Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 January	30 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. Sandstein 12:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V. V. C. R. Murugesa Mudaliar[edit]

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

not notable, and not expected to be as there is no indication his company is notable either. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's not even enough information for his dates of birth and death. Run of the mill (pardon the pun) businessman. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 1 February 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 22:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee McKenzie (author)[edit]

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

The subject fails general notability guidelines as well as WP:AUTHOR. Having researched, I haven't found any coverage in reliable secondary sources Less Unless (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles lacks the type of secondary sources that establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've found lots of hits to her writings, by her but nothing, literally zero, about her. Please ping me if you find a needle in the haystack. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Writers are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because their writing exists — the notability test for writers requires reliably sourced evidence of their significance, such as winning or being nominated for notable national literary awards and/or having enough critical attention about their work in newspaper book review sections and/or literary journals to make a WP:GNG claim. But I share everybody else's failure to find any sources that would change the equation here: literally all I can find, even when I search ProQuest for the kind of "contemporaneous to the books themselves" coverage that might not have Googled properly, is a couple of smalltown local event calendars that briefly mention her name as the giver of an upcoming book reading. That's not the kind of "coverage" we're looking for, however. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with all above. Expertwikiguy (talk) 16:49, 5 February 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 nomination withdrawn/speedy merge to Vinyl emulation software. (non-admin closure) Mattg82 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It probably, technically, didn't qualify for a "speedy" result due to Bearian's opposing vote, but it is in keeping with the spirit of the discussion and, crucially, consensus would've almost certainly resulted in one of two outcomes, being (a) merge or (b) no consensus, which is functionally equivalent to a "keep." At which point, nom or any editor could've completely the merge boldly. Doug Mehus T·C 21:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of vinyl emulation software[edit]

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

Unreferenced comparison of non-notable software. Mattg82 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an excellent guide, but we don't publish original research nor are we a how to guide. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to vinyl emulation software. That article is tiny right now, and could use a useful table or two. Also, oppose invalid nomination claiming "non-notable software" despite the fact that several of the listed products have Wikipedia articles. Modernponderer (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agreed to above. Merge to vinyl emulation software Expertwikiguy (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll close/withdraw this as I've now merged it, per above comments. Mattg82 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 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 22:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Meissner[edit]

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

absolutely no coverage about this person to the point that it borders on a hoax. Completely and utterly not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I edit-conflicted on attempting to move it to draftspace, now moot. The subject clearly exists as an author, so not a hoax. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to a hoax than "doesn't exist" but we should not be draftifying unencyclopedic nonsense. The claims thrown in here were just done to avoid an A7. It's completely made up that she was in a Bollywood film and it's very obvious. Also claiming "her son is in a film!" is also not a claim of notability for the subject but that's not what this AFD is about. Also I disagree with "clearly exists as an author." I could link to my shitty fanfiction from when I was 16 that I tried to self publish on Amazon, it doesn't make me an author. Praxidicae (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That last sentence made me laugh! Foxnpichu (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Do not draftify unless actual sources turn up. b uidhe 22:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable person with no coverage. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She appears to have a cooking show (here is an episode on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tkp0pTEMfY), but she doesn't pass the notability standards unfortunately. And I can't find any credit of her in the film which the article cites; maybe she was an extra. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While its not a hoax, because her book is verifiable, she's clearly just a run of the mill vlogger, one of tens of thousands. FWIW, my domestic partner is a vlogger with over 60 episodes on social media about healthy Filipino cuisine, but I would not say he's notable. As far as one small role, it's not enough for WP:NACTOR; again, lots of people have been in films. She does not inherit notability from her son. Finally, her turn as Chrissy Teigen's bete noir is a literally 15 minutes of fame situation. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does her son have his own article? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable without any doubt. PK650 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of passing GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No objection to recreation if the subject becomes notable. I see that she wrote a book. Wm335td (talk) 21:17, 5 February 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. Newsflash: this close shouldn't shake or rattle any of the participants. Okay, bad puns aside. There is no consensus to deletion here. Arguments in favour of keeping are generally surrounded on whether our general notability guideline has been met, which it is (though this closer notes the presence of reference bombing and editors may want to consider reducing the number of duplicative references). Note, though, that meeting GNG does not confer standalone notability; alternatives, such as merging with related earthquake-relate event articles or to list articles, can occur in the normal course of merger deliberations on one or more talk pages. Editor Ultimograph5 notes (although it should be noted this is not a vote and thus the editor's "strong keep" does not necessarily have anymore value than another "keep" vote) that earthquakes of this magnitude are rare along this fault line (although it's not immediately clear to this closing editor whether or not that's the Richter scale). Some of the few editors, such as Mikenorton, making deletion arguments even note this article has encyclopedic value, albeit through a merger into List of earthquakes in 2020, which seems prudent. This even has concurrence with Slgrandson, who, despite this notionally not being a vote, favours "slight keep," perhaps makes one of the more stronger arguments here for a merger. Nevertheless, that argument did not find much take up here in this discussion. That's not to say that a merger is, by any stretch, off the table since (a) that's outside of the scope of this close and (b) consensus can change at any time, including later this evening. Editors are encouraged to consider various alternatives, at the talk page, which could renaming (this article, as titled, would imply this is the only earthquake that will occur in 2020) or merging into one or more articles via the talk page, and pay particular attention to the guidelines specified at WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 00:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Caribbean earthquake[edit]

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

There has been very very minimal apparent damage and no casualties (even injuries) from this earthquake, and its strength itself (not that strong on a global scale, merely slightly unusual for this region) does not alone make it a notable event. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Buttons0603 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree. Nearly every other shallow earthquake of at least magnitude 7.7 earthquake since 2010 at least has had an article on it, including those with no casualties. The only shallow magnitude 7.7+ earthquakes without articles were the 7.7 2013 Coronation Island earthquake in Antarctica and the 7.7 2017 Kamchatka earthquake. Both of these took place in extremely sparsely populated regions, in areas where large earthquakes are already frequent. An earthquake of similar magnitude in the middle of the Caribbean, a densely populated region where massive earthquakes are relatively infrequent, definitely warrants an article. Furthermore, we don't even know for certain the extent of the damages or injuries yet. Remember that in the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes, it took 5 days after their taking place for a casualty to be publicly announced, even in a well-covered and investigated area. For somewhere like Cuba or Jamaica? If there are casualties, I'm not at all surprised they haven't been reported yet. Either way, this remains the strongest earthquake on the entire planet in the last 8 months, the strongest shallow-focus earthquake on the entire planet in the last 2 years, and the most significant earthquake in the entire Caribbean (and by extension the entire Caribbean Plate outside of the Cocos Plate subduction zone) in over 70 years. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at all shallow (depth<50km) M≥7.7 earthquakes going back to 2000, there are 7 that don't have articles. In all cases these earthquakes happened in remote locations having no significant or, more importantly, lasting impact on any populated areas. The Caribbean earthquake is in my view exactly like those. Mikenorton (talk)

Right, and it may be helpful to look at another deletion discussion for a similar event that happened in 2004. Our article was 2004 Cayman Islands earthquake and it occurred 300 kilometers to the ESE along the plate boundary. That shock was also a strike slip earthquake and had an identical maximum intensity of VI (Strong). These two are going to be similar in yet another way: no enduring notability. There's no reason to write about these types of events because there's nothing to discuss. Dawnseeker2000 23:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All that needs saying about this earthquake can be included in its entry in the list of earthquakes in 2020. As to the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes, the sources show that significant damage was reported (including collapsed buildings) within 24 hours of the first event, whereas no such reports have appeared for the Caribbean earthquake. What's important is "enduring notability" (see WP:EVENT) - the news stories covering this earthquake have pretty much stopped completely already. Mikenorton (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Per WP:NOTNEWS: "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." A 7.7 earthquake in the Caribbean is not a routine event, and just because there haven't been any reported deaths yet, doesn't mean it's not worth an article. I'm not going to deny the article has some issues, but these can be fixed. For example, it doesn't yet mention that the ODPEM of Jamaica has reported structural damage in at least two parishes, including a school closure due to the buildings being left structurally unsound. TheRMSTitanic (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Most powerful earthquake on this fault line since 1948; above magnitude 7.5; plus every other magnitude 7+ earthquake has an article. The size and rarity of it makes it article-worthy. Ultimograph5 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just analysed all the earthquakes in our list articles going back to 2000. Of all the earthquakes with M≥7, 101 have articles and 172 don't. Nothing will be lost if this is just kept as an entry in the list of earthquakes in 2020. Mikenorton (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It's an interesting subject, but there are plenty of earthquakes over M7.0 every year. Using trivia as a rationale for keeping this article does not seem just. Had there been more impacts, I might be inclined to change my view, but I hardly imagine this will be an earthquake many people will be mentioning much in the future considering its limited effects. Master of Time (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's particularly notable since a quake this size is rarely experienced at this region. Though yes, the damage was very minimal and casualties were null, it is worth noting that the quake too, generated a sensational response amongst the general public and generated a buzz over the media. The massive, widespread nature of reactions it produced make the quake worth covering. Azurevanilla ash (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slight keep per arguments above; otherwise, merge into List of earthquakes in 2020. (On a related note: Beats me why the more widely reported 2019–2020 Puerto Rico earthquakes don't have an article yet.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link - 2020 Puerto Rico earthquakes - maybe a rename would be a good idea. Mikenorton (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes the GNG, not some fanciful statistical analysis about articles that people created or didn't create (WP:Not complete) based on the magnitude of the earthquake. Such a discussion might have relevance at In the news/Candidates, but here it just looks like WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. Abductive (reasoning) 05:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF, Buttons0603 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost every argument in favour or against above-stated by other users have been well-put. I would be inclined to Delete due to it's relevance [lack of it comparing with other quakes without articles] or Slight Keep. After thinking about it for some minutes while re-reading the arguments above that were written above, I have to choose Keep due to totally agreeing with the logically correct reasoning of Azurevanilla ash. What I believe that there is lacking quite a bit actually, on the article is: more sources but more than some more sources, way more content and videos/photos of said earthquake. Adding more content can be corrected I argue and thus confirm it's relevance. Have a nice day everyone! :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. While we have often required deaths for airplane crashes to be notable, unless I missed something, we have not required confirmed deaths for earthquakes. This is not run of the mill: it's one of the few earthquakes felt in Florida in my lifetime. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you could feel it does not make it notable. Earthquakes where I live are rare, like Florida, but happen occasionally, also like Florida, and the only one that has an article in my lifetime is one which actually caused notable damage. As far as I can see, this earthquake did not. Buttons0603 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No encyclopedic value. If an event has no real effect on people, places, and things we don't need to write about it. Dawnseeker2000 08:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a record event for the Caribbean, in which earthquakes aren´t common. If this earthquake had occurred in a remote area prone to earthquakes, then it would be logical to delete the article. However, it didn´t so we shouldn´t. Also, there is still more information to be learned about what happened. RandomPerson144 (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The significance of geological and environmental phenomena is not determined by casualties or property damage. The event passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. The votes to delete seem to be based more on individual perception of importance than in an assessment of whether or not the page meets Wikipedia's criteria. There are certainly more interesting topics than this which should not have pages, and more boring topics than this which should.IphisOfCrete (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although there is plenty of weight and sense in the delete rationale, the article comfortably meets our GNG guidelines, making other concerns less important. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Meeting GNG is necessary and I wouldn't dispute that the article can, in those terms, be presumed to be suitable to have an article, but that is not a guarantee that it should have one. As an event it should also meet the WP:EVENT guideline, such as the need for the event to have either "enduring historical significance" or "have a significant lasting effect", and that the coverage should be continuing as "events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an exncyclopedia article." My "delete" vote is based on that guideline. Mikenorton (talk) 22:18, 5 February 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angharad Gatehouse[edit]

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

Seems to fail notability requirements at WP:ACADEMIC; does not satisfy any of the 8 criteria listed there. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that a personal chair at a UK university ("Prof Angharad Gatehouse has the Chair of Invertebrate Molecular Biology at Newcastle University" [1]) meets WP:PROF#C5. Her honorary membership in the National Italian Academy of Entomology may well pass #C3. And her Google Scholar citation counts [2] give her a clear pass of #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 with room to spare. In addition to the #C3 case made by David Eppstein, there's also her Fellowship in the Royal Society of Biology, which appears sufficiently selective to qualify as well. And I concur that #C5 is met. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF#C5 by her chair position, plus her research seems to pass C1 pretty cleanly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the arguments above, she also passes WP:PROF#C2 having received a certificate of distinction from the International Congresses of Entomology (ICE) [3]. Achaea (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Named chair position, over 14000 cites on google scholar, fellow, won international prize... Kj cheetham (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep --hroest 20:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - named chair at a large research university, and fellow of a royal society, easily passes the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 1 February 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 22:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Booggz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. No indication of awards or charted songs. The sources cited are the usual mix of Spotify song lists, Youtube links, and trivial mention in online sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found things like https://thesource.com/2018/01/18/toronto-artist-booggz-drops-tha-noose-video/ and https://www.hiphopcanada.com/booggz-cash-feelings-interview/ but nothing with details so fails GNG and it looks like it's WP:TOOSOON for MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:TwinTurbo assessed the article as having "Mid-importance". I would welcome that editor's comments, as there may be something we are missing. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Importance" level is simply a matter of opinion and can be changed if you disagree. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Charitably, it is too soon for a WP article on this rapper. He has indeed been mentioned a few times in reliable sources like Complex and The Source, but those are very brief introductions to something just released, and he also has some brief name-drops in larger articles about the scene that he comes from. But those are not enough to confer independent notability. Otherwise all that can be found is commentary from unreliable sources and the typical retail/streaming entries. If he gets feature coverage in the future that will help but it is too soon for now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:59, 30 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 22:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qibla al-Qudsiyya[edit]

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

This article, created in 2002, appears never to have cited any sources. I am unable to find any references to the subject on search engines except for apparent Wikipedia mirrors. Further, this article on the Dutch Wikipedia suggests that this novel describes the article as a hoax. Bit of a weird one. The Land (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There was a previous VfD in 2004, archived onto the talk page. (Ah, Votes for Deletion, those were the days...) The Land (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a hoax and Richard Osinga would make sense as a Wikipedia hoaxer because he ran an early wiki called World66[4]. I did find a 1971 French book, Deux commentaires karaïtes sur l'Ecclésiaste, which says "al-iqrār bil-qibla al-qudsiyya; l'expression est prégnante, car elle réfère à la fois à la situation biblique (et eschatologique) de la concentration du culte sacrificiel et un seul lieu et la situation exilique dans laquelle la priere et oriente vers Jerusalem" or "al-iqrār bil-qibla al-qudsiyya; the expression is significant, because it refers to both the biblical (and eschatological) situation of the concentration of sacrificial worship and a single place and the exile situation in which it is prayed and directed towards Jerusalem." (Google translation). So the phrase does refer to praying towards Jerusalem in Arabic. Fences&Windows 21:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say: Delete. Fences&Windows 07:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure if this is a hoax or just a highly garbled misreading of the well documented change in the qiblah in early Islam or the relations between Jews and Muslims. This is the first AfD article I’ve seen which is ‘not even wrong.’ There’s just nothing to save here. Mccapra (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is either a hoax or incompetent editing remaining frpm the very early days of the encyclopedia. It fails verifiability and is of no use to readers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 1 February 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 22:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Lagergren[edit]

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

Based on the author's username, this is likely autobiographical. But the main issue is that there do not appear to be adequate secondary sources to support notability. The best I can find are articles about some of the art he has exhibited (https://alltomstockholm.se/pagang/lagergrens-pappersdjur-galleri/), but these aren't really about him. This one has a tiny bit about him: mainly just his method for the art piece. (https://mitti.se/nyheter/soder-skeppsvrak-liljevalchs/) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not fluent in Swedish, but we'd have to check if he "is regarded as an important figure", "is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and that work has: "(a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Certainly his GNG notability claim appears quite weak. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Draft:Nils Lagergren, the disposition of which should depend on the disposition of this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - There is no indication that the subject satisfies any of the notability criteria for creative professions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 1 February 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) 10:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technocracy: Void Engineers[edit]

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

Article on a game is currently sourced to one questionably RS reference. A BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find additional references. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG as it only has one source and I cannot find any others. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at most redirect to List of Mage: The Ascension books. Fram (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the review has already been merged into List of Mage: The Ascension books, that seems like a reasonable way to go here. BOZ (talk) 22:00, 5 February 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. Even discounting BOZ as usual, there ian't a clear enough consensus to delete. Sandstein 22:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Court the King[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG ~~and WP:NGAMES~~ with no third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: There is a Games Magazine article in the references, which I can't verify but will assume to be substantial. There is also this review [5], but the site is heavy on Amazon affiliate links, the review consists mostly of a description of gameplay, and the site has only reviewed about 10 games total with no negative reviews. WP:NGAMES is an essay pertaining to video game notability, so I'm applying WP:GNG. If anybody comes up with a second significant source, I'd easily change my vote. Merging to Rio Grande Games isn't appropriate since that article only lists notable games released by the company (I'm assuming they release so many that including them all is not reasonable). Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC) — WP:NGAMES category struck. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a review from an independent source, as well as a list of nominations the game received for a number of awards in 2006 and 2007. I believe this suggests notability.Guinness323 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guinness323 and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inadequate rationale from BOZ. The added review and award nominations are really a stretch. "Games of Tradition" is a WordPress blog formed in 2016 with less than 20 reviews that more resemble advertisements with their heavy usage of Amazon links and mainly positive commentary, plus a noteworthy gaming site would have its own distinctive design rather than lazily ripping off the Game of Thrones logo. BoardGameGeek is a site devoted to board games, as its name indicates, so some coverage of TCTK is expected, and being one of fifteen total games nominated (and not won) in each of its niche categories for a site-created award is not notable. Aside from the lone Games magazine review, there is no independent third-party coverage, which is the reason why its creator's article was deleted. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the award nominations and Games of Tradition review are not enough on their own, for reasons outlined by Beemer69. I'm still curious about the cited Games Magazine article, but even if it meets WP:SIGCOV, we still need multiple instances of significant coverage. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added an award nomination for the annual Österreichischer Spielepreis (Austrian Game Prize) in the "Spiele Hit mit Freunden" category (Game Hit with Friends). "Österreichischer Spielepreis" is a set of annual awards chosen by the independent Wiener Spiele Akademie (Vienna Games Museum). I question the argument that to be nominated for several different awards and not win must indicate non-notability. Thousands of games are produced every year; each of these awards nominates only 5–10 in each category. Merely to be nominated indicates a game that has made its mark on the industry.Guinness323 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but a combined search of the award name (in both English and German) and the game title produced nothing and there's no mention of these nominations outside of Board Game Geek, thus making them hard to verify. The prizes nor the museum mentioned above have Wikipedia articles, and there was virtually nothing to go with in the German wiki either. The GoT review is not an independent source. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there's nothing that suggests this title passes WP:GNG. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can find info about Österreichischer Spielepreis on the German Wikipedia at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osterreichischer_Spielepreis. Likewise Österreichisches Spiele Museum at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osterreichisches_Spiele_Museum. Although it doesn't help this article, there is a complete list of the 2019 winners at http://www.spielepreis.at/wordpress/ (all of the aforementioned are in German.) Guinness323 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like other editors, I was having trouble finding sources about this game because I assumed it was developed by Rio Grande Games and translated to German by Amigo Spiele. Then I stumbled upon the fact that it was the other way around: this game was developed by Amigo Spiele under a completely different title, Um Krone und Kragen (Around Crown and Collar), and it was Rio Grande that translated it to English and gave it a completely different title. From there I was able to discover a host of independent reviews and sources (Germany and Austria take games a lot more seriously than North America). I submit that this new information confirms this game's notability. Guinness323 (talk) 20:07, 29 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 22:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Siddiqui (German)[edit]

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

Related to single event 2010 European terror plot. Fails WP:1E1BIO. Störm (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the article. Other people edited it, but I am the only person who worked on what it actually said, its intellectual content. Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that is sort of bypassing the AfD discussion, isn't it? I guess people can look in the history, but now that the discussion is open the more proper thing to do is to wait for the discussion's outcome, is it not? At WP:EDITATAFD it says "You should not turn the article into a redirect." I'm not at all invested in this, but I might vote if I did not have to look through the history. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ThatMontrealIP that a redirect after AfD was out of process. I have reverted the redirect. I think once we are here at AfD the community will decide merge, redirect, delete, keep, etc. I have no opinion on the article at this time. Lightburst (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G7._Author_requests_deletion says:

If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move.[3] If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request.

I am the author of "the only substantial content of the page". As per CSD I would be authorized to call for its speedy deletion. By longstanding tradition G7 would supercede this AFD. I ask ThatMontrealIP and Lightburst if they honestly think that while a G7 would be honoured, I am not authorized to redirect to 2010_European_terror_plot? Nominator explicitly mentioned 2010_European_terror_plot in their brief deletion rationale. I suggest that redirection to 2010_European_terror_plot is what we should assume nominator implied should happen. If they actually thought there was a justification for deletion of the article's revision history their nomination should not have explicitly mentioned a redirection target, and should have offered a justification for deletion of the article's revision history.

WRT EDITATAFD -- not familiar with this section. May I point out what it says in its 4th point, about redirection:

"If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator)".

I did say I redirected it. Since mine was the first comment, it was both first and last comment. Geo Swan (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Geo Swan and the article should be redirected per WP:SNOW. Störm (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than two snowflakes to make snow. The article does not belong to you or to the main contributor. Please stop redirecting the article until the process completes. Two editors have questioned a redirect. ThatMontrealIP and myself. Now that we are here we need to let the community decide. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The EDITAFD quote above (If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page...) is actually talking about page move, not redirects.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: I read number 3 in EDITAFD You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community. Perhaps I misunderstood the redirect prohibition, however IMO it is always better to get consensus. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: yes, we're on the same page there. It's confusing as EDITAFD mentions two things not to do: redirect pages (the part you quoted) and move pages (the thing GeoSwan quoted). It's all good now though as we were able to have the discussion and this is headed for delete.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME criteria. Lightburst (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Keep for now passes WP:GEOSCOPE Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOSCOPE is a section of WP:Notability (events), not WP:BIO. The subject, Ahmed Siddiqui, is covered exclusively in relation to a single event. WP:BLP1E applies here. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, what does "for now" mean? The US claims that there was a 2010_European_terror_plot wasn't that ten years ago? After the US wrung these confessions from him, in a torture prison, they repatriated him to Germany, where German security and law enforcement officials debriefed him.
What has happened since? Nothing. There were no reports German prosecutors ever charged him with anything. There were no reports he ever tried to sue any US officials. There are no reports he tried to go fight in Syria, or that Germany prevented him from going to Syria. There are no reports he ever tried to commit a crime, after his repatriation. There are no reports he tried to write a book, or an op-ed.
So, seriously, if there have been no new events, in almost ten years, what does "for now" mean? Whatever his notability is now, that's it. His notability is very unlikely to change. Speculation on unlikely events that might change his status lapses from WP:CRYSTAL. Geo Swan (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per my use of WP:GEOSCOPE - the event is: the arrest for the plot to plant bombs in European cities which received international coverage. Additionally see WP:NTEMP notability is not temporary and does not require lasting coverage. Keep for now means I was tired of the rush to delete and or redirect before consensus. The right result will happen after a few more editors come along. See below ...one of them agrees with you. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP1E isn't the only problem. WP:BLPCRIME also applies. This is a biography about a terror suspect's arrest and reported confession. There's barely enough to sustain an event article about the alleged terror plot when essential facts can't be verified in a visible fashion. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough here. He plotted, he confessed... and now? There is inadequate coverage to assess notability, which means GNG fail. BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME also apply, as Gene93k points out.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:CRIME. Much of the sourvces online are Rightwing blogs and similar junk. It's impossible to search online because of how common this name is; in addition to the American kid with an article, there are (possibly notable) banker/lawyer, a founder of Teach the World, and an IT guy with similar names. It's not my job to fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant on his own. werldwayd (talk) 07:40, 4 February 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) 08:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gianfranco Facchineri[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as the player has not yet played in any Tier 1 International Match, in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or the Olympic Games or in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues. Just being signed to an MLS side does not qualify for notability. Feel free to userfy the article to my space if the nomination is upheld. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the deletion of this article. The article fits WP:GNG, has multiple secondary sources reporting on it, and is almost assured to make his professional debut in the Canadian Championship this coming season. I think designating the article as a stub would be appropriate. I can't see the deletion of the article being helpful/a necessary action whatsoever. Kcnaleac
- How does it meet GNG? Two of the references in the article are clearly associated with the subject and my WP:BEFORE turns up only passing mentions or WP:ROUTINE coverage with https://nationalpost.com/sports/soccer/windsors-facchineri-signs-contract-with-mls-vancouver-whitecaps/wcm/b14d1ef6-9dc4-4479-b3c8-94a176b2f839 being the one exception. He will likely be notable some day, but as for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough indepdent sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two of the three footnotes here are to his own team's self-published website about itself, which is a directly affiliated primary source, not a secondary source — and the only footnote that is a secondary source is a piece of "local kid does stuff" human interest coverage in his own hometown newspaper, which is not in and of itself enough to hand him a free pass over GNG in the absence of any other media coverage. And we also don't keep articles just because the subject might go on to clear our notability bars in the future, because literally everybody on earth could always claim that we have the possibility of clearing a notability standard someday — so the notability test is not based on predictions about what might happen in the future, but on what's already true today. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has accomplished something that clears NFOOTY, but nothing here is already enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm torn. He's not expected to debut until July, despite being on the worst MLS team in the Canadian Championship User:Kcnaleac? On the other hand, there's two half-decent sources above or in the article – one in a national paper. one two. Nfitz (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found a third in-depth detailed source - two minute feature about a month ago on CTV three. I added to the article, along with some routine references That meets GNG. @GiantSnowman: Nfitz (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ROUTINE, local sports coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing routine about a feature like that. One of the three sources is national. I'm not even sure how local is an argument. Nfitz (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The coverage at windsor.ctvnews is the local coverage. Both are routine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (2nd choice) or, as an alternative to deletion, Draftify (1st choice) as none of the above sources meet our definition of in-depth and at length coverage about the subject. Having said that, this video interview may qualify. As well, this article in the The Standard Freeholder might, which is why I would prefer to see this draftified and let it go through AfC where the AfC team can assess the sources and move back to the Main: namespace. Doug Mehus T·C 02:55, 6 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Kapoor[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 per WP:GNG. He does have a list of films to his credit but does not play a major or significant role in them so per WP:NACTOR subject does not seem to qualify also. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The actor was in all 94 episodes of Mahabharat (1988 TV series) as a main character, all 111 episodes of Kanoon as a main character, and all 300 episodes of Ramayan (2008 TV series) as a main character. Therefore, I think he passes WP:NACTOR, but my only concern would be in regard to sourcing. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR although the article needs improvement.IphisOfCrete (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement but that is certainly a WP:NACTOR. There should be innumerable coverage of him over a sustained period of time. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR Expertwikiguy (talk) 16:53, 5 February 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 (non-admin closure) Mattg82 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PckaBD[edit]

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

Article seems to exist solely to promote an online retailing company in Bangladesh. No independent, reliable sources are provided to establish notability, and the only references given are pages from the retailer's website. The article also contradicts itself on whether this company exists already or is a future company yet to be created (see the founded date in the infobox).Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ...article doesn’t seem to exist? Shelbystripes (talk) 22:19, 29 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. "Completely unsourced" decides the matter; WP:V compliance is mandatory. At the least after seven days of AfD. Sandstein 22:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhiupr HS School[edit]

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

Non-notable secondary school, no independent coverage found. b uidhe 17:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 17:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 17:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:BITE. This article is two days old! It is a stub! It is a stub- allow it to draw breath. A due diligence search needs to have be done- we are all fammiliar with the caveat: Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. Return to the question when this as been done- in the meantime the editor working in this area needs a lot of support. ClemRutter (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My intention isn't to bite new users. As a new page patroller I'm expected to nominate non notable subjects for deletion. The age of the article doesn't change the notability or lack thereof. If you think it's notable, please show me the sources. b uidhe 20:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete - the article is completely unsourced, creator should have time to work on the article, however significant coverage in reliable, independent sources for this school may be a problem. I'm finding mostly directory listings. Also stubs are to be avoided per the school article guidelines. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage on internet. Fails WP:SIGCOV. GargAvinash (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we keep this it will need a page move as there’s a typo in the title. Mccapra (talk) 06:52, 5 February 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 22:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside Music Bridge International Music Festival[edit]

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

Promotional article never sourced since its 2012 creation, untouched for the past two years, and major contributions were by single-purpose accounts associated with the event. No viable third-party coverage, just mentions on event listings and niche classical-music sites, while this event is barely mentioned — or not at all — in the articles of its supposedly notable alumni. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is written much more like an advertorialized public relations profile than like a proper encyclopedia article — but Wikipedia is not a free public relations venue for organizations to place their own self-published promotional materials, and the article is completely unreferenced for the purposes of establishing the topic's notability per WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable for the subject it is covering. A cross between WP:EVENT and WP:ORG. The "Fesitval" isn't even mentioned and the article seems to be an advertisement/directory for faculty and services. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:13, 29 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) 21:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current Shortland Street characters[edit]

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

This article is surplus to requirements as current characters of the show are already highlighted in List of Shortland Street characters. As well, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to keep a running tab of which characters are in the show in this current period of time. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As the main character list for the series contains all of the information listed here already, this is a needless WP:SPLIT. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need for more than one character list here. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary split. TTN (talk) 12:21, 4 February 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. "Entire article unsourced" in the nomination decides the matter; WP:V compliance is mandatory. Sandstein 22:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters of Home and Away[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT. Recurring characters are of low importance in any television soap, particularly as a majority are non notable, their screen dates are questionable (entire article unsourced) and there is an article already List of Home and Away characters where some may already appear. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Recurring characters are of low importance in any television soap – That is simply not true. Just because a character is introduced in a recurring capacity does not necessary make them less notable. A lot of recurring characters are brought in for notable story arcs, they help facilitate the main cast's own storylines, and are often brought back if they prove popular with viewers. No recurring characters should appear on List of Home and Away characters, as that list was meant for past regular characters. I don't think the dates are questionable either. It hasn't been kept up with, but each character should be linked to their respective article or yearly cast list, which provides date info. Even if it's with an episode cite, each entry can be sourced though. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The series at present has some thirty character lists. There is a cutoff point where a general encyclopedia just cannot go any further down the infinite spiral of fiction. The point for this series is likely a lot higher, but this is a good starting point. TTN (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list of characters that doesn't really tell anything about them. JIP | Talk 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Recurring characters are very important to most, if not all, serialized programs. Merging with past characters list would make the page unnecessarily long. Msjraz64 (talk) 20:01, 5 February 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. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HedgeTrade[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crap sourcing in article. No evidence in article or searches to suggest there is any chance of GNG notability or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A blockchain start-up. The AppDeveloper source begins "HedgeTrade is happy to announce the launch of the HedgeTrade Invitation-Only Beta" just over a month ago, a wording attributed elsewhere to the company via PRNewswire, so primary. Searches are finding price listings, etc., but not evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. Tagged with CSD A7 ie Non notable company --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:05, 31 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) 21:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cratology[edit]

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

This term is quite idiosyncratic. The website Cratology – the art and science of social power seems to be the only place it is used, and this seems to be written by Jeffrey Pfeffer. The term may have had some use in Russian, but this isn't made clear. The cited article by Merquior - Foucault's 'cratology': his theory of power doesn't really explore the term. I think it's a bit like ergatocracy, a term that Cedar and Eden Paul attempted to introduce in the 1920's and that it doesn't warrant a page. Perhaps they both deserve a section in a more general page. Leutha (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 15:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stub for a neologism that shows no significant improvement since 2004. Only one source that does nto actually discuss or even define the term. The study of social power is not a new academic field, as the stub article claims; it is political science and sociology. No chance of passing GNG and no likelihood of WP:ATD being useful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be a WP:NEOLOGISM that did not attain widespread use, and thus does not have the sources sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. We're not here to publicize a "new science". Bearian (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've nothing to add beyond what others have already said. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:18, 3 February 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notemaker[edit]

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

Fails general notability and reliable sources lacking For a Good Time (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator is a LTA, already CU blocked. Masum Reza^📞 17:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since we cannot act on activity from blocked accounts, this nomination should be closed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Modernponderer (talk) 15:32, 4 February 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 Control line. Sandstein 22:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captive plane[edit]

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

i can't find any indication that this is a notable concept. Not so much as any definition or such. Similar to Captive helicopter but that might have some sources; in general it makes sense that a copter can be tethered, but a plane? C'mon. Anyway, WP:BEFORE failed to find any sources, a few mentions of the term in passing, but not enough to even confirm the term is used in such a context (some context clearly refer to hostage situations., etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The idea of a captive plane makes sense and is in use in multiple areas; sailplanes are tethered to gain altitiude, scale test aircraft are tethered in wind tunnels, some airborne wind energy systems are tethered aircraft, etc. But given the article history, I think the sense intended was that of control lines for a model aircaft. I think a redirect to control line could be reasonable. But there is only modest coverage out for calling such model aircraft "captive". It is a historical term that, with kidnapping associations, has fallen out of favor. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a phrase anyone uses. The practice is mentioned at the end of the intro of Towing. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Create a section in Towing and redirect there.~~ ~~There should be something about it in that article.~~ I've added small sections for aircraft and ships in Towing. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round to allow others to contribute. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Control line. It is clear from context that this is referring to model planes and similar and there is noting her worth merging. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Eggishorn. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 30 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 22:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter van Wees[edit]

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

Sorry, but some things are definetly impossible in my opinion. So to have since 14 (!!!!) years in this project an article that stated, he wanted to go to the 2006 Olympic Games. I know the information, but the author of this non-article seems never again to care. And obviously nobody else. So nobody here needs the article in this Wikipedia. Van Wees would be worth an article, he was an interesting athlete. But my english is not good enough to write whole articles here. I don't see a person who would do it. But it is for me impossible, to have this sub-stub here for then a 15th year. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He didn't qualify for the olympics and the competition he was in does not give notability to all who were just in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Van Wees would be notable, but it's not written in the article. Dutch national champion (2001, 2003, 2008, 2009, 2011), participant at World championships (2001-2004, 2007-2009), European Championships (2003-2005, 2008, 2010) and at the World cup for years, where he earned useually points. And he participated 2006 at the Olympic Games, but not as athlete, but as coach of lebanese Patrick Antaki. And in 2002 he was the fist push start World champion in Skeleton. The thing is not his natability. The thing is, that nothig he ever achived is written in this "article". Van Wees would deserve a article or a red link, tha actual is just an insult for this sportsman. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:NOLY, if he had competed in an Olympic game, he would be considered notable. Generally, athletes are not notable for participating in championships, and it does not appear that he has won any (https://www.ibsf.org/en/athletes/athlete/128524/Van%20Wees?page_number=4).Rachoote —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed to above observations. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:01, 5 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humanx Commonwealth characters[edit]

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

Fictional characters. Fancruft, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. No indications of any reliable secondary sources treating these characters. A search reveals none. Any sourceable information that is not only plot summary should be at the series article, Humanx Commonwealth, itself probably a borderline case. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth races. Sandstein 16:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Mentioning an unrelated AFD is pointless. All notable fictional series have character lists. AFDs of years past were to merge all the contents from most of the related character articles into this one. This is a notable book series. Just like List of Dune characters, List of Xanth characters, or any of the many others at Lists of characters in a fictional work. Dream Focus 17:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even ignoring the conversation about character lists, this is bare bones and the main article is bare bones. There's no need for this to exist separately. The current list is pretty bad looking, so TNT over redirecting seems like the best until someone can give the care the series needs. TTN (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Humanx Commonwealth or delete. Humanx Commonwealth is a big INUNIVERSE mess, but might be salvagable if it was refocused to be about the series rather than the fictional entity. Until that entity demonstrates its own notability (I am not fully sure), there is no reason for even more in-universe subarticles. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like folks are all over the board here. A few more thoughts would be great. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly in-universe plot details, none of which is worth porting over to the main article, which itself is in need of an overhaul per sgeureka. (Also, organizations are not characters.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly fails WP:LISTN, as it contains not a single reference, never mind a reliable secondary one that discusses the characters as a group. The article also fails WP:PLOT, as it contains entirely in-universe information, which also means there is nothing to merge. As none of the listed characters have articles, it serves no navigational purpose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:14, 5 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hennessey (ring announcer)[edit]

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

GNG fail. Cannot find any significant coverage, only passing mentions as a ring announcer in boxing articles. ².O.^Boxing 22:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough for a bio of this announcer. Maybe some day. We can move it to draft? As it is it does not even add up to WP:BARE and my research did not uncover any non-trivial RS. Wm335td (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very, very few ring announcers have achieved any fame/media notice (I'm looking at you, Michael Buffer). Hennessey isn't ~~one of them~~ ready to ruuuuummmmmmbbbbblllleeee. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear notable. Google search results in social media recommendations for various Daniel Hennesseys and this wiki article. Rachoote (not sure how to do the timestamp) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four tildes ("~~~~") = one signature/timestamp - see WP:SIGNATURE. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable individual given there's no SIGCOV about him exclusively. PK650 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 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 22:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands Higher Education Association[edit]

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

After searching for sources for this I feel this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Even the university websites that come up in the search do not mention anything in depth about it. Mattg82 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails to pass GNG. Missvain (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:12, 29 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. Only Masem makes a reasonable argument for why the article should be kept; the other two "keep"s don't address the reason for the nomination at all. Sandstein 22:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portals in fiction[edit]

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

Heavily WP:SYNTH article that just reads like a poor man's version of Wormholes in fiction. There is really nothing distinguishing the two, as a wormhole is essentially a portal by another name. It's just an example farm with little original insight. There's also the fact that "portal" can mean "gate" or "door" as well, making the title ambiguous. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree there is a large overlap between this and Wormholes in fiction, and there is no clear need to have both. However, there are 9 interwiki links for the Portal article, and none for Wormholes, making me question which one is the more general article. Maybe the ambiguity of the word "Portal" is less limiting for fiction (good!) than the scientific "Wormhole" concept. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wormhole" is, at least, more clear that it specifies a bridge between two places in spacetime. "Portal" has alternate meanings that make it hard to pin down. Is it about web portals in fiction? Doorways in fiction? Drawbridges in fiction?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of examples no more meaningful than Castles in fiction or Mountains in fiction. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with refocusing? We have a decent article on a similar idea, List of films featuring time loops, which is a rather focused list. I think if one generates some specificity as to distinguish the nature of the portal (possibly spinning of those that specifically talk about hyperspace transit between portals, or portals connecting to alternate universes), this could be a possible list. And as a note, a quick search found two academic works related to portals in fiction, "Windows, Doorways and Portals in Narrative Fiction and Media" and "Portals of Power: Magical Agency and Transformation in Literary Fantasy". So there is justification to discuss the use of portals in fiction and thus have a list, but to be consistent with the time loop list, every entry must have a quality third-party source to state "portals are a major part of this work" or something like that. This should eliminate single episodes of a TV show that just happened to have a portal (like the ST:TNG episode listed) There's something here to keep but I'm not 100% on what that shape is. --Masem (t) 07:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And given the coverage in the wormhole article noted, perhaps it would be clearer if we can find RSes that discuss the differences between wormholes and portals or other similar narrative concepts. --Masem (t) 07:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs improvement, but a notable topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve the delineation between portals and wormholes (the former of which apparently requires no explanation of a mechanism, as opposed to the latter). BD2412 T 04:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of examples, just like Clarityfiend said. Plus some OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not a fan of these "X in fiction" articles. They simply attract a hodgepodge of unfocused junk. They need to be written from the perspective of detailing the actual history of the use of the topic with sources that can reliably connect the various usages without being OR. It's hard to say if that's possible for this particular topic. TTN (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The issue is, there are no sources being used that actually talk about the concept of "Portals in Fiction". The few sources that are being used, none of which appear to be from reliable and/or secondary sources I might add, are each only talking about a specific example. Combining these sources on multiple different individual topics, and then using them to create an overall article on "Portals in Fiction" without a single reliable source talking about the concept as a group just reeks of WP:SYNTH. And that's not even going into the fact that most of the article is completely unsourced, and in some cases, appears to be WP:OR. Could a decent article on a similar topic based on the sources Masem found be created? Probably. Should this particular article, that contains no actual useful or sourced information that would be included or preserved in such an article, be kept around in the meantime? Probably not. Rorshacma (talk) 16:33, 29 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 22:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nusrit Shaheen[edit]

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

I'll be nominating this article for deletion. As above, a speedy deletion is not warranted, but the subject of the article is currently notable only for being the longest survivor of her condition, and as a result she is already mentioned on the page for that condition. I don't think a standalone article is justified; nor do I think it can be improved. --86.53.18.62 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 15:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom who appears to be invoking WP:SINGLEEVENT. Ifnord (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete surviving a long time with a disease is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to reiterate, I think she is a notable individual. Just not enough for a standalone article. 86.53.18.62 (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. While I admire anyone with her kind of spirit, we are not a directory nor a web-host for every such person. Perhaps the OP/nominator intended a redirect as a solution? Bearian (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think a conversion to redirect would be appropriate. 86.53.18.62 (talk) 12:41, 5 February 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 Man (Middle-earth)#Northmen. Consensus is for redirection. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northmen (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

Minor fictional group of men from The Lord of the Rings and related works. No secondary sources or evidence of notability; has been tagged "in-universe" for 9 years. Topic can likely be covered in sufficient detail at Man (Middle-earth). BenKuykendall (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Man (Middle-earth)#Northmen. No independent notability for this group, and this content isn't sourced well enough to merge. Hog Farm (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Man (Middle-earth)#Northmen. Goustien (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Man (Middle-earth)#Northmen. There are no sources to indicate this needs to be a necessary WP:SPLIT from the main article, and there is nothing here that needs to be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Man (Middle-earth) § Northmen According to JSTOR, Mythlore has ignored them. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 30 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 History of Arda#First Age. Content remains in the history and anything sourced can be merged at editors' discretion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Age[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional age. Yes, the First Age of Middle-earth is mentioned in several scholarly articles, but the references seem to just be saying that something occurred in the First Age, not discussing the First Age as a unit of time. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to somewhere suitable. Even if there is analysis on it, it should be explored in a parent topic before being split out at a later date should size issues be a concern. TTN (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Potential redirect target History of Arda § First Age. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided on deletion. Like, we have an article on 1523 despite the lack of sources "discussing 1523 as a unit of time". It seems like there is a basic need to summarize and organize content based on natural divisions like time. How does this reconcile with the GNG? And to what extent does this extend to fictional elements? I don't know. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @BenKuykendall: Also, the Second Age and Third Age articles seem to have been redirected. I don't see why the First Age should have an article, while the Second and Third don't. Hog Farm (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Arda § First Age per BenKuykendall. Likewise, redirect Fourth Age to History of Arda § Fourth Age. Goustien (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Arda § First Age and merge any sources that would help verification of target content. This seems like a reasonable approach, as the target has an adequate summary given the modest amount of source content. In response to BenKuykendall's question, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years has a little guidance. Articles on historical years will have many links to them, but fictional Arda years, no I cannot see that. I think notability of articles like this rest on WP:GNG. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 02:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Arda § First Age While historical time periods may be notable, the vast majority of fictional time periods are not. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:38, 30 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 List of Werewolf: The Apocalypse books. Sandstein 13:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Lords Tribebook[edit]

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

Lacks notability. The Prod for this article was removed when a second source was added, but this source, "Le Grog", looks to me like a semi-wiki (anyone can become a contributor, but needs approval, not just direct editing like a true wiki), and is a completist website, not a reliable, distinctive source. This looks to me comparable to, say, IMDb (or Discogs or Boardgamegeek or Findagrave), which is a very interesting and useful website, but where inclusion gives no notability at all, as it is a site aiming to be complete, not a site discussing only the important, impactful, exceptional, ... elements.

There are no GBook hits of any essence about this book, only mentions in lists of all books, and there are only 65 Google hits in total, which is not a lot for such geeky stuff which is normally well represented online.[6] Fram (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per available sources, or merge to List of Werewolf: The Apocalypse books per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above vote. Appears to fail WP:GNG for now Catorce2016 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. The subject appears to be a WP:V pass based on the referencing, but only one of the available references appears to be an WP:RS so WP:GNG not passed. WP:PRESERVE points us to merging this to an appropriate target. FOARP (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there are certainly other print sources besides Arcane, but per the goal of building an encyclopaedia the best practice is to consolidate the treatment of such books - which themselves were never intended to stand alone - into more substantial articles. On the other hand, per WP:PRESERVE AND WP:BEFORE C.4, there are no grounds for deletion as the article contains sourced information and a valid Merge target exists. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient RS to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV; insufficient RS to allowing sourcing in a merge Chetsford (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There need only be one source meeting WP:V. Per policy, that is. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 4 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Home and Away characters[edit]

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

This article is surplus to requirements as current characters of the show are already highlighted in List of Home and Away characters. As well, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to keep a running tab of which characters are in the show in this current period of time Ajf773 (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have been BOLD and merged the page into the main character page. Seems the obvious solution, I am not sure why an AfD is necessary. Bookscale (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another editor has just undone your redirect. I don't agree that the merge is the obvious solution and you should wait until the outcome of the AfD before making such executive decisions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you just make a suggestion on the talk page? Why spend time going through a AfD? Bookscale (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - standard Wikipedia list and sourced. Just because a television series is not considered high brow does not mean it has no place. Home and Away is broadcast worldwide and with millions of viewers it is notable on this encyclopedia. Perhaps proposing an AFD for the recurring characters list was correct. You could have a list of present and past characters. No issues then. You may not think it is useful but a check on here [7] shows the page was used 598,290 times in 12 months.Rain the 1 18:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current characters are highlighted blue in the List of Home and Away characters article. This article is essentially a content fork. Recurring characters and upcoming characters (if notable) should also be listed in there. Also as mentioned earlier it's not the job of Wikipedia to be the purpose of a TV Guide. Ajf773 (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:LISTN. – DarkGlow (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HOW does it meet LISTN? Ajf773 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list exists in its current form because of this 2010 discussion [8]. It used to look like this [9]. It should have been at List of Home and Away characters anyway (matching similar cast lists), with List of past Home and Away characters remaining or recreated, but another editor opposed that idea and recently decided to highlight current characters in blue. The characters shouldn't be on that list, but that's probably a discussion for elsewhere. It won't be hard to source all the entries, but merging it with List of Home and Away characters might be confusing for casual readers and it will likely be very large, as List of current Home and Away characters also deals with characters that are returning, debuting and leaving. So, in one article that would include all the current characters, past characters (maybe even recurring characters, as that list is up for deletion) and the cast changes. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No other soap opera that I could find has separate lists of past, current, recurring or upcoming characters (the Shortland Street one which is also up for AfD is an exception). It is far more confusing for readers having characters scattered across many different lists. Most List of characters lists are either listed by year introduced (which Home and Away already has for each year since 1988), and few others have a general list of characters since the show first aired. There is nothing wrong with sticking to those formats. And if the list is too long, start using a proper inclusion criteria, culling all characters without articles would be a good start. Ajf773 (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why nominate the Shortland Street character list and call it an exception? I understand you do not like these lists. To quote that essay: "Wikipedia's editing community comprises a broad spectrum of people from around the world, and what is uninteresting and dislikable to some is of vital interest to others." You may not find this list useful but others clearly do looking at page hits.Rain the 1 21:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I nominated this list because it's a content fork. Policy takes precedence over popularity. Ajf773 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ajf773 is correct to ask how this meets WP:LISTN. There is no evidence that this list does at all independently of the existing list of Home and Away characters which includes all the characters (meaning there is nothing to merge) and already indicates which characters are current characters - there is no-one out there publishing lists of current Home and Away characters (as opposed to characters that have ever existed). Moreover this is an obvious WP:FORK of the existing list that has been created simply because of a disagreement over how to manage the list between editors (i.e., a WP:POVFORK). Reading through the 2010 discussion, I cannot see a consensus for the present set-up, and anyway, consensus can change. As such this is a notability fail and also pointless duplication.

@Bookscale - since it seems that AFD is the way this is going, do you want to make your comment an official delete vote? FOARP (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: - no, I'll stay out of this as I'm not quite sure where it is going. Bookscale (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment: I am not going to be making a technical comment or policy analysis. I would simply like to say that I have found this article a very useful resource for a decent 10 years now. I must have visited it hundreds of times. I would find it a real shame if it was deleted. TurboGUY (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a good argument for retention, besides, all the information can be found here List of Home and Away characters. Ajf773 (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a comment, not an argument. I have amended my entry. TurboGUY (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all of the information can be found at List of Home and Away characters. That article has no cast changes section for a start. Per my comments above, List of Home and Away characters was supposed to list all current characters and cast changes, with a separate past characters list (that didn't include any current characters). I think instead of outright deletion, List of current Home and Away characters needs to be moved to the correct name and List of past Home and Away characters recreated (and sourced as necessary, which I'm willing to do). So, I guess I'm proposing some sort of move and merge instead. It would be in keeping with other soap opera lists, so H&A would no longer be the odd one out. - JuneGloom07 Talk 19:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that moving/merging is a great idea and I always wanted less lists. The last time this discussion happened in 2010 there were around six lists and more problems. This makes more sense now. The format of this particular list works well and the outcome would be better if you are willing to actually source every character. Full sourcing has not been done on either of the lists before.Rain the 1 23:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either:
1. Keep but rename to List of Home and Away characters, while moving the page currently at List of Home and Away characters to List of past Home and Away characters and restructuring it to a list of only past characters. This is the format used by other soap operas on Wikipedia.
2. Merge with List of Home and Away characters by having a "current characters" section at the top and an a-z full list below. Readers are most likely to be looking for information about the currently airing episodes as they are the ones currently airing and it's common sense really, and it's not like the older episodes are repeated or released on DVD, so maintaining a current list I believe is a very good idea. — 🌼📽️Anemone Projectors💬 23:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is and always has been a waste of space on Wikipedia. Should have been deleted ages ago. 2A02:C7F:1052:5A00:5052:11D4:239:8765 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — 2A02:C7F:1052:5A00:5052:11D4:239:8765 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - With the moves proposed by JuneGloom07. Msjraz64 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 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 13:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Agarwal (Politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The only two sources used in this article are Facebook and Youtube. GPL93 (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Should be speedy delete. Fails WP:GNG & WP:POLITICIAN. Agarwal is a very non-notable politician. I mean the sources aren't reliable, as they are from Facebook and YouTube. Also, the article reads like an advertisement. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL and GNG. Speedy might be a bit much though. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to reliable sources and does not meet inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article photo was uploaded by Priyadarshini4995, the WP:SPA author of this article, but notated as "own work" authored by Sanjay Agarwal, so some form of undisclosed WP:COI appears likely. The subject's name is not the easiest search term: an article in The Hindu suggests this is the most common name for company CEOs. I am finding a brief Indian Express item which may concern this person, but not evidence of WP:NPOL / WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is an automatic notability freebie that guarantees him an article just because he exists — but the only "sources" shown here at all are his own social networking profile and user-generated video clips of him speaking, which are not notability-making references. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:26, 4 February 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 Sunni Students' Federation. As a compromise between merge and delete. What if anything to merge from history is up to editors. Sandstein 13:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka State Sunni Students' Federation[edit]

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

Non-notable minor committee, there are no in-depth references to the organization,Fails WP:GNG WP:NORG Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 08:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 08:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 08:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 08:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Accesscrawl (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a un-notable local committee and failed to prove WP:GNG of WP:ORG-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 08:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't vote on self-nominated discussion. Authordom (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge.Internal State-wise committee articles have no stand-alone notability. Should be merged into the main article of Sunni Students' Federation.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Karnataka state committee of the Sunni Students' Federation is a one of notable organisation in the state. See the national and local sources: 1, 2, 3. Authordom (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Subject has some coverage on internet but not qualify for seperate article. Propsing to merge with Sunni Students' Federation. GargAvinash (talk) 05:16, 4 February 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 13:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Cain[edit]

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

No evidence this fictional character is notable. Pure WP:PLOT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Currently fails to establish notability with non-primary sources. TTN (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters, no evidence that the character itself is independently notable from the series.IphisOfCrete (talk) 02:32, 4 February 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 Outer Plane. As a compromise between merge and delete. What if anything to merge from history is up to editors. Sandstein 13:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gehenna (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. It has all primary sourcing. I can't really tell why the redirect was removed after another editor redirected the page. It seems to be that there was a circular redirect happening? Not sure how in any way that's justification for a page. TTN (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Not sure how in any way that's justification for a page. Definitely not a justification for a page, but it is a justification for not deleting one, at least not until that bug has been addressed. This is an aside to your main arguments below. I don't care, personally, but as a neutral user, this was the sequence of events that led me to revert and object to automatic deletion: I followed a link from Outer Planes#Gehenna to Gehenna (Dungeons & Dragons) which was redirected back to Outer Planes. After finally making my way to the original Gehenna article, I realize there was too much information - some of it historical - to simply cut and paste it back into Outer Planes#Gehenna. I seem to have stepped into a content war? Unintentional, but I'll give my thoughts below. Rendall (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not a gameguide and everything in this article is a game guide. No notable material. I recommend there be no redirect. The title is too convoluted to be a likely search term on its own, and Gehenna should not be redirecting to D&D at all. A google search of "Gehenna D&D" has the first hit as the forgotten realms wiki, which is an appropriate wiki project for this information. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that everything in this article is a game guide. As a non D&D player, I would not be able to somehow understand how to "play" or otherwise use this fictional place in Dungeons & Dragons from reading the article. It doesn't read like a game guide to me. However, I do find the descriptions of its denizens and geography interesting, for what it's worth, and gives me enough context to be able to compare it to other fictional places, and to understand (enough, for my purposes) what it means in the Dungeons & Dragons universe. Furthermore, there is historical information in the article that is not interesting to me, personally, but is decidedly not "game guide". Rendall (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rendall, you raise a lot of issues in several places. I shall briefly try to answer them all here. (1) This is indeed a game guide. As you say, you are unfamiliar with D&D. The full D&D game guide constitutes multiple volumes of rules. This page would constitute information you would find in the guides. Unlike you I have played and still occasionally play D&D, so I am speaking from experience. Publication history is not straight out of the guide, this is true. But meh, it is publication history of the guide. (2) An online player's wiki is not a reliable source as it is user generated. See WP:RS. (3) GNG is WP:GNG - the general notability guidelines. For this page to remain it must contain notable content. What constitutes notable content? Read the GNG. If you cannot find how it meets GNG then it should go. (4) Regarding your keep argument: I agree that D&D is fun and lots and lots of people play it and know about it. D&D as an article is also clearly notable, as would be articles about Gary Gygax etc. However, the fact people enjoy the game does not make individual guides and plots of the game notable for an encylopaedia. That is why we have WP:GNG. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Non-notable fictional location, comprised mostly of in-universe plot information, only using primary sources. Searching for additional sources on the D&D version of the term came up with nothing in reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient WP:RS to demonstrate it passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "GNG" means. Could you please expand on 'insufficient reliable sources'? In what way are the sources are unreliable? Even if granting WP:RS as true, why isn't it sufficient to ask for improvements / more reliable sources? Edit: I withdraw the question! I've familiarized myself with these policies. Moving on! Rendall (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know what "GNG" means." Yes, that seems to be the case. Chetsford (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be snarky, fellow. I'm just trying to find my feet here. The Intro encourages people to participate, but that seems kind of mean. Seems rather against the spirit of what we're trying to do here, which is to make a good Wikipedia for everyone Rendall (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't mean for that to come across as brusque and, in retrospect, I realize that probably sounded unnecessarily harsh. However, notability is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia and it's critical individuals familiarize themselves with our notability policies before advancing from reader to editor. The WP:TWA is a good starting point. Chetsford (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understood! No worries. You are right that I needed to familiarize myself with it, which I have done, and I better see your points. I think you all have developed a shorthand that is a bit hard for newbies such as myself to break. That is not to say impossible though! Everyone, please keep up the good work! Rendall (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Outer Plane Rendall (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Outer Plane. BD2412 T 02:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is sourced entirely to primary sources, and therefore fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, minor gamecruft and FANDOM material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Outer Plane and redirect. In contrast to what's said in the deletion request, this article has one minor secondary source. At least that part, and maybe a bit more based on primary sources, should not be missing from Outer Plane, which in the Gehenna section simply refers here at this time. Daranios (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outer Plane and slightly merge to give it the same capsule treatment as all the other entries on that page, as this article is definitely a search term based on page views. I'd love to find a source for the historic influences section mentioning how it's based on the concept in Judaism, but haven't been able to yet. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:47, 2 February 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 13:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Ghaderi[edit]

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

Not notable. User:Omid ahmadyani is banned in fawiki for paid editing and abusing multiple accounts ([10]). most of his articles are deleted in other wikis and the account is globally locked. ARASH PT talk 11:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ARASH PT talk 11:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seems to follow WP:GNG. GargAvinash (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Rahnamaeian[edit]

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

Not notable. User:Omid ahmadyani is banned in fawiki for paid editing and abusing multiple accounts ([11]). most of his articles are deleted in other wikis and the account is globally locked. ARASH PT talk 11:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ARASH PT talk 11:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable body builder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 30 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. This AfD has mostly rested on whether there is indication of sufficient sources outside those immediately obvious to move from evidence of existence to evidence of notability. Post the community removal of SCHOOLOUTCOMES conventional notability rules are the prime factor. Amongst the Keep !votes there doesn't seem a clearly made case of specifically provided sources that meet the Sig Cov/Independent/Reliable requirements.

There are well grounded notes, freely conceded by the delete proponents, that sources are likely tricky to find and additional efforts should be made. At least some of those efforts have been made in GF, and haven't returned results despite three relists.

The delete !voters have legitimately stated that as they cannot prove a negative, and their BEFORE checks couldn't find suitable sourcing, a delete !vote was the correct choice. No indication of value judgements, rather than policy based deletes, appears to have been made.

Between the comparable weight of the policy-based arguments, as well as the absolute numerical position (factoring in that editors can only !vote once), a delete is appropriate.

While redirects were mentioned, there was never clear consensus for that. A post-delete redirect can be placed if desired. In the event that additional sources do turn up I specifically urge the editor who finds them to contact me. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pallibharati Tilabani High School[edit]

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

Non-notable secondary school with little or nothing in the way of independent coverage, unless I'm missing foreign language sources. b uidhe 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Or at the very least merge with Simlapal (community development block). The article has some structure and is about a remote rural Bengali language school in a development target area. Is it any wonder we cannot find detail in the English Press. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to make value judgements on political decision made in a language that we cannot read. ClemRutter (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion isn't a value judgement, it's a measure of coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Please list some reliable sources if you want to keep the article. Thanks. b uidhe 15:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great to have a little human contact. No I disagree. I have read GNG many times- and the word notable is in the sense of to be noted rather than exceptional. The onus is on the proposer to show that there really is nothing published - and we know there is through its inclusion in Bangladeshi governmment programs . If you are not operationally fluent in the home languages of the country in question that is difficult and judging that there are no reliable sources in print or online is a value judgement. Understanding the political decision on the medium of instruction and the priority given to providing foreign language translations is an important part of being non judgemental (NPOV). ClemRutter (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot support keep or merge because there is not a single source for the content in the article, but would not object to redirecting to Simlapal (community development block). I would be happy to change my opinion if sufficient RS can be found. Just saying that they might exist is not enough. Bangladeshi governmental sources dealing with the school (if they exist) are probably not independent and wouldn't demonstrate notability. b uidhe 10:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I started this, against all the good advice of Buidhe so I am obliged to do some further digging. From accessing their Facebook page (not a RS), I came across some more information: It is a government high school- and there are numerous photos of a two storey 19 bay flat roofed brutalist style building with a one storey block set at right angles. I am going to try asking for the photographs and RS references on that page from their alumni. A bit of an experiment! It may help us to better understand Education in Bengal and other high schools. I feel we are being a bit amateur at the moment.ClemRutter (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ClemRutter, "notability" on Wikipedia has a slightly different meaning than you seem to be thinking of. In the case of this school, there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy WP standards. A community-wide consultation process decided that schools are not presumed to be notable simply by existing. At this stage, we have only established that the school exists, not that it is notable. I hope this helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Eggishorn said, schools are required to demonstrate notability. This subject makes no claim to notability and I am unable to find any to support that. Ifnord (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The conditions for deletion as described in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) 23 Feb 2017 rev oldid=767023947#RfC_on_secondary_school_notability have not been fulfilled. I contributed to that debate, and because of the wide range of opinion from the knowledgable and the engaged there were a couple of important caveats. The one that is important here is:Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them.

There is no evidence that local print media has been examined- indeed no evidence that any online Begali or even Hindi search has been made. We have enough facts about the school to know it exists- but no evidence that it not notable. This is time consuming and reveals an area where we have little coverage but as English is widely understood there is a high chance we have readers. From looking at the photograph- we have an interesting possibly notable building. It is frustrating that we do not know the school code or admission number so we can't access the government held information or exam board records. I concede that there are so many ways this article could be improved. At the moment we lack the necessary information to even decide to do a delete.

It's further worth noting that a flood of AfDs following the addition of SO to the "arguments to avoid in AfDs" list is undesirable. Editors are asked to refrain from making indiscriminate or excessive nominations.

ClemRutter (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are sources available on the internet to verify this school's existence. I have added some citations. GargAvinash (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources added just show that the school exists, without anything like significant coverage. I don't think that I can prove a negative—that no such coverage exists. I still recommend deletion unless someone can show that such coverage exists. b uidhe 05:39, 4 February 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Hayes (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having only played professionally for minor league NFL Europe. Unable to find any significant coverage to pass GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ for now but there is some significant coverage available at NewsLibrary.com from Maine newspapers, including: (1) "Old Town's Hayes signs with Bengals Ex-UMaine star plays in World Bowl", Bangor Daily News, 6/16/04 (610 words); (2) "A star for the Galaxy, and beyond?, Former UMaine tight end Chad Hayes hopes his play in today's NFL Europe final leads him back to the NFL", Portland Press Herald, 6/12/04 (702 words); (3) "Hayes fighting to make Chiefs' roster Former UM, Old Town star adjusting to NFL", Bangor Daily News, 8/22/02 (567 words); (4) "NFL draft no dream for Hayes, The UMaine tight end is likely to become the first Maine native picked since 1970", Portland Press Herald 4/19/02 (688 words); (5) "UMaine's Hayes eager for draft day Tight end hopes to be picked by NFL", Bangor Daily News, 4/10/02 (815 words); (6) "Hayes gets national attention UMaine tight end scrutinized by scouts", Bangor Daily News, 1/30/02 (1,040 words); (7) "Hayes selected for all-star contest Rotary Gridiron Classic is Jan. 26", Bangor Daily News, 1/16/02 (1,220 words); (8) "Old Town native Hayes gives Black Bears versatile weapon at tight end", Bangor Daily News, 10/5/01 (760 words); (9) "HAYES BOUNDS INTO SIGHT, Easily overlooked as a UMaine freshman, Chad Hayes expects to be anything but as a senior", Portland Press Herald, 8/12/01 (907 words); and (10) "Old Town's Hayes eager to help Bears; Sophomore tight end projected as starter", Bangor Daily News, 8/16/99 (978 words). Not enough under WP:NCOLLATH, but he also received second-team All-America honors (Division I AA) from "The Sports Network" and Associated Press in 2001 (see here). Cbl62 (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per Cbl62 sources. The problem is that he played largely before the modern internet era but there do seem to be sources for him. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH, and the coverage is routine local coverage of a local sportsperson in a minor collegiate league. SportingFlyer T·C 01:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete A large amount of sources were found but they are mostly local. Fails WP:NCOLLATH. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CBl's sources to me show a pass of WP:GNG, and not just one or two but enough to put together an article. It has been argued that the coverage is mostly local, but the word "local" is no where to be found in WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources referenced above constitute significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. If the coverage were limited to a single smalltown paper, WP:GNG would not be satisfied, but the coverage here is unusually extensive and si found in both the Portland Press Herald and the Bangor Daily News. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, but I have to invoke WP:INDISCRIMINATE here. Hayes has been written about in his local hometown paper (he grew up in Old Town and played college ball in Orono, which are both ten miles down the road from Bangor) and by the Portland, Maine paper (which, looking through their archives, covers all college football in Maine). There's no coverage of him which isn't local coverage of a local player. The sources I can access all interview him heavily, which brings the question of whether these sources are sufficiently independent into play. And apart from being a second-team All-American in a non-top-tier college division, he really didn't accomplish much on the gridiron, never quite making the NFL like so many others. Keeping this would mean our standards for notable college football players are if you get written about in your hometown paper plus one other local paper, and I think that goes against the entire premise of the notability of WP:NSPORTS, as WP:GNG is really just a proxy for "is this person worthy of note?". However, it looks like he did play in NFL Europe, and if he was covered significantly there I might change my mind. SportingFlyer T·C 01:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- response to me the content seems to be very WP:DISCRIMINATE in nature. I don't see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE even applies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The essay at WP:DISCRIMINATE includes the following: 2. An indiscriminate collection of information is one gathered without care or making distinctions or in a thoughtless manner. 3. A discriminate collection of information is one gathered where care and/or distinctions about the information contained in the collection are made--in a thoughtful manner. What the hell did this guy do to actually become a notable football player, worthy of inclusion in our encyclopaedia, apart from getting writeups in the two papers which cover the lower-level team he plays for, one of which is his hometown paper and is likely to cover him regardless? I know I'm not going to convince anyone here, but I used to write feature stories on local amateur athletes for the local paper, and I'm absolutely convinced those stories don't convey lasting notability. We need to be much more discerning with players who fail both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH as opposed to just "there's enough coverage from his hometown paper" and I think this is a classic example. SportingFlyer T·C 02:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While there is nothing in WP:GNG saying local newspapers don't count in assessing notability, I, too, tend to discount the coverage somewhat if the coverage is limited to a small, hometown newspaper. Several things are different here and led to my "keep" vote: (1) the coverage extends to two different newspapers, (2) both are newspapers with statewide coverage, not simply small town newspapers, indeed they are the two largest circulation newspapers in Maine (see here), (3) each paper has run multiple stories on Hayes, (4) the All-America honors (albeit I-A) add some weight to the topic; and (5) the fact that he was signed by four separate NFL teams, and played in NFL Europe, adds further weight. Put those all together, and I tip to "keep". This is not just some low-level player with no meaningful accomplishments who simply had a one-off puff piece written about him in a small town newspaper. Cbl62 (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely appreciate your response. I understand your assessment and you're correct there's some grey involved. I just think on the balance I'm still at a "weak delete" on the basis the two newspapers that were supposed to cover him covered him, along with the fact he didn't play at the highest level of the collegiate game (though this article's likely to be kept.) If there were coverage of him from NFL Europe (I looked and couldn't find any) that might tip me over to a weak keep. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Significant coverage in 2 state-wide sources is a little more meaningful than simply coverage in 1 or 2 small town sources. He also received some relevant coverage I could find in Tennessee. Not great, but specific to him: [12] [13] [14] Rlendog (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple independent sources have covered the subject in detail and thus it passes WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO.--TM 02:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: How exactly does Hayes pass WP:ANYBIO? Receiving second-team I-AA All-America recognition is certainly not a well-known or significant award. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, my mistake. The article does pass WP:GNG though.--TM 18:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:ANYBIO. I don't think coverage in essentially two local papers is enough to meet the GNG. That's a really liberal interpretation of "multiple sources" and I can only how many hundreds of thousands of people around the world would meet it that are not generally considered notable by Wikipedia.Sandals1 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH and agree with Sandals1 that multiple articles in 2 papers is not enough to meet WP:GNG especially with the amount of coverage American football gets in the US, 2 sources seems like very little. Rachoote —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing in GNG that requires more stringent requirements for American football than for any other field.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - GNG asks for "significant coverage". Significance is relative. What constitutes as significant might vary from field to field, and more frequent reporting does not increase significance. For example, scientific discoveries do not get regular press coverage, whereas sports, such as American football do. Rachoote —Preceding undated comment added 04:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the exact same coverage presented here would be sufficient to pass GNG if the subject were a scientist but does not suffice here because the subject is a football player. That approach invites partisan fighting over which professions are more important and is not how GNG works. Cbl62 (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Cbl62 pointed out above, he got significant coverage in the two largest circulation newspapers in the state of Maine. For notability purposes, I'd argue that's probably similar to the type of coverage we would expect members of the Maine state legislature to receive, and those people are all auto-notable, per WP:NPOL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:31, 30 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. Disregarding Scope creep's view because they are now indef blocked for harassment. But consensus to delete is still not clear enough. Sandstein 13:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Feichtner[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Page is almost entirely based on Feichtner's own account including all the claimed "innovations in cryptanalysis , radio, radar, radio direction-finding (D/F) and communication intelligence" and so does not satisfy "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only other references are for specific technologies/events and not Feichther himself Mztourist (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Mentioned in several sources as Chief signals officer for Luftwaffe South, of which there is little on Wikipedia. By the end of the war, he was Chief Signals Officer with the rank of Colonel of Luftwaffe in the west. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't meet 2, 4 or 5 of WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although just below general officer rank, I think his role makes him easily notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments as above: no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and doesn't meet any of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meeting WP:SOLDIER generally equals notable, but not meeting WP:SOLDIER does not equal not notable. We have to judge each article on its merits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You haven't addressed the fact that its all WP:PRIMARY with no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A weirdly detailed article for a non-notable subject. The only significant-ish coverage in a secondary source I can find is this. He is not even mentioned in most of the secondary sources cited in the article. Also, he does not meet WP:SOLDIER. I suggest a redirect, but regardless the entire current article text needs to be scrapped per WP:PRIMARY policy: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources". b uidhe 09:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are also serious neutrality issues which derive from the overreliance on primary sources. E.g. "beautifully systematic practices" described in the "Increase in Partisan Activity mid 1944" which also has shades of selective empathy to it: How dare those tricky partisans steal our expensive equipment!! "Rumanian treachery" is not a neutral way to discuss Romania's decision to switch sides in 1944. b uidhe 10:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for deletion though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing enough references in independent sources to establish notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Hawkeye7 Please provide them. Mztourist (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, wow! hasn't anybody noticed the length of this article? at over 20,000 words it is more than double the max desired length of the usual article, if kept, some serious pruning (or breakout articles?) will be required. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nothing compared to the length of Luftnachrichten Abteilung 350. Mztourist (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

double wow!! we may need to call up a couple of dragons to clean these up. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm not sure what can or should be done about it and some other overlong obscure pages. Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the de WP does not have an article, and for German military figures (and bios in most other fields also) I give great respect to the practices of the deWP, which has high standards and a critical attitude. (Some of the other articles in this group of afds do have corresponding articles in deWQP, and there I'd follow their practices as well, and keep them I don't think it rational to pretend we can decide better. DGG ( talk ) 10:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a plan to create a German article in de Wikipedia in 2018, although I don't know what came of it. The military historian that was going to create the article, I think he decided to retire early and i've not heard much from him since. Looking at it rationally, this is a senior Luftwaffe colonel who ran Luftwaffe signals at the end of the war, before and after the invasion, and ran Luftwaffe South, a truly vast area. He is as notable as it gets. There is no other individual of this type on Wikipedia. Most of what the Americans, the British, Spanish, Dutch, most European countries, even Italy have done, is still kept under lock and key. Simply put the information is not available. The real clue into what these kind of systems were, how they worked and the people that used them, happened after second world war. There has been nothing since, nothing on the Vietnam war, nothing on the Gulf War. The only window that was opened into this clandestine world that revealed it in depth, was when Germany surrounded and the British and American had a chance to take a look and see how another nation state did it. And the only reason we know is it became public domain, 10's of millions of document. The sad thing is, you will not find a single document, anywhere discussing in depth how American or British signals, meaning intelligence ,worked in a military environment. Not even right back to Napoleonic age. That is why we need these types of articles. It really does worry me this continual push to reaffirm bias. scope_creep^Talk 14:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had retired. You have already created Pers Z S, B-Dienst, Signal Intelligence Regiment (KONA), German Naval Intelligence Service and the vastly overlong Luftnachrichten Abteilung 350 (381KB), General der Nachrichtenaufklärung (355KB) and German Radio Intelligence Operations during World War II (248KB), so the topic of German cryptanalysis and signals intelligence is more than adequately covered. We do not also need bios of every person who worked for those organisations, particularly not this overlong personal account of a non-notable individual. If there is any bias here its that German signals intelligence is overrepresented. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: If DGG has retired, what the hell's he doing on the current arbcom :) —— SN 54129 08:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Serial Number 54129, not DGG, User:scope_creep who apparently retired [15] 2 days ago. Mztourist (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another wiki having or not having an article on a subject is neither here nor there really. All wikis are works in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The text is almost entirely sourced to the subject's post-war interrogations. Contrary to some statements above, there is no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. What coverage is significant is neither independent nor reliable. Fails GNG and even possible passing of SNG's is only an indication that GNG may apply, which it clearly does not in this case. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is sourced to a particular SIGCOV, however, per the refs, his name is listed/covered in other chronicles of the war. I could see a WP:PRESERVE or WP:NOTPAPER arguement here; there is certainly no WP:PROMO/WP:UPE aspect, so I can't see a compelling rationale to delete? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there isn't "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The entire enormous page is his own personal account.Mztourist (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many historical figures in WP for whom the only GNG we have are what they wrote about themselves, but we chronicle them as WP:PRESERVE. Per the article, he is clearly also getting listed and chronicled in other databases for the period. Britishfinance (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's not my understanding of how GNG and RS should work. This is all entirely his own account, completely unverified and WP:GNG and WP:V come before WP:PRESERVE. I dispute that there is any signicant coverage, merely passing mentions which don't satisfy GNG. Mztourist (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even see passing mentions anywhere reliable, Britishfinance near as i can tell all other refs in the article are tangential and don't mention Feichtner. Jennings below only has the one source. Does Seabourne Report spell his name wrong or something?—eric 17:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Easily independent significant coverage in the very first result: Jennings, C. (2018). The Third Reich is Listening: Inside German Codebreaking 1939–45. tho sourced entirely to the Seabourne Report,but I am finding almost nothing in German. scope creep you have any sources in German? Are we using the wrong first name/spelling/rank in searches?—eric 14:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EricR, please be aware that SC is currently blocked, so will not be able to answer your query for the time being. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colonel of the Luftwaffe who has come to the attention of some historians such as Christian Jennings. Article could have a lot of Feichtner supplied minutiae removed. Almost a third of the length of the article List of Supernatural characters, so a little long! - Neils51 (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DDG and DE. Lack of anything outside Seabourne Report or in German is worrying.—eric 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOFULLTEXT also applies here as this is all Feichtner's personal account. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 30 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. Although the opinion of participating editors is divided, it bears repeating that AfD is not a vote. The role of the closing administrator is not to count heads, but to weigh arguments in light of policy. In this case, no amount of support for the article can overcome the absence of reliable sources independent of the subject. I would propose as an alternative redirecting all AVN Awards by year articles that are not supported by independent sources to AVN Awards, which already contains some content on each. BD2412 T 04:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

5th AVN Awards[edit]

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

Pornography industry awards of 1988. Sourced only to the organizers. Fails WP:GNG and probably WP:RS. I stumbled across this when deleting a porn actor's article at AfD. I'm nominating the 1988 article at random, but most articles in Template:AVN should probably be similarly deleted. A bundled nomination of the other articles may be needed if consensus forms to delete this one. Sandstein 20:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE/KEEP: I think a better solution would be to mark the article as a stub that needs people to improve upon it (note that, excluding the list of nominees and winners, it is a very short article). Yes, this particular article is sourced only to the organizers, however, that certainly isn't the case for most of the articles in Template:AVN. And two or three of the other articles at one time or another have been nominated for deletion, but they've always survived the process.

In the case of this article, however, I am certain other sources of information are available; it's just that I don't have them and, as the originator of this article, I thought it appropriate to start the article and hope that others come along to improve it. For example, I did once see on eBay a Cinema Blue magazine (August 1988, Volume 5 No. 6) that seemed to have an article on the awards, according to the description, and I took note of it but wasn't able to buy it, since I don't live in a country the seller ships to. Hopefully someone else has a copy and can update this article. And I'm sure there are other sources that people have.

I agree the source of the list of nominees and winners is the organizer, however, I'm OK with that, because while the list of winners of the 91st Academy Awards, for example, is sourced from the New York Times, certainly the Times got their list of nominees directly from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences by press release and the list of winners by watching the ceremony, then fact checking it later against the press release list of winners. Any other Times coverage certainly is original reporting that is very useful for Wikipedia, however, the list of winners and nominees itself is really just a list from the organizer, albeit attributed to an intermediary.

And just now I had a look at the 5th Academy Award winners article and I see the list of winners there is attributed to the Academy's website. In fact, that Wikipedia page has only seven sources; two of which are the Academy while one is IMDb (which I thought wasn't supposed to be an acceptable source for Wikipedia, though perhaps I'm mistaken). But it was obviously difficult to find sources and information on the 5th Oscars because the material probably doesn't exist anymore and similarly with the 5th AVN Awards, it may be more difficult because porn was still a taboo topic for most mainstream media at the time. In reading the 5th Academy Awards article, I think it is better for the use of the Academy as a source than it could be without, and I would argue the same for this AVN Awards article even if I had been able to add material from Cinema Blue.

But since the AVN Awards are considered to be the "Oscars of Porn" (as noted by numerous sources throughout other AVN Awards articles on Wikipedia), I think they are notable enough to have the lists of winners and major category nominees included in Wikipedia. So I think it's worth keeping all of the yearly award winner articles. But if the decision is to delete one like this because someone hasn't come along yet with more information and sources to add, then I guess my other suggestion would be to at least keep the list of winners/nominees as a "List of 5th AVN Award winners" article. Certainly the list is a helpful reference when checking other porn actors/actresses for notability, because I do agree with Sandstein that too many porn actors/actresses get pages created in Wikipedia without first having achieved notability.

And finally, I would again suggest keeping a separate article for each year's awards because to list what now is 37 years' worth of winners on the main AVN Awards page would simply make that web page completely unwieldy.

Certainly I'm interested in any suggestions/feedback on this article and any solutions other than deletion that people may have, though. Thank you.pumik9 • (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for lack of significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. I do not agree with the point that Certainly the list is a helpful reference when checking other porn actors/actresses for notability..., because adult industry awards are no longer counted toward notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What purpose could possibly be served by deleting this? It's sourced, it's documented, there's nothing to be gained by deleting this article. It certainly qualifies for WP:GNG. Go find something to add, stop trying to remove valuable content. XeroxKleenex (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced to AVN, the show's organizer and award issuer. GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT require coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Porn awards (and most mainstream commerce awards) are self-promotional fluff. That goes double for porn award nominations. WP:PORNBIO was taken down not only for that reason, but also the consensus that porn awards to not contribute to a porn performer's notability without independent RS acknowledgment of their significance. Without good evidence of notability, this content is more appropriate for RAME.net or IMDb. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as well as failing WP:EVENTCRIT per my comments above. Beyond the then-current issue coverage by Adult Video News, there appears to be no independent or lasting RS interest in this ceremony as an event. No independent reliable sources attest to the significance of the information not already present in AVN Awards. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: If this is closed as delete, can you please AFD everything in this category? Eventually we'll nominate the AVN Awards article for an AFD someday. I've tagged 4th and 7th award articles for notability - both only have sources by AVN. ミラ P 16:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't see evidence of notability for the 30+ ceremony articles, I'm not keen on a mass nomination. May I suggest pacing this out, maybe a few editions at a time? As for the main AVN Awards, it gets some ongoing, but somewhat shallow, mainstream coverage as "The Oscars of Porn." That's a separate matter. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiyear hits for AVN Awards in the Los Angeles Times archive, in LA MAgazine, hits in the NY Times archive (I can't produce a search URL so some examples: [16] [17] [18] [19]), extensive multiyear coverage in Getty Images, 60+ hits in the Las Vegas Review-Journal between 2009-2019, discussed in academic journal Porn Studies. The ceremony is deemed regularly noteworthy and covered in newspapers of record. If one particular ceremony has less coverage it is not so surprising that the older ones have less immediately identifiable sources, but the later ones are clearly covered. Makes no sense to delete this and merge material into AVN Awards article since that would become far too unwieldy.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage you cite is shallow, mostly in the form of brief mentions, especially the NYT links. Image collections like Getty do not provide non-trivial coverage. There may be notability for the AVN Awards ceremony, but notability is not inherited by each edition of the show. More important, none of this shows ongoing interest in this, the 5th Edition of the show. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the framing of this AfD is to my mind a little strange. The nominator has indicated that if successful it will function to support an ambit claim for a class of articles. Another editor has indicated support for mass deletion of the class of articles. Contra to that, I've simply presented the results of a relatively simple (30 minutes) search on the AVN events. In a recent AfD, there was discussion around the meaning of the WP:LASTING guideline - in fact I think this article is a useful example of the last point of that guideline, that is, notability might be achieved at a later point in time due to subsequent events or actions. To reiterate my earlier point in a different way: it is not surprising that there is may be a lack of RS material on this *specific* event (the 5th, rather than the 12th or 17th etc), but given that the AVN Awards *are* notable, each of those events over the last 30 odd years *cumulatively* constitute that notability. It is not the case of the Awards lending notability to each event, but rather each event constituted in toto provides notability for the Awards in general (ie it was not the 5th or 12th or 17th specifically that made the AVN Awards notable, but rather all of them together). Finally, @Gene93k:, did you mean to write "prove", rather than "provide", with reference to Getty Images? If so, per se, I agree, coverage in Getty Images on its own would not indicate notability, but in the context of other sources it supports notability. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn, your argument that the AVN Awards are notable cumulatively, and not individually, is precisely the reason for this AfD. We should delete the individual articles, because each individual award has not been covered in depth by reliable sources, but we should probably keep the article AVN Awards to cover the awards as a whole. Sandstein 11:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my above comment, "provide" means yield, supply, etc. The AVN Awards may get ongoing coverage as a recurring event, but again notability is not inherited by every edition edition of the event. For an individual show, coverage is little beyond a brief mention that the show is coming or a brief report that the show happened, after which coverage ceases even from AVN. As for unwieldy content, porn award nominations tend to be industry-promoting fluff without the support of independent reliable sources. The level of detail in the annual articles is covered by 1. contemporaneous AVN reporting (WP:NOTNEWS, "for a full list of nominees, see the AVN Awards link here."), 2. possibly IMDb and 3. RAME.net/IAFD. Without RS support, it's trivia at best (WP:Too much detail). As for lack of coverage for the show, this is the general problem with porn in Wikipedia. If reputable media sources shun pornography, Wikipedia editors are left with porn promotion and the porn itself to source objective, verifiable articles. After 13 years of WP:PORNBIO, the new consensus is that excusing porn from the regular reliable source coverage is bad policy. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sandstein: I'll just highlight the point raised by WP:LASTING and leave it there: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Gene93k: I'm not claiming inherited notability for this event, my point above is the opposite: the ongoing cumulative effect of 30+ years of this annual event has created notability for the Awards. FWIW, the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO is irrelevant to my points; I'm only using current guidelines and commonsense.--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A stand-alone article must be judged on its own merits, not its relationship with other articles. Again, notability is not inherited. The coverage examples you gave are more about CES Adult/AVN, not the AVN Awards won or nominated. The expo is notable, but cumulative notability, if such a thing exists, is best summarized in CES Adult/AVN or AVN Awards. Contemporaneous coverage of a recurring event is not lasting coverage. Interest in who got nominated for what fades from even AVN's coverage after the show is over. Without independent RS interest, it is trivia going against WP:IINFO. The 1988 show has nothing going for it to support notability. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's commonsense that the form and content of articles can be shaped by related articles. On the other matters we have reached repetition, we can agree to disagree.Goldsztajn (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A yearly pornography industry award is not anything notable. Articles like that do look to me as promoting pornography industry in WP. Agree with nominator that most articles in Template:AVN should be similarly deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic the article Pornography is promoting pornography. It would not be unreasonable to make an argument that this article could be perceived as promoting AVN, a commercial organisation. However, it's well established this this is the most significant and long-standing awards event in this particular entertainment industry. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most significant awards in the industry as attested to by what independent reliable sources. The comparison to the Pornography article is an especially faulty call to WP:WAX. Just having a Wikipedia article about a porn subject is not promotion, especially when the example you point to has 100+ independent citations. The 5th AVN show only got coverage by AVN itself, an industry-promoting organization touting its own show. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I preemptively noted, it would not be unreasonable to make a case that this article promotes a specific company. Thank you for reinforcing my point. Whether or not this article promotes pornography is not a criterion by which we can determine this AfD, that was my point and has nothing to do with WAX.Goldsztajn (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether independent sources exist to support an objective article is the issue here. None of that exists for the this and the vast majority of the yearly shows. Porn or mainstream, industry awards exist to promote their particular industry, and only a rare few get the independent RS interest required for notability. Porn nominations are promotional fluff, especially those from the AVN Awards. With up to 15 nominees per category, they tend to nominate everybody for something. Without a credible independent sources that show this is of general interest, it is cruft that does not belong in Wikipedia. WP:IINFO for the third time. • Gene93k (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)
Sources for the "Oscars of porn" and AVN as industry leader.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

References

^ Smith, Nate "Igor" (2017-01-23). ""The Oscars of Porn" Struts Its Stuff at the Hard Rock". LA Weekly. Retrieved 2020-02-03.
^ Wingfield, Nick (2012-01-09). "Silicon and Silicone Split, as C.E.S. and Adult Entertainment Expo Part Ways". Gadgetwise Blog (New York Times). Retrieved 2020-02-03.
^ Blaustein, Michael (2018-01-25). "How the sausage gets made at the Oscars of porn". New York Post. Retrieved 2020-02-03.
^ Feinberg, Scott (2017-02-24). ""Oscars of Porn" vs. the Oscars: The Surprising Similarities". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2020-02-03.
^ Breslin, Susannah. "Actually, The 'Oscars Of Porn' And The Oscars Are A Little Different". Forbes. Retrieved 2020-02-03.
^ Alilunas, Peter (2016-08-23). Smutty Little Movies: The Creation and Regulation of Adult Video. Univ of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-29171-3pp.84-116 cover the emergence of AVN and its dominance as an industry version of Variety and the Hollywood Reporter.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Kilty, Jennifer M. (2014). Within the Confines: Women and the Law in Canada. Canadian Scholars’ Press. ISBN 978-0-88961-516-8"Oscars of porn" p.293{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Greenberg, Joshua M. (2010-09-24). From Betamax to Blockbuster: Video Stores and the Invention of Movies on Video. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-26076-3AVN "the primary independent conduit of information between adult film studios and video retailers" p.109{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)

Goldsztajn (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"As yet another indicator of how mainstream pornography has become, it is worth noting that the AVN Awards are shown on the non-specialist cable television channel Showtime in the US."^[1]^: 61–62. 2019 Showtime Network (30 million US households access) Broadcast: [20].

References

^ Karen Boyle (13 September 2010). Everyday Pornography. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-94209-9.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more time: "The Oscars of Porn" coverage yields superficial and contemporaneous coverage for some of the shows, coverage is mainly about the CES Adult (now AVN) Expo. If there is such a thing as "collective notability" as you call it, it applies to the main ceremony show article, not the annual editions. BTW, Showtime is a primary source. Final question, which of these sources is applicable to the 1988 5th edition of the show? Running down the sources listed: 1. LA Weekly (evaluated before): a one-paragraph show biz happenings blurb with a photo. Trivial current events coverage. 2. NYT (evaluated before): About CES vs CES/Adult Expo. 3. NY Post: no coverage the annual shows. Tabloid coverage based largely on what principal people say about the ceremony as a whole. 4. Hollywood Reporter: Brief and superficial comparisons between the the main AVN Awards show vs. the Oscars. Again, no significant coverage of annual events. 5. Forbes contributor article: Cites the reference #4 as its base. Again, about the ceremony, not its annual shows. 6. Alilunas (U. of California Oress): incidental mention of award show in context of Steve Hirsch's Visionary Award. It also confirm's AVN as an important organ of the the porn industry. 2. Kilty (Canadian Scholars): coverage of the ceremony in general with a brief mention of the first show. 8. Greenberg (MIT Press): passing mentions of Adult Video News. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The points in discussion here are three-fold: 1) whether this specific article should be deleted (2) whether a class of articles should be deleted (3) by what basis do we determine how notability and significance is relevant here. My contributions have been framed in response to denials that AVN and the AVN Awards are notable, are industry leaders, are covered in significant ways. However, the counter-arguments here seem to be shifting; first, AVN and the Awards are just run of the mill industry promotions, that being disqualified, we have moved to acknowledging the event is covered, but claiming that all that is reported is what happened at the event...and one would expect what, otherwise, from a source covering the event? It is clear from multiple sources (academic and journalistic) that AVN and the AVN awards are the leading industry publication and awards ceremony. Finally, two caveats: the LA Weekly piece has not been cited previously (LA Magazine was the earlier citation), Peter Alilunas' piece is a chapter length study on AVN's highly significant role in the transformation of the US pornography industry during the shift from film to video and the explosive growth of the mass marketing and consumption of pornogrpahy.--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the outset, the notability of the base AVN Awards article was brought up as a discussion for a future time. Even then, the sources brought into evidence cover the main awards show or more often the greater AVN Expo. 1) The article in question lacks support of independent reliable sources, the basis for WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. 2) Most of this article's peers suffer from the same problem. 3) See response #1 again. Without objective sources, there is no objective notability. Adult Video News may be an eminently notable institution, but it is still an industry promotion machine. Subsidiary aspects about AVN don't inherit notability without independent RS support. All these attestations of porn as a phenomenon do not excuse stand-alone porn articles from the General Notability Guideline standard. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel there is little I can add further to the discussions above - there are different opinions here and it is unlikely consensus will be reached. However, I wanted to at this point suggest an alternative approach: what if this was to be converted into a List of winners at the 5th AVN Awards? Personally, I can see merit in an argument that the article as it currently stands contains trivial items (eg all the nominations) that could be edited out. This could then potentially be a way to deal with the other single awards event articles, with the stand alone articles for the AVN Awards and AVN itself covering the notability and significance in toto.--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn, this wouldn't help. Then WP:LISTN would apply, and we'd still need to show that the topic of the list (i.e., the winners of the 1988 event, not the awards as a whole) is notable through coverage in reliable sources. And that's not been possible so far. Sandstein 15:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LISTN is not conclusive here: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list would be a reformatted subset of information already at AVN Awards#AVN Award winners. A stand-alone List of AVN Award winners article existed until 2016, when it was redirected to AVN Awards for redundancy. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which indicates that the current AVN Awards article is not actually an article, but rather a list, thus requiring rewriting (which is somewhat obvious from the current state of the article).--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sources, and the editing history looks like it's mostly WP:COI. -- Dorama285 17:55, 05 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorama285 please be specific, what conflict of interest is evidenced in the editing history? --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest? Plausible but not proven. WP:Single-purpose account? The edit history of the creator and principal contributor, Pumik9 (talk · contribs), shows overwhelming evidence, with edits since January 2015 almost exclusively focused on AVN-related pages. Wikipedia policy says to assume good faith, but maybe this editor can explain himself/herself. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPA is an essay primarily focussed on NPOV, not policy or guideline: many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest.... Nothing to see here, please move on.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to assume good faith and avoid pointing fingers. Maybe it would be safer to say: It seems like there is very limited interest in this topic from more than a few highly interested people.--Dorama285 00:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this is the work of a good-faith enthusiast (and that's a lot of enthusiasm), it is fan content. Without independent RS interest, this is better hosted at RAME.net or Pornopedia rather than Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, as the originator of this article, I'm not a fanboy, have no connection with the adult film industry whatsoever and do not even live in the same country! I find that kind of amusing, actually. (Thankfully we're all passionate about Wikipedia though; that's why we're all here!) But regardless of all that, I agree with Gene93k's point that the article should have more sources, and as I mentioned in my first post at the top of the page, if an eBay vendor would've shipped to my country, I would have had one more source to add to the article. I'm sure other contributors must have information they could add. Meanwhile, RAME.net isn't an option as it hasn't been updated since 2005. I suppose Pornopedia might work, but I think AVN is notable enough to be hosted on Wikipedia. Certainly there are far too many adult movie awards though, and Pornopedia's probably a better solution than Wikipedia for most of the others. But that's just my opinion. And thank you, Dorama285, though I wouldn't agree there is "very limited" interest -- the last time I looked at Wikipedia stats files, AVN awards article page views were doing very well! pumik9 • (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~REMAIN OPPOSE/KEEP~~: I do appreciate this discussion and especially that the comments have been thoughtful and civilized; I'm glad to read all your opinions and have learned a lot. While I agree with much (probably most) of what Gene93k says throughout this discussion, I think Goldsztajn's suggestion may be the best one, to convert it to a List of winners at the 5th AVN Awards.

Here's why: I think the Critics' Choice Movie Awards are notable and I hope you'd all agree with me. (Yes, I know they're about mainstream movies, and we're discussing adult movies, but bear with me a second.) The Critics' Choice movie awards are voted on by critics (as are the AVN Awards) and many people think they do a better job of picking winners than the Oscars and definitely the Golden Globes, which in my opinion have plenty of glitz, but can be a bit of a farce. So looking at Wikipedia's 1st Critics' Choice Awards page (these awards were first presented in 1996), we see a very short article with one source: The Broadcast Film Critics Association itself (just like this 5th AVN Awards article). So using the arguments presented on this page, shouldn't the 1st Critics' Choice Awards page also be deleted from Wikipedia? I say no, it shouldn't, but it sounds like some of you would recommend that it should be removed, since it does appear to go against some of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Something else I'm wondering: Is some of the argument against AVN awards actually because society itself looks down it's nose at porn, wants the industry to go away and pretend it doesn't exist, while the Hollywood movie scene is held in high esteem. Because why would the arguments being made against this page not also be used to remove the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Critics' Choice Awards pages, since those all have only the critics association as a source?

So please have a look and let me know what you think. Am I misunderstanding something? Thank you! pumik9 • (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pumik9: Struck duplicate keep !vote. You already keep at the beginning of the discussion. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, all! pumik9 • (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go after the Critic's Choice Awards, have at it. The 1st annual show came before Critic's Choice became big. Coverage for later annual shows is easy to find at GNews. It would not surprise me if more showbiz-knowledgeable editors can come around and rescue it. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not! As I said in the last comment, "I say no, it shouldn't be removed." And yes, perhaps other editors could rescue that page, just as I'm sure other editors could rescue this page. (And please don't feel that I'm singling you out because I'm not -- I respect your opinions and agree with most of them; they're all valid points. But we have both seen a lot of trolling and fights over adult movie pages between trolls and fanboys and I've thought that in many of those cases, both sides were wrong. It absolutely does seem like a lot of industry people are posting pages for promotional purposes, with no notability. And to me, it also does seem like a lot of their opposers are haters of the industry, who don't believe it has a place in Wikipedia at all. I don't think anybody on this page (at least not so far) falls into either camp. But I do wonder whether one's biases against the adult film industry do enter into this.) I certainly can find topics on Wikipedia that I don't agree with and wouldn't be upset if they disappeared, however, I have to remember that just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean it doesn't have the right to be here. In this page's discussion, both sides, I think, are making very valid points and I just wanted to see if anyone or everyone who posted on this page earlier felt the Critics Awards pages should be treated equally as the AVN Awards pages. pumik9 • (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be an independent source: Winners of AVN Awards 1988.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another porn database. On their terms of service page, they identify themselves as Rileyshaven Inc,[21] a Riley Steele fan site partnered with AdultDVDEmpire. This is more like RAME.net/IAFD than a true media organization with an established record for fact checking. Even if reliable, such database entries are not significant coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~You (Google?) seem to have conflated Rileyshaven with Rileysheaven.~~ I only indicated this was an independent source, not necessarily significant coverage, since the nominator is justifying the AfD, in part, on self-sourcing grounds.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My error! Striking. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's already hard enough to find reliable sources about pornography (the most hated subject "on here"), on top of an event that took place pre-Internet. Sources shouldn't be self-referential but in this rare case I do believe it is sufficient as it offers the information required when no one else can. To me, it would be no different if it was any other award show from that time period. ⌚️ (talk) 19:30, 7 February 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 12:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Mirror (2018 film)[edit]

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

Not notable. Someone is trying to create articles about Farid Valizadeh ([22][23]). ARASH PT talk 09:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ARASH PT talk 09:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have submitted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maniyababaee. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 12:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Maniyababaee has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, giving me all the more reason to support the deletion. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:40, 30 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) 09:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Mejia[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for mayor of a city a decade ago, not adequately sourced as clearing the sustained notability bar. As always, unsuccessful candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, he would need to either show preexisting notability for other reasons, or be able to show a depth, range and/or volume of reliable source coverage that expanded well beyond the norm and gave his candidacy a credible basis to be considered a special case of considerably greater notability than most other candidates. But this shows neither of those things; the other attempted claim of notability here is that he was formerly CEO of a local organization, which is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of much more sourcing than this either, and the sources are a mix of primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all (e.g. the self-published press release of the organization he was CEO for) and purely local media coverage that isn't even slightly out of the ordinary compared to what every unsuccessful mayoral candidate in every city could always show. This is not enough to make somebody permanently notable just for running for mayor and losing. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least based on my WP:BEFORE this guy appears to be an almost-but-not-quite pass for WP:BASIC. There's articles in reliable sources over a number of ears giving coverage to him (e.g., 1 2 3 4) but they seem to all be either interviews (and thus not independent) or pieces related to stories which it is hard to say confers notability (e.g., changes in the leadership of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce for Metro Denver). Maybe there's more out there that could make me change my mind but this one doesn't appear to be a keeper right now. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:ONEEVENT. The article is written like a résumé. Mejia is a local politician who in 2011 unsuccessfully ran for mayor. He did not even make the second round. Non-notable mayoral candidates/local politicians are usually not included on Wikipedia. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a relic of the days when Wikipedia rules allowed us to be a place to post candidate bios. Well, at least I hope those days are past, but I am not sure all the unneeded candidate bios I created even have been removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mayor. Angus1986 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NPOL given he was just a candidate, not officeholder. And coverage is completely routine for such a candidate. None since, nor for any other event, etc. Therefore non-notable. PK650 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn, strong consensus to keep has been demonstrated and article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leviticus 19[edit]

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

This chapter of Leviticus isn't notable on its own. The books of the Bible are clearly notable, but only certain chapters and verses, like Matthew 5 and John 3:16 gain coverage on their own outside of the book. This chapter doesn't seem to gain any more coverage than just any other chapter in the Bible (yes, commentaries will discuss this chapter, but if we determine that coverage in Bible commentaries demonstrates notability, we will have articles on almost every single verse of Scripture). I'd recommend a redirect to Kedoshim, where the chapter is discussed as part of the weekly Torah portion. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This chapter has lots of notability by itself. The article can be expanded, but Chapter 19 is a loaded chapter dealing with lots of stuff, as the Kedoshim article shows. The fact that you are pointing to Matthew or John shows a very Christian oriented viewpoint, but for Judaism, this chapter is an important chapter. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sir Joseph: Thanks for your comments. Yes, as a Christian, I do have a viewpoint bias here. My train of reasoning, which I did not spell out in my nomination as well as I should have, is that redirecting this to the weekly Torah reading page would be more consistent with Wikipedia's treatment of most of the rest of the chapters of the Torah. Most of the rest of the Torah chapters redirect to either the book or the applicable weekly Torah reading page, like Leviticus 20 does. There seems to be an outline and/or a contents summary at all of the weekly Torah reading articles (or at least all of the one I looked at). If I'm wrong about this chapter, and the coverage at Kedoshim is not sufficient, then I stand corrected. Hog Farm (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Hog Farm, You're welcome and that's why I didn't !vote because I'm not sure really how to proceed since the article now isn't too well sourced, but it can be since the chapter is a very important one. It is a source of lots of contemporary laws and modern day rulings and day to day activities and thoughts. Let's see if people can expand the article with proper sourcing. People have been using Leviticus 19 for sources for protests in the news with regards to contemporary politics, etc. There are lots of good stuff, I added one bit about the Golden Rule and if I have some time I'll try to add more. Just an FYI, for googling, Leviticus in Hebrew would be Vayikra, so some sources would use that as opposed to Leviticus depending on the audience. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the tip! Hog Farm (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Delete or Redirect No need for a separate article - possible redirect to Old testament. There are many choices for a redirect. Or delete.~~ Lightburst (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lightburst: If we decide to redirect, I think Kedoshim would be the best target. There's an outline of the chapter in that article, which would guide the reader to the most applicable content. Hog Farm (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the chapter is notable for WikiProject Christianity because it gives the background of the Golden Rule in the New Testament. JohnThorne (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that the chapter has a role in both Judaism and Christianity, neither sort of topic will be a good redirect candidate. As for the argument that we could end up with an article on every chapter of the Bible, see WP:NOTPAPER, "Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content."--Jahaza (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep over the centuries a vast literature has been written on the Bible. Here are sources with significant coverage: [24] [25] b uidhe 22:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some information to the article which helps support the notability of this chapter. Specifically, in some synagogues, Leviticus 19 is used as one of the readings on Yom Kippur. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There may well be a case for every chapter of the Bible being capable of having an article. Commentary on the Bible is a legitimate aspect of theological study. It may well be there are some chapters that are rather less notable. However this article has quite enough content to be worth keeping the article. I have to confess that some chapters of the law code chapters of the books of Moses are not the most popular Biblical subjects for Christians. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'.
Keep - literally books have been written on this topic alone. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has multiple reliable sources significant coverage including a bibliography listing multiple books dealing with the subject, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Given that this is getting to WP:SNOW territory, would you reconsider your !vote to delete/redirect so I can withdraw this and us, especially since User:Sir Joseph and User:Metropolitan90 have expanded the article since my nomination? Hog Farm (talk) 21:51, 1 February 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 keep. BD2412 T 04:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Gold[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and social worker, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability criteria. This is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- such as her own self-published résumé on her own self-published website, press releases from organizations that she's directly affiliated with, and four instances of her own books being cited as technical verification of their own existence -- and the only source that actually comes from a real media outlet is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is not enough media coverage to get her over the bar all by itself if it's the only real media source in play. As always, people are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their self-created web presence metaverifies itself -- the notability test requires media outlets that she is not affiliated with to do third party, third person journalism about her and her accomplishments, not just her own website and press releases from her own employers. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Known activist and author. I added a WP:RS that was present in an early version of this article that somehow disappeared. There is more out there that could be added as well. It is true that the subject has apparently edited her own article to an extent, but that alone should not be a reason for exclusion. StonyBrook (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Times of Israel has chosen to run a profile of her, books have won a couple of awards, appears to be notable. PamD 16:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Known activist and author. I have added more secondary sources regarding her literature. She is a well-regarded novelist in Canada and abroad. If there are more verifiable sources required, then let's edit, not delete.Mcatricala (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)mcatricala[reply]
Keep - The subject is an established author who has received three awards, two of which were national book awards, and her books have been released by traditional publishing houses with wide coverage and/or reviews in the mainstream media. I cleaned up the article, as have others, to rid it of the semi-advertorializing, which the nom pointed out. The references in the article as it now stands are from reliable, third-party sources. It passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO and easily meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are grounds for keeping the article under WP:AUTHOR, and perhaps even just the GNG, given there is coverage particularly in Israeli and North American Jewish media. The article needs trimming, though, as it contains some ad-like language. PK650 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the additional reliable citations added and the awards her work has achieved, this article should meet both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Additionally with a bit of editing the promotional content could be eventually removed. Edi7* ^{(Message Me! • 📜)} 08:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability and the condition of the page's content is not irreparable, so deletion for irredeemable advertising or promotionalism is not applicable. I have edited it and found more references to improve its quality. If we outright deleted every page that may have been vandalized or edited by an individual or organization connected to it, Wikipedia would be missing many necessary pages.IphisOfCrete (talk) 02:17, 4 February 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) 09:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong winner election[edit]

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

This is a silly concept and title for an article; if they were the 'winner' then it wasn't 'wrong' (so long as electoral rules were followed anyway).

In STV elections, this sort of result is a feature, not a bug. The Uk elections are a bunch of local elections, so saying that one party won more votes overall while the other won more seats and calling that a 'wrong result' is also erroneous.

As for the USA and the electoral college; these results are also the result of intentional design of the EC system and we have an article on that already United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found an article using this phrase titled "DO ‘WRONG WINNER’ ELECTIONS TRIGGER ELECTORAL REFORM? LESSONS FROM NEW ZEALAND" by Alan Renwick, but most of the other sources are from apparently partisan sources with names like "Electoral Reform" or "Make Votes Matter." The source referenced in the article seems to be one of those such sources that are of dubious neutrality. I get a lot of results about electoral polls being wrong, but for this particular term, I found one article and a bunch of political action sites wanting various electoral methods to be changed. Hog Farm (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borders on WP:OR or WP:HOAX. Not worthy of an entry in our encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This reads very much like WP:OR... at best. Saying the “wrong” person won any of the listed US presidential elections is just factually incorrect. The winner didn’t win the national popular vote in the years listed, but that doesn’t make them the wrong winner, they still won the contest under the rules of the contest. You’d need to find a substantial amount of secondary sources calling the winner the “wrong winner” to justify this page, or at least the inclusion of any US Presidential elections on it. As it is, this is just an opinion that conflicts with reality. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be willing to change the name if you think there is a more neutral term for the phenomenon? Theofficeprankster (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name for the "phenomenon" should come from the reliable secondary sources the article is based on. If you’re trying to describe something and don’t even know what it’s called, that seems to support deletion. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did know what it was called, someone else commented that it "isn't even a common name for this phenomenon". Also, why is phenomenon in scare quotes? At no point does the article state that the winner does not win within the parameter of the rules. Theofficeprankster (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theofficeprankster, I believe that it is usually simply referred to as "winning an election but losing the popular vote". In any case, mixing STV elections, US presidential electoral college elections, and first past the post local-national UK results does not result in an article. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theofficeprankster, I put "phenomenon" in scare quotes because there is nothing indicating that all the various elections you’re trying to link together are justifiably linked into a single phenomenon. As User:Insertcleverphrasehere noted above, you’re just mixing descriptions of different election types together in a new article. In the absence of substantial WP:RS actually describing them all as a single "phenomenon," which you have not provided and do not seem to have, I don’t see why I should grant you that a coherent concept unifying these various elections exists. Your attempt to link them together in an article without any WP:RS strikes me as impermissible WP:OR. Also, the article’s title itself describes the winner as "wrong", which to me does "state that the winner does not win within the parameter of the rules." You’ll need strong evidence this is a valid, notable concept defined in reliable sources to rebut that plain English read of it. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bizarre idea for an article if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:37, 29 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) 09:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tarraga[edit]

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

I see no evidence of notability; possibly the puurpose is to promote his self-published book. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DGG:, no this is not an effort to promote his book. As one of the most prominent survivors of the child abuse scandal in Shirley Oaks (1 2 3) I just wanted to make his story known. Also the meat- rack that he described has been confirmed by officers to have been a hub for underage prostitution of boys (1 2). Most of the reports on him- if not all- stem from alternative media outlets and activists interviewing him. I do understand that that isn't in line with the notability standards. Are there notability standards for activists/ abuse survivors/ social media personalities? Maybe he'll meet those. He does have a following and interviews with him have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. I did really just want to write his story down because he is a known victim of child prostitution and child abuse. I do understand if the article will get deleted... In any case I thought about whether there would be a way to establish notability criteria for "prominent victims of forced prostitution" - as in that they are uncovering the prostitution rings and trying to have them be hold accountable. I did also start the article on Virginia Roberts Giuffre, because her coming forward has made such an immense difference in the world as whole and for all survivors. She has literally changed part of the media political landscape with her bravery. She might be one of the most prominent victims of forced prostitution- her article is viewed 1.800 times a day. But there are less known victims that had Johns that were less prominent who also deserve to be heard. I already communicated with the prostitution task force on WP about that. I might discuss this further in order to have stories of advocates and survivors known... Best regards, I hope that this is now clear. This was in no way an effort at promotion. I did also omit all names first mentioned in the article. It's really just his story. As he said all prospects from the selling of the book are going towards other survivors, he's not profiting off of it.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 05:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG failed. FOARP (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is extremely bad for a WP:BLP, WP:GNG very much failed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merging to the "alleged sexual abuse" section in Edward Heath's article, who is one of the subject's alleged abusers, may be an option. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — insufficient coverage in reliable sources. @Dflaw4, To merge it would not be a bright idea, @DGG is very much correct! At best I’d say this is bare notability & does not satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fair enough, Celestina007. Unfortunately I don't think the article can be sustained on its own, so I only suggested it as an alternative to scrapping the article completely, because I feel that the "delete" votes will probably prevail. Thanks for your response. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dflaw4, thank you also for devoting time in building the encyclopedia I’ve noticed your good works across all spheres of this collaborative project.Celestina007 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, I got interested in this process after you AfD'd an article I had written, funnily enough! I have it as a "Draft" now, and you can access it via my profile if you like—any feedback or assistance with it is highly appreciated. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dflaw4, sure thing, although I think it got recently rejected via the AFC process but regardless I’d my best.Celestina007 (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I wasn't really expecting it to get through; I was more trying to gauge how far off it would be from passing notability standards. And yes, any feedback would be good, Celestina007. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not at all notable. -- Alarics (talk) 21:42, 29 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) 09:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Crittenden[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP since creation 14 years ago (apart from his own website). After a search for sources, I have failed to find anything that suggests he passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Mattg82 (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE that appears to relate to him except lists of names at musical institutes. WP:BASIC fail. FOARP (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear notable per WP:MUSICBIO Rachoote —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 30 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. BD2412 T 03:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Razak Lawal[edit]

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

Non notable businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. A BEFORE I conducted shows no evidence of true notability. Celestina007 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I recently re-created the article Razak Lawal, solving all the issues it was said to be having when I created it previously, but was speedily deleted before I could sort them out. This did not include notability, but copyright violations, linkrot issues and language being promotional. However, it has again been nominated for deletion, now, with the WP:GNG tag. I have read the general notability guidelines again and Razak Lawal seems to me to meet all criteria as a notable Nigerian businessman. The sources I used for the article were from some of the most respected publications in Nigeria like The Sun (Nigeria), Punch Nigeria, Vanguard (Nigeria), New Telegraph and Encomium Magazine. They covered the topic directly and in detail (both in titles/headlines and body of articles). They are also intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I am finding it strange to believe that a non-notable businessman would get such wide coverage in Grade A national dailies in Nigeria. I understand that I cannot highhandedly determine notability but I think this may have been a mistaken nomination for deletion. I suggest we find time to review the sources again for reconsideration, and help in further improving the page. Bemmax (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads more like a promotional blurb than an encyclopedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may be a successful businessman, but I cannot find anything notable on the page about his influence on the business world or society as a whole despite his position. PenulisHantu (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep let’s not be inclusionists or deletionist, let’s just follow the rules. There's a good case for meeting the general wiki-notability guideline, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and can be easily expanded per sources already in the article. The sources have a case of reliability, hence notability. They are all found in a list of Newspapers published in Nigeria that have national circulation or that are major local newspapers.Watchbotx (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. He is the CEO of a non-notable company; his only claim to notability is being a "recipient" of the Young Achievers Award for Logistics Provider of the Year; this particular category doesn't apply to individuals. None of the sources cited in the article are independent of the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[26] was written by Juwon Lawal. Not sure if there's a connection, but the link to the author page 404s. That doesn't inspire confidence.
[27] appears in the society section, and has this to offer: "At the recent 2019 edition of the International Petroleum Week in London, the Kogi State indigene played a major role. He met with key stakeholders and they brainstormed on how to make Africa a better business environment". He met with people and brainstormed.
[28] "Juwon sits atop Africent Group, Oillets Services, S8 Contractors, and Cropyfy Incorporated". What did I just see in Punch? "Presently, the unassuming socialite sits atop Africent Group, Oillets Services, S8 Contractors and Cropyfy Incorporated."
[29]
Is an an interview with Lawal, mostly spouting platitudes like “Our goal is to solve problems and be entrepreneurs who create meaningful ventures that would positively impact the society while some would probably want to solve problems by creating jobs and manage their time frame, among others.” I love the "among others."
[30] another interview
[31] writes: "It is joy and elation in the home of Nollywood’s actress, Uche Iwuji and her husband, Juwon Razaq Lawal as she has shown that she is truly a woman with the coming of their first child, a boy". Just no.
In summary, the sources are all promotional garbage. Vexations (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have multiple sources on the internet to prove notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO. GargAvinash (talk) 05:35, 4 February 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.

[1] Smith, Nate "Igor" (2017-01-23). ""The Oscars of Porn" Struts Its Stuff at the Hard Rock". LA Weekly. Retrieved 2020-02-03.

[2] Wingfield, Nick (2012-01-09). "Silicon and Silicone Split, as C.E.S. and Adult Entertainment Expo Part Ways". Gadgetwise Blog (New York Times). Retrieved 2020-02-03.

[3] Blaustein, Michael (2018-01-25). "How the sausage gets made at the Oscars of porn". New York Post. Retrieved 2020-02-03.

[4] Feinberg, Scott (2017-02-24). ""Oscars of Porn" vs. the Oscars: The Surprising Similarities". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2020-02-03.

[5] Breslin, Susannah. "Actually, The 'Oscars Of Porn' And The Oscars Are A Little Different". Forbes. Retrieved 2020-02-03.

[6] Alilunas, Peter (2016-08-23). Smutty Little Movies: The Creation and Regulation of Adult Video. Univ of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-29171-3pp.84-116 cover the emergence of AVN and its dominance as an industry version of Variety and the Hollywood Reporter.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)

[7] Kilty, Jennifer M. (2014). Within the Confines: Women and the Law in Canada. Canadian Scholars’ Press. ISBN 978-0-88961-516-8"Oscars of porn" p.293{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)

[8] Greenberg, Joshua M. (2010-09-24). From Betamax to Blockbuster: Video Stores and the Invention of Movies on Video. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-26076-3AVN "the primary independent conduit of information between adult film studios and video retailers" p.109{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)

[Boyle2010-9] Karen Boyle (13 September 2010). Everyday Pornography. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-94209-9.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]