily Telegraph profile. There does seem to be perhaps too much of her personal life: if there is content to which she objects she could read WP:AUTOPROB for suggestions. We need not heed her asserted "digital marketing manager". PamD 12:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. i didn't find any reason for deletion this article. almost added on this article reliable source. So, Clearly significant pass General notability guideline.-Nahal^(T) 16:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuego Bxndz[edit]

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

Ostensibly a promotional exercise. Originally moved to draft from NPP and then moved back to mainspace by one the many contributors who appear to have a COI without improvements. The article needs proper mainstream sources to qualify under WP:BAND, but I haven;'t found any. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we most commonly delete producers' articles. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another promotional article moved out of draft in an attempt to WP:GAME the system. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Nikolas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alexa Nikolas

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

An actor that possibly does not meet WP:GNG or even WP:ENT. The main role she has was in the early episodes of the children’s series Zoey 101 with some roles in films and TV after. It does not appear to have acted in any notable films or programs besides The Walking Dead in a few episodes in the late winter of 2013. A Google search turns up an interview she did on Instagram about her time on Zoey 101 in late July that didn’t attract any media attention except for some blog posts about the video. Pahiy (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – main cast on Zoey 101, Hidden Hills and Revelations, and was effectively the lead (or co-lead) in the film Detention of the Dead, so I think she pretty clearly passes WP:NACTOR. Add in the controversy surrounding her sacking from Zoey 101 and I think she's pretty clearly notable on WP:BASIC terms as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets point 1 of WP:NACTOR. – DarkGlow (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: definitely notable. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Butler[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet our broad inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rather nondescript collegiate and lower level minor pro hockey player. 500 pro games still did not garner him enough attention to achieve any kind of notability.18abruce (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series that include time travel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non-notable list. It survived a deletion nearly 14 years ago, I'm thinking could a second time worth a shot to have this deleted or should this just be used for what the original nomination from all those years ago wanted the use of WP:Categorization. Pahiy (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 00:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN serves an informational or navigational purpose. The list is full of blue links. Lightburst (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rules are clear, don't destroy a list because you prefer a category, they can both exist for things. If someone wants to see which television shows have time travel, a notable feature of science fiction, this would be useful for them. Dream Focus 02:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This list expressly excludes shows primary focus is on time travel such as Doctor Who and Quantum Leap, and only includes shows which included episodes about time travel. Consequently, I would suggest that if no specific episode is listed for a series, it should be removed from the list until a specific episode or explanation is provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone is missing then look at the summaries of the list of episodes for that series and search for the word "Time travel" and you can find it and then added it to the list as I just easily did. [25] Dream Focus 06:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - uses a currently horrible article format, as it should be a table, which can be sortable by users by preference - series, dates, etc. That said, the content itself is notable and categories ≠ lists. (Side comment/rant: ideally in a more better coded Wikipedia, list articles would be generated from pages in a categories dynamically, without needing users to manually create and duplicate data, but yea, that would not happen in our life time). --Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (or better yet, go back in time and stop the creator of this list from doing so). Fancruft gone mad. Lists of one-shot episodes including topic xxx are innumerable and unnotable, e.g. List of television series that include dream sequences, List of television series that include bank robberies, List of television series that include doublecrosses. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Yes, there is Category:Television episodes about time travel, making me !vote "weak". However, per Clarityfiend, time travel is an arbitrary (INDISCRIMINATE) plot device, so why should this list exist?. I am worried about the WP:TRIVIA aspect and maintainability of this list, as it's already more crufty than tvtropes, a good sign that wikipedia is overdoing it. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The whole idea of listing things that appear in TV shows not specifically about those things, is inherently untenable. Reyk _YO! 14:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sgeureka and Reyk. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is far better than a list, but time travel can be all sorts of things, including a one off gag, and this just cfreates trviail coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a list of series, but more of a list of individual episodes of TV series that have a brief mention of time travel. There is no clear list criteria so this article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:NOR and also WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not ‘been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources’ and the inclusion of many episodes will inherently require OR. The inclusion criterion is so tenuous as to make the list essentially useless and impossible to maintain in a meaningful and useful way. Hug^syrup 08:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because time travel happens in a show somewhere in its run makes this list far too indiscriminate. Shows that are about time travel, where it is a central tenet of the show (eg Time Tunnel, Doctor Who, Quantum Leap, etc.) would be an acceptable list, but not any show that happened to have that one silly time travel or Groundhog-day type scenario. --Masem (t) 19:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree with Hug's reasoning above Dartslilly (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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