Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 5 January 7 January >

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 keep. Enough sources seem to have been provided to result in a decent consensus as to its notability, whether from WP:GEOLAND #1 or simply via the general notability guideline, or indeed both. As there are aspects of this place that make it more significant than a general HOA-managed subdivision, this is explicitly not to be taken as any kind of consensus regarding the greater notability or lack thereof of other such things; if the notability guidelines for places are becoming ambiguous about these kinds of places because of the way subdivisions can evolve into fully legally recognised communities, then that discussion needs to be held there. ~ mazca talk 12:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interlachen, Oregon[edit]

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

It's a housing development/neighborhood with a homeowners' association with Fairview, Oregon addresses. Can't find any sources establishing notability per GEOLAND2, prod removal was just WP:ITSOLD. Reywas92Talk 23:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 23:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 23:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fairview, Oregon or delete. No coverage. buidhe 03:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't just a subdivision, it's a notable unincorporated place/community that is distinct from Fairview. [1] Even has (had?) its own county utility district. Easy keep. [2] and urban planning area [3] and referred to as a community by Portland State. [4] We're a gazetteer and while there's been a number of non-notable places we've reviewed and deleted recently, this doesn't mean that every unincorporated place isn't notable. SportingFlyer T·C 03:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Running water to your neighborhood and paying for it yourself is not notability. There are so many thousands of utility districts, and merely because the county has zoned their little single street for low-density residential is not notability. This is literally no different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andalusia, Arizona etc. except rather than governed within a city's border, it's governed by the county commission. None of this is significant coverage or warrants a separate article for this little homeowners' association; mention on Fairview, Oregon remains an ATD. Reywas92Talk 04:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I manifestly disagree. I'm pretty familiar with both the Portland and Phoenix metro area. Phoenix suffered from having a not of GNIS stubs on non-notable subdivisions, which have been mostly cleaned up. Nobody has ever called the Andalusia subdivision "Andalusia" in the Phoenix metro area - it's within Scottsdale and was just a marketing ploy. Interlachen, on the other hand, is a distinct place, separate from Fairview (which is incorporated), and is known as such. It's frequently mentioned as being "in Fairview" but a quick look at a map shows it's an enclave. [5] Sourcing's not the best, but it's definitely a populated place and should be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 07:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia also serves as a gazetter. Please see Topo Map: Interlachen Topo Map in Multnomah County Interlachen is not located within the Fairview city limits. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is false; per WP:5P, Wikipedia "contains features" of a gazetteer. Gazetteers don't normally have separate pages for every entity. WP:NGEO clearly says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." You can try to show there is significant coverage of it, but this topo map is irrelevant, it is just a generic neighborhood with a damn HOA. Reywas92Talk 19:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is where you're wrong - this is not a "generic neighborhood" but rather a specifically unincorporated residential community which is known as such, as opposed to the Arizona stubs we've deleted, which appeared to be non-notable subdevelopments which were then incorporated into the larger city. The maps support the fact this is NOT a neighborhood within Fairview. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Multnomah County, Oregon since this community is not within Fairview. A small unincorporated community is no different than a subdivison, neighborhood, etc. There is not enough non-trivial infomation/sources on which to write an encyclopedic article. If it were really well-known as a community, then there would be more written about it. Un-incorporated communities often do meet GNG, but I don't see enough coverage for this one. MB 04:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's plenty of coverage, it's just damn hard to search for since Interlachen mostly brings the Minnesota country club. Further coverage of the place as a community and populated place: [6] Also, unincorporated doesn't necessarily mean not legal, as I've noted before, it has its own specific county zoning district. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_hamlets_and_other_places. We have tended to keep hamlets, if its historically known as a community. Many suburban communities were started as subdivisions in the first half of the 20th century, e.g. Kensington and Dyker Heights in Brooklyn, Rio Rancho started as a housing development known as "Rio Rancho Estates", and Rajneeshpuram started and ended as an intentional community. It passes my standards easily - it's outside of a city boundary, has its own incorporated homeowners' association, and it has at least 120 people living there. Since it's 90 years old, I am satisfied this is not merely spam for a realtor to sell new homes. This little community appears to have been a summer/weekend home area, but is now within the suburbs. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per SportingFlyer's additional sources showing its community status. As long as significant coverage exists in independent, secondary, reliable sources, it meets WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I expanded it. Valfontis (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage beyond routine features such as HOA, utility/zoning districts etc. –dlthewave ☎ 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per SportingFlyer and my expansion, and the availability of coverage in newspapers.com. (to which I have a full subscription, if you need me to look something up). This article about a 90-year-old community is a victim of "recentism" and "can't find it on the internet". Sources exist. Redirecting to Fairview is inappropriate. It may get annexed to Fairview eventually and can be merged then. Failing "keep", merge to Multnomah County. Full deletion is silly. It appears that the gazetteer function of the wiki and the GNIS term "populated place" are now up for debate, which is fair, but in my 10+ years of editig and 100s of articles I have started on various Oregon podunks (and I do argue for deletion on random Oregon podunks, like Blue Bucket Cow Camp, Oregon), I have never seen an article where it is proven people actually live deleted. FWIW, Oregon has some wacky land-use laws. Yes this !vote is full of AFD:NOT or whatever that advice is about how not to argue at an AfD. Feel free to take me down about WP:ILIKEIT. Cheers. Valfontis (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also per Bearian. Valfontis (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It straight up passes WP:GEOLAND #1. Some subdivisions in the Phoenix area didn't as they were never distinct and separate places from the cities they were annexed into, and the GNIS isn't wholly reliable for determining whether something passes WP:GEOLAND #1, but an unincorporated community recognised by its county as a distinct district is in fact legally recognised, as is the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: This should prove interesting. There are over 2000 HOA's in the Portland area. The "greater Portland" area has 95 communities listed in 6 districts with the East Portland Community ending just east of the subject area. There are approximately 351,000 homeowner associations in the US and I will offer that most of them post to the local newspapers so we can likely find some form of printed sources on many, if not a majority, and probably all have a GNIS "feature". If we justify the keeping of an individual community HOA, which is what this appears to be, we can surely just as likely justify HOA districts that are far larger and more complex. If we go with the "historical" aspect that may narrow it to the tens of thousands. The USGS term for a "populated place" is usually a city, settlement, town, village, like Alameda, Portland, Oregon, but I suppose 140 houses is a community. Otr500 (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the homes are covered by an HOA, this isn't an article on a homeowners association - it's an article on an unincorporated neighborhood (yes, governed by an HOA) but specifically recognised as a place name of an unincorporated community by the county. See Within the Gresham Area, Multnomah County is responsible for approximately twenty-eight miles of arterial roadways in the Cities of Fairview, Troutdale, and Wood Village, and the unincorporated residential area known as “Interlachen” that is located between Fairview Lake and Blue Lake (see Figure 2-2). from oregon.gov. SportingFlyer T·C 09:56, 14 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. Titoxd(?!?) 02:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Lau[edit]

Victor Lau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the Green Party leaders they AFD'd. ミラP 00:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lau has gotten a little routine, province-level news coverage for being elected leader of a minor (small) provincial-level political party. It takes more than that to be regarded as a notable political actor.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NotButtigieg: WP:ROUTINE already was shown not to apply to people. ミラP 20:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following the link you provided leads to WP:POLITICIAN, which make clear that political figures who have not held one of a number of specified offices need to have gotten "significant coverage" in the media. Lau has not gotten such coverage.NotButtigieg (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NPOL & WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In agreement with those above, fails WP:POLOUTCOMES because he is the leader of a minor party with no other real claim to notability. Plus, these sources shouldn't satisfy GNG because they're pretty standard for any political candidate. TheAnayalator (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG - none of the sources are significant coverage, which isn't surprising for the leader of a minor party. SportingFlyer T·C 11:05, 10 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) 01:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Malcolm Griffiths[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. His radio show appears to be his best shot at notability, but it's apparently only broadcast in Monaco and Milan. I am unable to find any reference to his claimed role in the World Music Video Awards, but it appears to be minor anyway. Article has been flagged for notability since 2008, with no substantial improvement. The only independent coverage I found was a fairly light interview on an Italian expat site. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the reviews satisfy WP:NALBUM. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11/12/13: Live in Melbourne[edit]

11/12/13: Live in Melbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This live album fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM, as a Google search failed to turn up signficant coverage in reliable sources. I couldn't find evidence that it won any awards or reached any national music charts. As neither musician has their own article, it cannot be merged or redirected. Citrivescence (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both musicians have their own articles. I'll put links on the page in question to both articles.

You're being all nice and everything while at the same time you're purpose is to undo a few hours of my hard work and you haven't given a good reason as to why. Why does it have to win an award to be worthy? I look around Wikipedia and see that this article is as well done as a lot, if not a vast lot, of other album articles. One of your fellow reviewers once told me that if I didn't like that fact, I should nominate some of those other articles for deletion. That's just silly. Why? Just because I might not want to read an article doesn't mean there aren't countless others that would appreciate it. To me, that sort of defeats the purpose of having an online encyclopedia. The problem with "notability" in regards to small independent record labels and albums is that you will never have the kind of press coverage for these small guys as for the big music machines. Somebody there at Wikipedia should recognize this as a problem for notability's sake and grade on a curve for these independent albums else the big machine and their money always wins at the end of the day. I think you walk a thin line between "notability" and "popularity" by not acknowledging this fact. I went looking for this album and found inaccurate data about it at a couple of different places which I'll not mention here, so I decided there might be other people interested in the facts, as I was. I have a copy of the album so I'm reasonably sure the information I posted is accurate. Deleting a perfectly good article and denying others that knowledge is akin to burning books in my opinion. So it didn't reach "Gold" status. The majority of albums don't, so big wup!

I'm going to post a couple more sources that I found online that should help this article, although I don't think that should have been necessary.HowlinMadMan (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(posting this in the user's notes as well) Hey, HowlinMadMan. I won't go into the why here as it's been extensively covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I recommend you check out our general notability guidelines and Music album notability guidelines. This latter link will be the most relevant. Do keep in mind, as well, that being here in Articles for Deletion (AfD for short) does not mean that it will be deleted, it means that Citrivescence is seeking consensus on whether it should be deleted - and likely feels that a) a speedy delete is inappropriate (which, in this case, it is), and proposed deletion is not the best bet (again, it is not the best bet). Even so, keep up the work and follow the guidelines - remember, in a worst case we can always create a draft for you. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I don't want to. The relevant guidelines are pretty cut and dry here, and this regrettably does not meet any one of those guidelines at this point in time. Moreover, the connection to the notable musicians does not connote the notability. If the author - or anybody, really - can get some more material that conveys notability, I will change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines state the following:

"Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography."

I have added a "Critical reception" section with three different articles where the album was reviewed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HowlinMadMan (talk • contribs)

  • Keep , or merge into artist's articles as the OP was incorrect about their not having their own articles. I've read the guidelines and feel there is sufficient reason to keep the article based on the above quote from said guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HowlinMadMan (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. The fact of the matter is that it does not meet the guidelines for album notability, period. – DarkGlow (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reliable sources reviews in at least two reliable sources AllMusic and Country Standard Times. Also although this is a live album it does contain mostly original work which is one of the considerations regarding album articles, passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have never known AllMusic to be considered a reliable source. It is not listed on WP:RSP, the list that I generally defer to. Citrivescence (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The absence of AllMusic in the list at WP:RSP is not evidence that it is an unreliable source. Read the "What if my source isn't here?" sub-section. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above response is correct, but @Citrivescence: AllMusic is listed under its parent publisher, RhythmOne. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Skeletor3000: I didn't realize! Thank you for letting me know. Citrivescence (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The nominator was just plain incorrect about the musicians not having articles. Meanwhile, there is not much to work with but the album does have some fairly descriptive reviews in reliable publications. This should be enough for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. WP:NALBUM suggests that album articles unlikely to grow beyond a stub should be merged with the artist's page, but I'm not sure how that would be accomplished with two primary artists. The two reviews amount to notability, even if just barely. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The creator of the page made improvements since the nomination. I think prolonging the conversation through two relistings is overkill for this unimpressive but inoffensive stub article. Toughpigs (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the above. I could not find non-trivial coverage beyond what's been added to the article, but these sources are just enough to satisfy WP:NALBUM so I'm fine with a keep rather than a redirect.  gongshow  talk  03:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Gotham City[edit]

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

Gotham City is notable, sure, but its mayors do not inherit notability; their relevance as a group is not even discussed (i.e. more than name-dropped) in their parent city's article. Fails WP:LISTN, WP:NOT#PLOT and appears WP:INDISCRIMINATE (check for the words "unknown", "unnamed" and "presumably", as if trying to list all mayors). – sgeureka t•c 15:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 15:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 15:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. This comic-cruft list fails NLIST/GNG. It can also be merged into the article about the ficitonal city. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why do we need to list all of the non-notable mayors of a fictional city? ―Susmuffin Talk 18:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Obviously a creation of the Joker. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is another case of taking the matierial too seriously for the sources. The changes in mayors seem to have as much to do with the creators not caring to keep this detail consistent as anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: cruft.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Let this page stay. This is the only place to detail the Mayors of Gotham City that don't appear in the comics. If the decision is merge, then the Mayors of Gotham City section for Gotham City should be expanded with this information. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 22:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 03:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you have to depend on the comics themselves as primary source referencing for their own content, because there's no evidence of any independent reliable source attention being paid to these characters in real media to contexualize their significance outside the comics' own internal universe, then by definition they're not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,What is the use of this list is not known.Fails WP:LISTN Alex-h (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry to pile on but definitely delete Dartslilly (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm intentionally piling on just to voice my opinion that this makes absolutely no sense as a Wikipedia list per NLIST/FANCRUFT. I also want to WP:TROUT that relist. The relist followed by an immediate keep !vote should be frowned upon. SportingFlyer T·C 02:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dune Houses[edit]

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

List of fictional organizations. This fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG for lack of (cited) third-party coverage. Compare the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Corrino. Sandstein 20:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and from what I can see, its house-specific subarticles aren't in a great shape either. Dune (franchise)#Plot arc summarizes the plot sufficiently.. – sgeureka t•c 21:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ken McGowan[edit]

Ken McGowan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the Green Party leaders they AFD'd. ミラP 00:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources amount to routine coverage during McGowan's losing candidacy for a legislative seat, and brief term as Party chair. But he served as party chair for only 1 year before resigning. But this is a very small political party (7%) in a small province. No evidence that he is notable.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NotButtigieg: WP:ROUTINE already was shown not to apply to people. ミラP 20:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following the link you provided leads to WP:POLITICIAN, which make clear that political figures who have not held one of a number of specified offices need to have gotten "significant coverage" in the media. McGowan has NOT gotten such coverage.NotButtigieg (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 20:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oaks Card Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGCRIT. All of the coverage of the subject seems to be local media, and most of it is routine and insignificant. - MrX 🖋 12:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 12:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is of historical relevance to Emeryville, California and we have articles on Artichoke Joe's, Casino San Pablo, and Graton Casino all in the Bay Area, I know the article is a stub and I know it is new, but we should be more inclusive, this article has two solid sources from the San Jose Mercury News which make it meet the GNG.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple of news sources don't necessarily establish notability, especially when they are based on a one-time past event - beyond the criminal issues, everything is extremely brief. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's a brief stub but it has 2 reliable sources in major newsource.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 20:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Certainly a poor article in need of cleanup. But, another good local piece, in the Wall Street Journal, along with the existing refs, makes me favor keeping it. Much of the news coverage regards the banking act violation, but it was certainly prominent. Regardless, there are a few reviews of the place, and according to the local piece I linked, the club has been around since 1896 and provides 8% of the tax revenue of Emeryville. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, keep. Passes GNG. The article just needs some epic improvement. I'm dropping some reliable secondary sources on the talk page of the article. (Fun fact: I've been to the Oaks Card Club!). Missvain (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that the two gambling news sites that pop up at the top of the Google News feed are considered reliable secondary sources in the world of gambling (from personal experience and a journalist who has covered Vegas). Missvain (talk) 05:46, 11 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbeidernes blad[edit]

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

Painfully obscure, this newspaper only existed for four months in 1898. None of the sources deal with the newspaper in a substantial way. Geschichte (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article provides basic facts about a well-attested historical publication. Doremo (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep : The article is informative ,it can be made a stub article instead of deleting it Georgiamarlins (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being informative and/or providing basic facts is not reason for inclusion. I can write an article that presents "basic facts" about my neighborhood newsletter, that doesn't elevate it to encyclopedic notability. The sources linked confirm existence but don't seem to be in-depth sources about the paper, so we cannot keep it simply on that basis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 20:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Doremo: Having created this, you seem to have some familiarity with Norweigan. Could you perhaps provide translation of the key sources? Or work to find some additional Norwegian language sources? If so, please ping me, as I believe this could be notable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited simply confirm the basic information in the article (publication dates, editor, successor publication). There are 1,787 hits for "Arbeidernes blad" at the National Library of Norway website, but most of them are common noun references (i.e., to a workers' paper) rather than to the publication with this title. There is probably more information about the paper hiding somewhere in there. The creator of the original Norwegian WP article (Skaragutt, probably no longer active) or a later contributor may be able to offer additional information about the publication. Doremo (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravin Gandhi[edit]

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

Relies on his op-eds and authored links to meet WP:GNG, remainder are clear WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is WP:NOTRESUME. Yogiile (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Yogiile (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Yogiile (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think NOTRESUME applies, since the creator isn't an SPA and doesn't have an obvious paid connection to the subject (if there is, please place your cards face up on the table). I see plenty of substantial sources in the article already - Chicago Tribune (albeit an interview), a big chunk of text and a picture in a Forbes article about him talking of his company's market share, another Tribune article, economic analysis from him in Bloomberg, and a deleted interview on MSNBC. The coverage calls him "critical" and "controversial" so it's not a hagiography or unduly in his favor - it passes WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The article needs work, but AfD is not for clean-up. I am the first to complain about self-promoting web-hosting. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Bearian, in addition, as per concerns about lack of in-depth coverage: WGN is a major media company, covering in-depth [Citation 8]. Washington Post covered his political controversies in-depth [Citation 23]. Chicago Tribune covered his business dealings in-depth [Citation 6]. After more research, I've added [Citation 24] in which PBS covers him in-depth. I also swapped a Crunchbase profile reference with an in-depth article from Crain's Chicago Business at [Citation 5]. Citations 2 and 25 are also in-depth. Isingness (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes general notability guidelines, especially in the Chicagoland area. Missvain (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saheba Subramanyam[edit]

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

Short undersourced article. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would caution the nom here that just because an article is short on sources, does not mean that it is not notable. Please remember to do WP:BEFORE and look up the article to check if sourcing exists. AfD is not for deleting bad articles, only those that are not notable or are irreversibly against policy. In terms of sourcing, I quickly found numerous reviews of the film: [7], [8], [9], [10], and there are clearly more out there. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good work by CaptainEek. Passes GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources reviews identified above such as The Hindu and The Times of India and others so passes WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 12 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. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is physical fitness?[edit]

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

This is an essay and does not belong on Wikipedia. We have plenty of articles about Physical fitness however none of the content here would be appropriate for a merge as it's an WP:ESSAY. Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides references that haven't been used on Wikipedia before — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naijapapi (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Portland Black Panthers: Empowering Albina and Remaking a City[edit]

The Portland Black Panthers: Empowering Albina and Remaking a City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books). These criteria are further analyzed under #Academic and technical books, whose suggested criteria are not met. If every academic book that gets a book review in an academic journal were considered notable, then there would be several tens of thousands books each year that are wiki-worthy, even though they might only ever be read by a few academics. Ergo Sum 19:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks:) Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sailesh Dave[edit]

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

Sources are mainly just mentions in passing, and many are unreliable such as blogs and IMDB. Several attempts at finding better references ([19], [20], [21]), fail to turn up anything better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sourcing in the article not sufficient to establish notability, nor could I find any better -- Whpq (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. -- LACaliNYC✉ 22:06, 12 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 Central Park jogger case. Tone 19:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Am the Central Park Jogger[edit]

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

No independent notability for the book. The article about the Central Park jogger case already includes a paragraph about this book, that's all there is to say about it. — JFG talk 19:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JFG talk 19:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — JFG talk 19:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Central Park jogger case. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested. This tiny stub about a book is a part of the incident of the larger article, and a redirect is CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I agree with the above suggestions to redirect to the main article re: Central Park Jogger.TH1980 (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by OP: Obviously, a redirect is my preferred outcome as well. — JFG talk 08:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baggins of Hobbiton[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy. The Baggins as a family are not notable, although Bilbo and Frodo are. Fails WP:GNG. A family is not notable because two members are notable. We only have articles on families when many members are notable, or the family itself as a unit is notable, like the Bush family. Hog Farm (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW NOT speedy Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Kogler[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Some coverage but is all native advertising. scope_creepTalk 18:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is unanimously in favor of keeping the article. As a note: I've since gone back on this one myself, due to the fact that there are sources that can be used for the list. However, enough time has passed that I don't really think I can call this a withdrawal anymore. So, sorta withdrawn by nominator, but consensus is also very clearly in favor of keeping the article. (non-admin closure) InvalidOS (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of chemical compounds with unusual names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a page that only exists for humor. InvalidOS (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. InvalidOS (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination does not contain a valid reason to delete and fails to address the numerous previous discussions which have kept the page. See also WP:LULZ. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Nominator makes no policy- or guideline-based argument against this article. But instead (as many times before) this article has reliable sources supporting the topic as a topic and the various entries in it. DMacks (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. "Unusual names" is an extremely subjective criterion and the only source for "unusualness" seems to be a blog listing (that also flogs the author's book on the same subject), hence WP:LISTVERIFY is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there are books on the subject, the topic is not original and we have verification. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trinitrotuluene I'd compare this to Place names considered unusual: We can discuss the concept of names being unusual and give some examples, but we do not need to have a subjective list that attempts to give all of them (it's kept at Wikipedia:Unusual place names as a subset of Wikipedia:Unusual articles). There's this 1990s personal website and the Metanomsky and May books I can't access. At the very least, I fail to see what makes being named after a place unusual. Or Germanic acid? Carbonite? Fluoboric acid? HArF? These are lame. Reywas92Talk 23:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not !voting because I WP:LIKE this too much for an unbiased assessment. However, in case of Keep, some pruning would be advisable. The "Other" category is a bit on the nose with the arbitrary inclusion of lame items. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:LISTN, have been covered/discussed in sources ie. Molecules With Silly Or Unusual Names held in around 950 libraries, of course, editors will need to keep an eye out for possible WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:OR additions ie. i have just removed the entry for "Bowlane" as it doesnt have a source to say that it is unusual. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A fair number of sources discuss unusual chemicals, including at least one full length book, and various journal articles. However, if kept, the inclusion criteria need to be tightened, and the lead cleaned up. The "Other" section should go entirely. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that is the sixth!! deletion discussion for this article. That means five previous discussion have agreed to keep the article. Not sure what has changed since the last discussion that would alter the outcome here. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the seventh (one was under a name that the auto-list doesn't recognize...I manually added it to the list), and only four of them (including the most recent three) were "keep" (two others were "no consensus", which has the same effect). But as to your fundamental "what has changed" concern, I think "nothing has changed". DMacks (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as I said in the previous deletion nomination, sources have been found mentioning it such as The Royal Society of Chemistry and things published by Imperial College Press on the subject. If something has been nominated this many times, please read at least the past nomination before wasting everyone's time with it. Dream Focus 04:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep without a nomination rationale WP:SKCRIT. This list meets WP:LISTN Wm335td (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SNOW - we've been through this five times before, and I don't see consensus changing. In fact, there are more potential references available today than in the past. AfD is not the place to announce a clean-up. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A perfectly legitimate list, especially in context of popular science. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, BUT only those entries that have their unusualness sourced. Most of the entries seem to be "sourced" by research papers. I strongly doubt they mention the oddness of the names, and they wouldn't be independent in any case. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 19:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer jumping[edit]

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

A computer science concept of unclear notability. Aside from being poorly sourced, it is written in a user manual style. It is so unclear that I had trouble determining what it's even about, and that's naturally hindered my attempts to find additional sources (I could find nothing good). Reyk YO! 18:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on notability grounds. The concept is quite present in textbooks [22], of which at least a couple appear to provide full-length discussion [23][24]. Possibly can be merged to some broader article, but I don't have an overview there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing looks great to me. The article cites two textbooks in the field of algorithms. Is there a deeper problem with the sources? The article does need some cleanup: it fails to describe the concept in full before jumping into the first example, and the second example is unreferenced. But this is not a reason for deletion. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if this is kept, suggest that it needs a rewrite (at least the lead), so that the average wikireader can understand what its about. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would have thought references to two prominently used textbooks would have been enough, but I've done some literature search and updated to page with several varied publications using the design technique. I also made some minor edits to hopefully clarify the topic a bit. Perhaps a better writer is able to improve this more, but the description to me does not seem any more confusing than descriptions like for the divide-and-conquer algorithm. Moreland, Kenneth (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, from someone who achieved d grades in high school for computer programming (so did not pursue it:)), the introduction is now clearer. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MIPI (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation is not required (WP:2DABS). MIPI redirects to MIPI Alliance which has a hatnote to the only other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can find more notable names for the disambig. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we are not a search index and the article titles are all different WP:PTM. I fail to see how this would help our readers more than just searching per WP:D Lightburst (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger to Stranger (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation is not required (WP:2DABS). The primary topic has a hatnote to the only other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I am not seeing any particular reason this page needs to exist, it's exactly equivalent to the example of an unnecessary disambiguation page at WP:ONEOTHER (see this AfD). The hatnote works fine. ~ mazca talk 12:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Librex Holding Inc.[edit]

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

non notable manufacturer, even in newspaper archives i can find no significant coverage Praxidicae (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mamla Hamla Jhamela[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Its 2020 but the film's principle photography is not started yet. In 2017 it was mentioned in Bangladeshi media that there will be a film name Mamla Hamla Jhamela. But, as of today, the filming is not started. It is just announced film. As per WP:NFILM announced film should not have articles if their principal photography is not started.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since the work of this movie has not started till today. I check some of news look like Some minor coverage on Bengali news. Fail WP:GNG. -Nocturnal306talk 21:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 19:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Hall (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page is not really required per WP:DAB - the University of Nebraska State Museum article doesn't even have a seperate section for the Elephant hall but a mere mention. I do not think that this disambiguation page is much help to the readers, or disambiguates any ambiguity. Kostas20142 (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's reasonable - the only reason I created this page was because Elephant Hall directed to the University of Nebraska State Museum and I felt it would make more sense for it to direct to Letaba's Elephant Hall since that's the name of the museum, but I was unsure how strong the association of Elephant Hall is with the museum. I support deleting this article and redirecting Elephant Hall to Letaba Rest Camp#Elephant Hall. I'm happy to put a disambiguation item on that section if anyone thinks it's necessary. Lengau (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it is a valid disambiguation page. It has two "Elephant Hall" entries which are valid disambiguation page entries. There is no world-wide wp:PRIMARYUSAGE of the term. There is something called "TWODABS" which states that a disambiguation page having two entries might not strictly be necessary, but it does not prohibit having such pages, and it is helpful to have this. Note, I did revise one of the entries to directly show Elephant Hall, Letaba Rest Camp, which is itself a redirect to a section of the Letaba Rest Camp article. This is fine practice. --Doncram (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Elephant Hall" should NOT be a redirect to just one of these places. --Doncram (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per guidelines on WP:DISAMBIG page: It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek. Wm335td (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This makes much more sense than a dab link in each of target sections.----Pontificalibus 13:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a disambiguation page, but it is WP:MALFORMED at this title and needs a swap with Elephant Hall. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:08, 10 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) 15:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Days[edit]

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

The Elder Days have not been analysed by journalists or academics. At best, this could be a Wiktionary entry. However, I am not sure if it meets their requirements. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There seem to be some dispute about the title, but the general consensus is to keep. Other issues can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 19:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brady–Belichick era[edit]

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

No indication of notability. All the sources provided use the term "Brady-Belichick era" in passing, but don't give it direct and detailed coverage as an independent subject. This page seems to be someone's personal essay. NickCT (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I dunno about this. We have plenty of articles that cover a particular franchise/program over a certain time period and it's hard to imagine many such periods that would be more noteworthy than the Brady-Belichick era. Maybe it's just a personal gut feeling, but I have to imagine that this is a notable concept. Lepricavark (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also Victorian era and Edwardian era -- periods of British history under the reign of a particular king/queen. Cbl62 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this were refactored as "History of the New England Patriots under Bill Bellichick" or "New England Patriots under Bill Bellichick", I'd be a clear "keep" voter. The mixing of Brady and Bellichick makes it a little gray for me. Cbl62 (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejgreen77: - Right. Which is different than "United States under Harry Truman", right? NickCT (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: - Here is a book that deals directly with the Victorian era as its primary topic. That's how we establish the "Victorian Era"'s notability. Can you show me something similar for the Brady–Belichick era? NickCT (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: The comments above were in response to your "Ooooff" and contention above that "I don't think there's anywhere else that history articles get titled with names." The contention has been shown to be baseless. And, yes, there are absolutely abundant sources covering the "Belichick era" -- a google search turns up 46,300 hits. Cbl62 (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: - That's not a good counter point. If we had an article called "History of the United Kingdom under Victoria", that would have been a good counterpoint. The Victorian Era article isn't an article about the history of something else (i.e. like the Alabama Crimson Tide football under Nick Saban is about the history of the Crimson tide). The "Victorian Era" article is about an independently notable thing, called "The Victorian Era". NickCT (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree, sir. And, there's no need to respond to every comment by everyone who disagrees with you. The point here is to build and reflect consensus, not to "win" a battle. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: - There's a difference between examining logic and fighting a battle. If you're unfamiliar with the difference between the two, you should get familiar. I take the point that my initial comment re "history article get titled" could have been confusing. I was really only talking about articles titled "History of X", and not any article that dealt with history. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"If you're unfamiliar with the difference between the two, you should get familiar" Still coming across a bit more like combat than a collegial discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Collegial discussions also usually don't involve equivocation. You do understand that the "Victorian Era" has books written about it, in a way that the "Brady-Belichik Era" does not, right? NickCT (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are books that have been written about this remarkable period in Patriots history. See here, here, and here. This plus other abundant sources satisfy GNG. That's all that's required. The fact that the Victorian era may be more notable is a red herring. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: - I'm having trouble understanding how most of the sources you're providing are about "the Brady-Belicick-Era". The primary topic of Patriot Reign for example seems to be Belichick's management of the Patriots. Belichick's management of the Patriots may well have been notable. That doesn't mean "the Brady-Belicick-Era" is a thing. You'd agree Steve Jobs' management of Apple was notable? Does that mean "the Jobs era" is a thing? NickCT (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
re "the Victorian era may be more notable" - Ok. Fine. So some thing are more notable and somethings are less notable. I agree w/ you that there is some notability for the topic "the Brady-Belicick-Era" (by virtue of all the passing mention you've pointed to). You still haven't pointed to significant coverage in the way I did for the "Victorian era". NickCT (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "Patriot Reign" book (here) is a best-selling comprehensive history of the Patriots dynasty under Belichick and Brady. Not sure how the coverage could be more direct or significant. It includes a full chapter on "Tom Brady and the Reconstruction", and additional chapters addressing each of the major developments in the dynasty. This is unquestionably "significant coverage" (indeed, of the highest order) on the subject at issue here. (The same is also true of the second book, "Belichick and Brady: Two Men, the Patriots, and How They Revolutionized Football" here.) Cbl62 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
re "of the Patriots dynasty under Belichick and Brady" - Citation needed. That is your synopsis. I agree that this is "good coverage" of something. Just not of the "Brady-Belichick era". I think the conclusion that this book is about the "Brady Belichick era" is just something you're infering.
re "Belichick and Brady: Two Men, the Patriots" - The primary topic there is clearly the friendship between Brady and Belichick. A friendship does not an "era" make. Want to write a "Frienship of Belichick and Brady" article? Go ahead.... NickCT (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the worst kind of fanwank. Most of the article is uncited POV prose. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Patriots page per NickCT and Beemer69. Dwscomet (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article and content clearly pass the general notability guideline and there is an excessive volume of credible third party articles on the subject. Clearly the world believes this topic is notable. Arguments for deletion seem to be variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not a reason to delete, or the argument about WP:NEED which also is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Paulmcdonald: - I love when folks read over a bunch of rationales for deletion, then just assume they all equate to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Good example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You've asserted that "there is an excessive volume (italics added for emphasis) of credible third party articles". Ok. Can you point to a single article which deals with the Brady-Belichick era as it's primary topic? NickCT (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's examples of the variations of "I don't like it": (1) "This page seems to be someone's personal essay" (2) "Delete as the worst kind of fanwank." and an example of "need": "I do not see a need for a separate article on this." -- these are all personal point of view statements. There is no "assumption" on my part. There are only two actual policies or guidelines directly referenced (WP:SIGCOV and WP:SYNTH) -- and they do not apply because their standards have been met. There is the WP:POV issue indirectly brought up, but that's really an editing issue and not a deletion issue. The references already provided by Cbl62 should suffice for your other request.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, largely due to the "Patriot Way" section which I suppose is its own topic and not a duplicate. Note, I don't think it's fair or accurate to just exclude Matt Cassel from this article - it's not like he was a second-stringer, he was the primary quarterback for a year. SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, I'm not sure about how the article should be named, but there is abundant significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources about this remarkably successful and unprecedented 20-year football dynasty, such that WP:GNG is satisfied. Examples of such coverage include: (1) this feature story explicitly referring to the "Brady-Belichick era"; (2) this New York Times best-selling book about the Patriots dynasty under Belichick and Brady; (3) this; (4) this; (5) this; (6) this; (7) this; and (8) this. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an assembly of random articles that include the names "Brady" and "Belichik" in them. They don't give direct coverage to something called the "Brady-Belichik era".
Addressing the references one-by-one;
1) Primary topic is the hate for the Pats, not about Brady-Belichik era. Gives passing mention to the term "Brady-Belichick era", not significant coverage.
2) Not a book. Seems like an excerpt from a Boston Globe piece? Regardless, it sorta gives direct coverage to something you might call the Brady Era, but never actually explicitly uses the term.
3) Duplicate of 2?
4) Like 2, also a Boston Globe excerpt?
5) Autobiography by different Pat's player. Unclear how this provides coverage to anything called the "Brady-Belichik era".
6) Primary topics is Pat's 6th championship. Unclear how this provides coverage to anything called the "Brady-Belichik era".
7) Primary topic seems to be anecdotes about the Pats. Unclear how this provides coverage to anything called the "Brady-Belichik era".
8) Primary topic seems to be the Pats and their "Dynasty". Unclear how this provides coverage to anything called the "Brady-Belichik era".
If you wanted to create an article called "The Patriots Dynasty", or something like that, it might cut mustard. But that's different from this article. NickCT (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Patriots dynasty under Brady/Belichick is notable, as you now seem to be halfway acknowledging. At AfD, our goal is to determine whether the subject of the article is notable, not whether a different title would be preferable. The naming of the article is not a reason for deletion; rather, it may be a basis for a subsequent renaming discussion. (And, BTW, source 2 is actually book, and sources don't have to be "books" to count toward GNG. Significant secondary coverage in major metropolitan dailies such as The Boston Globe and New York Daily News is perfectly acceptable.) Cbl62 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: - So let's clarify; I said the "Patriots dynasty" might be notable, b/c you pointed to a single source that granted the subject significant coverage. You seem to be infering that the "Patriots Dynasty" and the "Brady-Belichick Era" are the same thing. Not clear to me that that's the case.
Of course things don't have to be books. But it's weird you link to Google Books for something that isn't a book. It's not even clear to me what kind of publication this is....... Is it a blog? Is it a legitimate publication from the Boston Globe? NickCT (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "Patriots dynasty" and the "Brady-Belichick era" refer to the same thing -- i.e., the remarkable era of success, including 6 Super Bowl championships, experienced by the New England Patriots since 2000 when the greatest quarterback of all time was paired with arguably the greatest coach in NFL history. Any issue of renaming can be addressed via a talk page discussion, but affords no basis for deletion. As for the items found in Google books, the decision to include there is an editorial decision by Google, not by me. Cbl62 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
re "Patriots dynasty" and the "Brady-Belichick era" refer to the same thing - Citation needed! Even if the Patriots Dynasty were notable, it's not clear to me that this article is about the Patriots Dynasty, as much as it's about some synthetic topic called "the Brady-Belichick era", which isn't a thing (or not a notable thing at least). This wouldn't just require renaming. It would require renaming, and rewriting to change the subject. Might as well just delete. You could always preserve the part of the article you like, then try to come back and get a Patriots dynasty article going. NickCT (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will CBS Sports do for that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald: - Look.... The "Patriots Dynasty" might be a notable thing. You have a single article from CBS saying a non-notable thing (i.e. the so-called "Brady/Belichick era") overlaps with a possibly notable thing (i.e. the "Patriots Dynasty"). That doesn't mean those two things are the same. It also doesn't mean an abstract concept like "the Brady/Belichick era" can co-opt notability from "the Patriots Dynasty".
The article, as currently written, is clearly more focused on Brady/Belichick, than it is focused on a sports dynasty. I think you guys are conflating primary topics here. Really, I think what you want to do is have an article called "Patriots Dynasty", then have a subsection called "Brady/Belichick era". NickCT (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see... the article starts with "Where do the Belichick-Brady Patriots rank among the NFL's dominant teams? You may be surprised." and it continues "The Patriots are also easily outlined by the Brady/Belichick era," followed by "Patriots: Brady and Belichick era (2001-2014)" -- as for its significance, the source states "That's what makes the New England Patriots' current run so special. New England has now won four Super Bowls and participated in six since the turn of the century, while no other NFL franchise has won more than two or appeared in more than three." As for what the article is called and the layout of its content, that is once again an editing topic and not a deletion topic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming. In order to (hopefully) resolve NickCT's concern over the naming of the article, I moved the article to "New England Patriots dynasty in the Brady-Belichick era". There is no question that the dynasty is notable, and the squabbling here has largely turned on the naming of the article. I hope that puts to rest any lingering concerns about notability. If others think a slightly different name is preferable, that can be discussed further on the article talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: - Well kudos on a small step in a direction which is possibly right. "New England Patriots dynasty" would of course be a little less unwieldy. Anyways, what I think is happening here is that a bunch of Brady/Belichik fan boys are trying to promote them as the heroes of the Patriot's recent successes. I don't really know whether that true or false, and honestly I don't really care. I do know using Wikipedia for that kind of fan worship and soapboxing is sorta WP:LAME. Continuing this debate would also be a little lame. Perhaps, like Tom Brady from football, it's come time for me to consider retiring from this conversation. NickCT (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this isn’t a notable sports topic of the past almost two decades then... what is? I hear about this duo almost everyday and not just because I’m a (casual at best) Patriots fan. Just because the sourcing may be considered sub-par doesn’t mean articles that go in depth on the concept don’t exist. ⌚️ (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge This is difficult because notability isn't the issue here - it's the fact this is a terrible content fork of the main History of the New England Patriots article, which discusses the era much more comprehensively. This desperately needs to be cleaned up, and I think a merge is the best option here. I don't care if through the cleanup there's a decision made that this part of the team's history has a stand-alone article, but as it stands this is needlessly duplicative - this article should be more detailed than the general history page as opposed to being duplicative, and is not by a long shot. SportingFlyer T·C 01:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History of the New England Patriots is already too big with over 118,000 bytes. See WP:TOOBIG ("> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided"). Accordingly, it's an appropriate and needed fork. The need for cleanup should be resolved by editing, not AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I agree this shouldn't be at AfD, but there is a very identifiable need for cleanup, and I wanted to make clear this shouldn't just be kept and forgotten about. Would you support something similar to History of Liverpool F.C. or History of Manchester United F.C. by renaming the article History of the New England Patriots (2000–present), upmerging the relevant seasons from History of the New England Patriots, and then leaving a paragraph or so about the timeline on the main History of page? I think that's the best solution, but I also don't know if that goes against American football style guides. SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much as I completely despise both of these jackasses guys, this obviously meets WP:GNG. How this all works out in conjunction with History of the New England Patriots is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Brady-Belichick dynasty is one of the greatest in NFL history and probably deserves its own article due to how much info is in this one article alone. Would be tough merging into New England Patriots. Probably needs a rename though. CatcherStorm talk 11:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant era in the history of the team and football in general, merge is impractical due to large content, and clearly passes WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Shook[edit]

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

Probably was a good guy but unfortunately I can’t seem to find any evidence of true notability as he as a person/sole individual does not seem to have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources as such doesn’t scale WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple sources are listed in the article which shows a pass of WP:GNG. True, most of the sources are offline but I see no reason to not WP:AGF. Plus, he's a member of the country music hall of fame which shows national recognition.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI'm a new editor and not sure I should be voting, but I was really surprised to see this up for deletion. I wrote teh article and I didn't add all the sources that I found at one time because I was assuming since Wikipedia is a community effort that others would come and get involved. Can't imagine he isn't wiki worthy with sources like this that describe him as "part of teh Nashville initial cadre of studio professionals who helped to create the city's recording industry." Losing you to find me (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok (and good!) to vote on articles that you've written. It's a nice article; thank you for writing it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this old-timer.NotButtigieg (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article--absolutely!--per Paul McDonald. Should not have been nominated for deletion. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has multiple reliable sources coverage and is a member of a significant hall of fame, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't find him listed as a member at the Country Music Hall of Fame[25]. If he is a member then he's certainly notable.Sandals1 (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Looks like that's an entry in their database, not a member listing. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is a close one, but essentially the keep arguments were augmented by improvements to the article during the debate, which were not themselves challenged. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Elliott Pickart[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY - takinng to AfD rather than prod in case I'm being blinded by how much of it is unencyclopaedic. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Megalibrarygirl's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - This person clearly contributed to the genre of trashy romance novels. There are one or two pieces of coverage for her books in moderate level sources. It's definitely not clear to me this person meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets WP:NAUTHOR#3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a ... collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I have deleted the unencyclopaedic content and added biographical details. I have also added reviews from the South Bend Tribune, The Dispatch, the Romantic Times, plus an article from the Tucson Citizen. Although WP:NAUTHOR doesn't specify non-local coverage, those are from Arizona, Indiana and Illinois, as well as the national Romantic Times. I have added some quotes from reviews - more could be added. I don't have access to the Library Journal review which Megalibrarygirl found - perhaps she would like to add it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with RebeccaGreen. There's enough reviews of her work in RS to pass NAUTHOR#3. I was on the fence, but I'm glad RebeccaGreen found more reviews than I did and did a WP:HEY. I added the LJ article quickly, as I have to get going for the moment! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons given by RebeccaGreen.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. Missvain (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR#3, as she fails the additional criteria (emphasis mine) of In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Also, WP:NAUTHOR is not an over-ride of WP:GNG (unlike say, WP:NPROF), and its heading states People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Ultimately, pieces of sub-RS from local papers, most of which are short reviews on her works and not her as a subject, is a thin case, and really a fail of WP:GNG. However, there is no WP:PROMO here (she is now deceased), time has been spent tidying up the article by RebeccaGreen, and it is now in better shape; given the amount of her works, I could therefore see a WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER case for not deleting it as this stage. Britishfinance (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Britishfinance, I strongly agree with your views on NAUTHOR, and I wonder if it's not worth having a discussion somewhere about tightening up the criteria. It seems to me that that clause is intended to cover instances where the body of work as a whole has been the subject of critical coverage or commentary, not to broadly include anyone who has had some books reviewed ever (thus injecting notability upwards from reviews of books to their author as has been argued here). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Premeditated Chaos, I have seen arguments put forward at AfD that any independent review of a book is a pass of NAUTHOR and thus a Keep (even though NAUTHOR is not an over-ride of GNG like NPROF in any instance). I don't think NAUTHOR was not written with this in mind (or almost every published author would get a BLP using WP:MILL reviews of their books as support). The same issue is also happening with NMUSIC to bring ordinary musicians, who should really never make an entry into any normal encyclopedia (e.g. we are really pushing what are NEXIST arguments, into GNG arguments, in my view). I think it may need a broader discussion to clarify the wording. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a clear failure of WP:NAUTHOR#3, and I find Megalibrarygirl's selective quotation of the criteria in her argument to be somewhat disingenuous. The relevant wording omitted from her argument is bolded: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. If the person's one significant individual work, or their whole body of work, is not in and of itself significant and well-known, the person in question fails NAUTHOR3. It's clear from the paucity of reviews in this case that the body of work is not, in this case, significant and well-known, and therefore the subject fails NAUTHOR#3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disingenuous? I disagree with your take, but that doesn't mean that you can't assume good faith of mine and RebeccaGreen's, Premeditated Chaos. There has never been any discussions at AfD where there's been a need for the whole body of work, because it mentions "work" too, which is singular. We do have multiple independent reviews here and that's all that's needed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is disingenuous to intentionally quote around the phrase "significant or well-known" when quoting notability criteria. That's like not including "fully-professional league" when quoting NFOOTY - it's a significant omission that changes the interpretation of the criteria. The fact that some reviews of some of her books exist does not make those individual books, or her body of work as a whole "significant or well-known". If there's enough reviews for individual books to pass WP:GNG, they might be considered notable enough to have an article per our standards, but that doesn't make them "significant or well-known" in a broad sense that would spread notability upwards to the author by default (by your argument if I wrote one book that got three reviews I'd immediately be a notable enough author to have an article, even if I wrote nothing else and died in obscurity, which is just silly). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Maguire (Irish digital artist)[edit]

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

Although he is described as prominent, the text doesn't actually suggest substantial notability, and nothing that would meet WP:NARTIST. The key point, though, is that sources are entirely lacking. Of the 7 currently in the article, four are his own works, one is simply his keynote, and one is an interview with him. That leaves only the EBR. I can't work out how reliable a source this is - it describes itself as a peer-reviewed journal, but it accepts essentially unsolicited essays, so I'm not really sure how far it goes to establishing notability. Either way, though, we don't have the multiple sources needed. Hugsyrup 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hugsyrup probably beat me by a second as I was already in the process of opening this AFD myself. Subject of article isn’t entirely not notable I must say but as per in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources he falls short of WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think that the figure in question is notable, though I appreciate that there isn't a huge body of work to draw from in terms of references. The EBR is one of the leading journals in the field of electronic literature, peer-reviewed and published by the OLH. I certainly think it is a valid, scholarly source. I have also added a second journal just now. I appreciate it's not a huge volume of citations, but I think for an artist in such a narrow field to have been discussed in two seperate peer-reviewed academic papers, one of which is almost entirely about their contribution to the field, is fair. OutmianYakta (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OutmianYakta if you notice in my comment above you’d see that although I !voted a delete I mentioned that the subject is not entirely non notable but does not fulfill WP:GNG. If you see any criterion amongst the criteria for inclusion that the subject qualifies under please draw my attention to it and perhaps I’d change my !vote to a Keep. Celestina007 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment - I have removed the unattributed opinions, uncited editorial and general "puffery" from the article. (The terms like "prominent", "highly regarded" or "prestigious" being particularly concerning when unattributed and unqualified. And not in the sources.) I have tagged some of the remaining text as failing verification with the linked sources. (The claims like "first work of electronic literature created in Ireland" being unsupported and unexplained. And not in the sources.) I have gone looking for other sources to see if anything establishes notability - and largely come up short. (The likes of this bio webpage or this blog being about the only things that I could find. And these are not contributory really.) I will hold off with my own !vote recommendation for now. As the author seems to be actively working on the article still. But, as with Hugsyrup and Celestina007 I'm leaning towards "delete" right now. As the sources (to establish notability) don't seem to be there. The sources (to support the text) are barely there. And the sources (to attribute the opinions/subjectivity) are not there at all... Guliolopez (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I have left the fence. And updated my AfD contribution from a "comment" to a "delete" recommendation. That no additional sources have come to light in the meantime (confirming notability under WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NARTIST or WP:ANYBIO) means I have not shifted from a quasi-neutral stance to a "keep". Rather, that a previous and seemingly related AfD has come to light in the meantime has, instead, shifted mine to a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Electronic Book Review (EBR) has been around for a long time, and is a peer-reviewed journal. It is a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2 - It also seems that this article was deleted once before but had a slightly different name Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Maguire (digital artist) unless I am mistaken about this. Netherzone (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I saw a few instances of being mentioned in good publications. But I did not see any in-depth coverage beyond the limited amount that is in the article. Four of the eight article sources are by the article subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Fails WP:NARTIST. Spleodrach (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After a comprehensive search, I could not find enough on this artist to substantiate notability as per our guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as unambiguous advertising ... discospinster talk 15:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shao Dow[edit]

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

Non notable author who fails WP:AUTHOR, an alleged singer but falls short of WP:SINGER. In all I can’t see WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Arda[edit]

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

This is a perfect example of something that belongs on Wikia or some other fan wiki. It has zero real world connection, presenting the massive timeline of a fictional world in way, way way more detail than is needed in an actual encycloppedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a redundant content fork of a redundant content fork. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a redundant content fork. Also, while I don't have my copy of LOTR with me right now, I think somebody had better compare the timeline in the ROTK appendix to the timelines in this article. There's a chance, with the way some of this is worded, that it may be straight up copied. I don't think it's a large chance, but something that should probably be investigated if anyone has access to the ROTK appendixes. Hog Farm (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ALLPLOT. Its most important sentence is "The chronology underwent major revisions after the publication of The Lord of the Rings, in about 1958.", but it still seems rather trivial as a stand-alone sentence. – sgeureka t•c 21:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Faolin42: I appreciate that you think this page should be kept. But this is a discussion, not a vote. Could you please explain your rational? Thanks, BenKuykendall (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops! Didn't realize that. Since I mostly fix typos, I don't really have anything to add to the discussion. Faolin42 (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, G4 - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hải Khánh WilyD 14:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hải Khánh[edit]

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

8 year old chess player, deleted after PROD on 1 January, now recreated by a user with the same family name as the subject. Only sources are routine listings. Now, I cannot speak Vietnamese at all, but when I search this name I am turning up other people—so I suspect that notability is lacking. buidhe 13:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. buidhe 13:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. buidhe 13:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Judd Gregg[edit]

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

Thls ls a polntless fork. There ls no reason why thls can't just be added to the maln artlcle. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does come off as crufty. Maybe merge/redirect with Gregg's article and the relevant congressional districts. buidhe 13:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-needed content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spinoff "Electoral history of [Politician]" articles have sometimes been permitted for top-level politicians, like presidents and prime ministers, whose articles are extremely long and need chunking out for size management purposes — but that approach has never been routinely extended to most other politicians, and Gregg's main BLP is not inordinately long enough to need the special treatment. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 19:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nriputungavarman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and solely relies on a single source. Abishe (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG and single source - and one behind a registration wall. In general, if a subject meets GNG it would not be hard to find multiple reliable sources. Blue Riband► 15:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is mentioned in some rather famous copper plate inscriptions from Bahour. See, e.g., Epigraphia Indica Vol IV, No. 23 and The Hindu. Searching for "Nripatunga Varman" (with the space) shows some additional references, e.g. Google Books. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- No longer a single source, but how much do we seriously know about his reign? All we have at present is some brief genealogical details. Such articles are regularly redirected to the article on the dynasty. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he was a ruling monarch and so even if we had only one source that attested to him we should keep the article. We have multiple sources. True we cannot say a whole lot about him, but when we have articles on children of 18th-century European monarchs who died at age 5, this suggestion of deleting the article on a ruling monarch over a sizeable chunck of India is the exact sort of action that contributes to systemic bias in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Strathclyde[edit]

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

Non-notable student society of a non-notable, recently formed, non-represented political party. Searches for "Red Party of Scotland" turn up only passing mentions, like this. buidhe 12:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. buidhe 12:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. buidhe 12:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my search confirms User:Buidhe's argument.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Student wings of political parties are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and are entitled to have Wikipedia articles only if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on their sourcing. And that goes double for student wings of political parties that don't even have an article about the parent party yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sign of notability and as said above the party of which this is supposed to be part does not even have an article (and online searches do not suggest that it currently has a level of notability that would merit one).Dunarc (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - tiny student committee of a tiny party in Scotland. FWIW, my ancestors were kicked out of Scotland. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen White (programmer)[edit]

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

Unremarkable technology person Dawnseeker2000 12:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dawnseeker2000 12:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find coverage in independent sources. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep or merge. There is clearly no appetite for deletion and the nominator has indicated willingness to withdraw, discussions about whether to merge, and if so where, can continue on the talk page ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1862–63 Barnes F.C. season[edit]

1862–63 Barnes F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel like this isn't a good case for WP:NSEASONS as it's just friendlies from that particular season instead of actual league matches. I would also like to nominate these articles for possibly the same reason.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is quite possibly one of the worst reasons to delete an article I've ever seen, as it has nothing to do with the sourcing in the article at all. Every single game is sourced. There's a possible argument these seasons should be merged together into one article, but that's a merge, not a delete: there is absolutely no reason for us to delete any of this information. SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are ten Barnes season articles, all listed at List of Barnes F.C. seasons but only five are nominated here. What should be done about the other five which are similar in content to these and are also summarising matches that were not part of a league system. There are two FA Cup ties in 1871–72. I think we need to understand what is being proposed. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As the creator of these articles, I'm probably biased but I strongly disagree with the deletion. These are some of the earliest seasons of any club in English football, and have inherent interest as they lead up to the formation of the Football Association (Barnes was one of the leading clubs in the foundation of the FA) and document its earliest seasons, including the radical changes in the rules that occurred in its first decade. Indeed, the 1862-63 Barnes FC season contains the very first match ever played under FA rules (a fact noted in the article). I can add more prose to these articles as necessary, and would be happy to do so. While there may be a general guideline that season articles should not consist solely of friendly matches, surely it's taking things too far to extend this principle to seasons that predate the very concept of competitions in association football? It would mean that Wikipedia would be unable to give detailed coverage of any seasons in association fooball that predate 1871-72. Shouldn't Wikipedia be able to tell the story of what happened before and leading up to the first ever FA cup? Grover cleveland (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Withdraw What about merging the seasonal aritlcles because surely we don't need ten pages of friendlies to be all seperate seasons right. Other than that I would be happy to withdraw this. HawkAussie (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One problem I have with these articles is the question of whether 'seasons' actually existed at the time in question. The FA Cup – the first football competition (which would define a season) – did not start until the 1870s. A better solution might be to merge them all (including the unnominated articles) to List of Barnes F.C. matches. The subject is probably just about notable, but I cannot see that individual seasons are. Would Grover cleveland be amenable to that solution? Number 57 10:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the dates of the matches in the articles would imply that seasons did exist - I am sure nobody at that time would have referred to "the 1862-63 football season", but it's clear that football matches were only played during the autumn/winter/spring, presumably because the chaps of Barnes were off playing cricket in the summer....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into List of Barnes F.C. seasons or List of Barnes F.C. matches. I think either title would be okay given the limited term. I think the idea of a football season was prevalent because it had long been perceived as a winter game while cricket was the main summer game. It's true that competitive football didn't begin until 1871 with the first FA Cup but I don't believe the season was created by competition. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to No Great Shaker and 5, the concept of a "football season" absolutely did exist at the time; there was no requirement for teams to be entering organized competitions. For example, in the London v Sheffield (1866) article, the following quote is included from Sheffield FC's annual meeting: [Sheffield's loss was ] the most severe defeat it has ever been your misfortune to encounter, but it is to be hoped that you will return the compliment this season [emphasis added]. The general notion of a "season" was of long standing and by no means exclusive to sport: there was the "shooting season" (for various game), a "social season" at which the upper classes would mingle and introduce debutantes, etc. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should be closed and a merge discussion initiated somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 23:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. GiantSnowman 17:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I am not sure how important these records actually are but instead of a season articles they could be merged into List of Barnes F.C. matches per Number57. Govvy (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is there but it's only a bare list of links to the season articles so the proposed merge would completely overwrite it and effectively be the same as opening the matches option. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing the nomination in the light of the below !votes. Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Hänel[edit]

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

Person known for one event only. The event may be notable (I have no opinion about that), but the person is not per WP:BLP1E. Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, received multiple awards for her work. The "one event" mentioned in the nomination refers to ten years of lawsuits that made her one of the most prominent people in the current German abortion debate (this is covered better in the German article than in the English one at the moment). —Kusma (t·c) 13:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The German article shows that she received ongoing coverage for over a decade. I'm not sure if BIO1E was intended for something like a long court case, which by its nature involves multiple sub events. I note that point 3 of BIO1E states that an article should only be deleted if the "individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". Sources on the dewiki article show that her role was substantial and well documented. buidhe 13:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - awards and substantial ongoing coverage indicate against this being a classic WP:BLP1E case, in my view. Hugsyrup 13:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Jean[edit]

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

Non notable pornograohic actress lacking in-depth significant coverage in any reliable sources whatsoever. Fails WP:BASIC & WP:ANYBIO as I can’t see her winning any notable award. Celestina007 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete a non-notable pronographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The relevant guidelines are WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER, and this article doesn't even come close. Moreover, this performer would not even have had a claim of passing WP:PORNBIO when that SNG was in effect. A porn bio with junk sources, a minor porn award win and lots of award nomination fluff. An independent search for sources yielded a trivial mention in a more general article about pornography and an apparent Russian-language mirror of the Wikipedia page. There's just enough notability asserted to avoid an A7 speedy, but little more. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 10:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Pliskin[edit]

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

A possible autobiography of a non notable photographer & music video director who falls short of GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG -there are no independent sources. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After searching, I did not find any SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Does not meet GNG or NARTIST at this time. Netherzone (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Regrettably I don't think there are reliable independent sources to indicate significant notability. A search found no coverage in any newspapers, for example.
  • A couple of hours after the article was created, I placed a "multiple issues" tag at the top of the article, due to concerns I had over the notability of the subject, not enough citations and the author of the article seemingly having a close connection with the subject. The "multiple issues" tag was subsequently removed by the author without the issues really being addressed. A few citations were provided by the author, but not enough good sources to demonstrate sufficient notability and not enough to warrant the "multiple issues" tag being removed. So unfortunately I think the article should be deleted. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where do I begin? Besides the chatty, essay-like stream of consciousness tone, there are literally no newspaper articles or similar sources we could use to fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - 1. the article is not notable enough for Wikipedia (fails A7) and/or 2. the article appears to be heavily promotional (fails G11). Comment added on 9 January by Train of Knowledge
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Film Critics Society[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Lots of mentions but a lack of in-depth coverage in independent sources. Their main claim to notability would seem to be the San Diego Film Critics Society Awards, but these fail WP:GNG, again with a lack of in-depth coverage. --Pontificalibus 09:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 09:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are a number of organizations like this, listed in {{American film critic org}}. Their main purpose is to hold awards ceremonies, basically low-cost TV content. The ceremonies get enough media coverage to be notable, as do most TV shows. The individual awards are discussed by sources on the awardee. It seems a bit odd to say that San Diego Film Critics Society Awards 2002 etc are notable, but not the article on the parent organization. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens I don't think their awards are notable either, lots of passing mentions but nothing discussing them in detail. Perhaps I should have nominated one or more award articles first from Category:San Diego Film Critics Society Awards. In any case notability is not inherited, so regardless of whether the awards are notable, if the organisation behind them is not then this should be deleted.----Pontificalibus 08:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The annual ceremonies are definitely notable. Several newspapers and magazines will cover each of them in detail. "Dressed in a stunning strapless red gown by Oscar de la Renta, she fought back tears as she thanked her parents, without whom none of this would have been possible." Some readers are likely to want background about the awards in general: who gives them out, when they started, who sponsors them, how important they are, that sort of thing. An article on San Diego Film Critics Society Awards could give that, derived from the sources that discuss each ceremony. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think these annual awards ceremonies are notable at all. I haven't found signifiant coverage, just listings and an occasional press release. It follows that this organisation is also not notable.----Pontificalibus 13:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are not checking the right sources. They can be found beside the check-out lane in the supermarket. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (weakly) mainly because I don't know this is the right approach. I could argue try to argue GNG with sources with trade pubs/sites like Variety and IndieWire continuously reporting on the awards selections, but I'm guessing that is what the nominator is seeing already and discounting.
    I can't really support delete, but maybe there is a solution to be found outside AfD? I don't want to say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but as Aymatth2 pointed out with the critic navbox template above, with all these societies or associations, picking one from the bunch seems...premature? There are even more critics societies than those in the navbox popping up, so having one for every page is obviously not the solution, either. Surely some are more notable than others, but perhaps setting up some minimum criteria at the higher lever and then flowing down from there would be more appropriate. Perhaps some kind of consensus can be reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film awards task force? If not, then maybe each society would have to be individually assessed, that just doesn't seem like the right approach. I do have to say that it feels like this is approaching fandom territory for people that enjoy tracking the awards season in general (e.g. https://hub.awardscircuit.com/chart and https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/awards-leaderboard-top-movies-of-2019/ ), but that seems like more basis to take it to a WikiProject page (at least in hopes of establishing something), before returning here.
    As to the WP:NOTINHERITED argument, I don't think that is really applicable here because it is more of a page structure decision than anything else to be consistent with other similar awards. Separating the award from the issuing society is not to suggest the award is more/less/equally notable when compared with the society, this is clearly a formatting decision to maintain manageable page sizes and navigation given that a WP:SPINOUT is much more user-friendly, after all WP:NOTPAPER. -2pou (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid split from the notable awards articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both the society and the individual awards are more than sufficiently covered to pass Wikipedia's notability standards. — Hunter Kahn 01:03, 13 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) 15:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhau Torsekar[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO; no WP:SIGCOV. ∯WBGconverse 08:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 08:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Journalists, writers and political commentators are not automatically notable just because they exist — but as written, "he exists" is literally all this article says at all, and it doesn't even try to make any claim as to why he might be notable. And the sources aren't helping to get him over WP:GNG either, as he isn't the subject of any of them — in all four, he's merely briefly namechecked as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is something or somebody else, which is not how you support a person's notability. We're not looking for mentions of his name in coverage of other things, we're looking for coverage about him, and that's lacking. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article presents no substantive reason for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 11 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 and redirect to Kalyan Group. There is a consensus here that insufficient significant coverage exists to warrant a separate article. ~ mazca talk 12:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyan Developers[edit]

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

Non-notable construction company based in Thrissur city. Kutyava (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kalyan Group or Kalyan Jewellers. I agree with Coolabahapple's query in a related AfD and do not see a gain to this project from maintaining distinct articles on each part of the Kalyan Group, especially when they use the group history as ballast for the subsidiary article. Regarding this one, I am seeing occasional coverage of development announcements, often describing it as "the sister concern of Kalyan Jewellers", but not the specific detailed coverage required for notability. AllyD (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 09:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neela Mulherkar[edit]

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

A non notable actress that fails notability criteria for actors, as she has only two credits to her name. The subject also fails general notability guideline, as there is no significant coverage about her. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests[edit]

Lists of 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of protests in Hong Kong already exists Jax 0677 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for duplicate article. Reywas92Talk 08:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The artical has no proper use and all infomation can be easly moved — RealFakeKimT 09:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs to have citations added, but I still think it has the potential to be pretty useful. It could be the master list that links to all the existing month-by-month lists of recent Hong Kong protests. If anything, maybe some of the month-by-month lists could be merged into this one. It's convenient to have a single chronology that covers the entire event. Hko2333 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary duplication of another article that covers all this. Ajf773 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Duplication of another article is not needed. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it extremely useful! It is not really a duplicate, there's no other place that has all the information so well organized. It would be a shame to lose this, and it doesn't take up much space.Dr. Universe (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is useful when reading through the wider 2019-20 Hong Kong protests articals so I think it should be murged — RealFakeKimT 16:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't have any objection to a merge or redirect if other editors find the information useful. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how this article's content can sufficiently give anything useful that isn't already mentioned. My delete vote remains. Ajf773 (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks all for engaging in discussion here. I don't see why people are saying that there isn't anything "that isn't already mentioned". The article that people are claiming it is duplicating, is completely different. The "List of Hong Kong protests" article literally just lists protests in Hong Kong throughout its history, but the "List of 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests" is providing a chart that lists how many protests occurred in each month, and the specific days of each of those protests, and links to longer pages about those protests. How is the information duplicated? It's organized very well, and for visual people like me, this is actually the go-to place where I come to find out about recent protests. Plus the protests are ongoing and may last for years, at that time you might agree that having this chart is very useful, and you might want it back, but it will be too late since it will be too much effort for someone to compile 3 years of data in one sitting. I have absolutely no conflict of interest as I wasn't the one that made this article or contributed to it. I'm not from Hong Kong I just have an interest in reading about the protests. Dr. Universe (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blow Buddies[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable nightclub. Existing sources are poor quality, and coverage about the subject is routine and superficial. Fails WP:ORG. - MrX 🖋 12:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 12:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are several reliable sources that cover the topic in depth, it may be a stub now but it is the largest gay sex club in San Francisco, a notable city for the LGBT+ community if not the most notable one, basically it's the biggest gay sex club in the gayest city in the world. That alone merits inclusion. Gothamist, Gay Star News, and the Bay Area Reporter are not minor mentions their articles give the matter significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and therefore anyone should see it should be kept, just because the sources are largely the LGBT+ press does not mean the sources are invalid. One would expect gay topics to be covered further in depth by the gay community itself anyways and their media matters too.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC) banned sock[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of mergers and acquisitions by Alphabet#List of mergers and acquisitions. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zingku[edit]

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

no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Númenor#Monarchy. The redirection target can be changed, if so desired. – sgeureka t•c 18:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tar-Aldarion[edit]

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

Tar-Aldarion appears in a work that was never completed by Tolkien, and that when published by his son was left in an unfinished state. This is not the stuff notability is made of, there is zero reason to have a stand alone article on him, and the sourcing per se is all primary, with the external links neither being the type of secondary scholarly works we need to establish the notability of a fictional element. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Numenor#Monarchy, where the figure is referenced as the sixth king of Numenor. Only mentions in reliable secondary sources I can find are in passing, so Tar-Aldarion does not warrant his own article. Hog Farm (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect looks fine for Numenor#Monarchy, it barely exists even within the Tolkien Legendarium, hard to believe this minutiae has existed for sixteen years. ValarianB (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Eurocon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European SF Awards[edit]

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

Failed WP:GNG Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 08:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a thing you can't argue with. The article has been sourced, the question is wether we want to gather knowledge otherwise hardly obtained and thus help spread it, or do we only accept knowledge that is already popular. I stand for keeping less known information --Godai (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Eurocon. There is no need for this separate article. Ajf773 (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 09:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Skinner (percussionist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO with no third-party coverage. Only two citations — both primary sources — and stagnant since the year of its creation (2012), with no attempt made to establish notability other than coattailing the likes of Frank Zappa and the London Philharmonic. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Mernes[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria, promotion and advertising. Deleted on Ru.wikipedia 2 times [29] [30], protected from creation as spam + uk.wikipedia [31] + Draft:Maxim Mernes. Petr Semenov19 (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes WP:GNG with coverage in Russian reliable sources. As he has a critical view of the Russian state we should be wary of the deletions on Russian Wikipedia, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, old spam and cross-wiki PR (new spam-pages: [32], [33]). Russian "reliable sources" no have this name, Maxim Mernes (can search with Google News and other services). Deleted on Ukrainian Wikipedia - its mean its just spam page, not about politics. Кронас (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from an account that has already put the articles for deletion for the third time. This time, the article was deleted from the newly registered account, which is one day old. And they support removal from the old one. Petr Semenov19 An account was created specifically to delete the article. Which already requested the removal of old articles. Actions are very similar to Kremlin bot. Stepandem (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes WP:GNG This person is being persecuted in Russia; attacks have been made on him several times. Therefore, Russian authorities, including the Kremlin bot, constantly delete information about him. The article meets the criteria attached links. [34], [35], [36], [37] Stepandem (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from account who create this page and made cross-wiki spam pages ([38]). Was in ru wiki checkuser request with another accounts who made pages for advertising only. Possible crash WP:PAID, WP:COI. Кронас (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clean page from promotion, non-authoritative sources and information without sources. All information about "fights for the rights of crypto investors", "officers attacked", "criticizes the Russian economic system. For which he was attacked several times." isn't real, no have any confirmations in Russian reliable sources. Created artificial significance of person. Кронас (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; sourced to spam and cross-wiki sites. No decent sources. Doesn't pass the WP:10YT - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sure where to cut these off. Perhaps this is WP:PROMO. No reliable sources. And the books he authored... I cannot find them to check publishers. Wm335td (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all six books are self-published through a Russian web service called "Издательские решения" (although there are nine listed at mybook.ru). This explains how when the books appear on Amazon, the agency name does not appear, but a different publisher's name appears (Ridero). Article is completely WP:PROMO, no reliable sources to verify notablity.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:03, 15 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. – sgeureka t•c 08:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nimloth[edit]

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

Nimloth is a minor character in The Silmarillion. Furthermore, this article is dominated by her family tree. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having articles on real people that mainly fill out geneological tables is questionable enough, there is no reason to have articles on fictional people who fill that function.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. All of the references I can find are in passing, and most actually reference the White Tree of Gondor named Nimloth, not this elf. Hog Farm (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a minor character in a minor work.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Gondor#Cities and fortresses. Tone 19:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dol Amroth[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional location. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of meaningful coverage in reliable secondary sources, only such coverage is in passing. Hog Farm (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 06:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Gondor#Cities and fortresses. In-universe importance does not correlate to real-world notability. – sgeureka t•c 09:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gondor#Cities and fortresses. The article is sourced mostly to primary sources, and what non-primary sources there are do not rise above the level of trivia and definitely do not help pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirect With only 1 questionable keep vote, this should not have been relisted. Game encyclopedias and gazettes are not reliable sources. ValarianB (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the main problem with this article is the WP:INUNIVERSE style. Except for the brief Dol_Amroth#In_popular_culture section, the entire article is devoted to primary-sourced fictional history. This isn't an appropriate way to cover a fictional element; if the topic is truly notable, there should be plenty of real-world things to say. BenKuykendall (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gondor#Cities and fortresses per Susmuffin. Goustien (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Not notable on its own. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is discussed in independent sources, or alternately merge to Gondor#Cities and fortresses. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is it "discussed", name dropping is not discussion, discussion means the topic is engaged with in a meaningful way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • In source #8 for starters (the Foster reference), which discusses many places in some detail. There is extensive out-of-universe commentary all through Unfinished Tales, and it is cool that someone named some peaks. Might be a brief mention but is a meaningful point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – bradv🍁 06:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AllTV[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – bradv🍁 05:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solitude (band)[edit]

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

Not to be confused with bands with the same/similar name. Longstanding article with no secondary sources since creation 10 years ago. It doesn't claim anything significant has been achieved in terms of sales/charting or touring and neither can I find anything to suggest that they have. Fails WP:BAND. Mattg82 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 00:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Wong[edit]

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

Based on a body of work that is only a single text that has been shortlisted for a single award, the page's subject does not meet notability guidelines as outlined for WP:AUTHOR TheAnayalator (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 05:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 05:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being shortlisted for a top-level national literary award is, and has always been taken to be, a straight pass of WP:AUTHOR. There is no official "minimum cutoff" number of books that a person has to have written before they can be considered a notable writer — one work can be enough, if it gets shortlisted for one of a country's most important and prestigious literary awards, which the Hilary Weston Prize most certainly is. And considering that the nominator has made less than 100 edits to Wikipedia in their entire history, of which only 37 happened in the entire 2010s, I strongly suspect that the nomination is motivated far less by any familiarity with Wikipedia's actual inclusion standards, and far more by some kind of personal issue with Lindsay Wong for reasons that are absolutely none of Wikipedia's concern. Bearcat (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no 'personal' issues with the author and my relative Wikipedia inexperience should not factor into invalidating this discussion. I note that BearCat is correct about the number of works that can qualify for notability. However, the criteria are not clear cut as to what qualifies as an 'important figure' or a 'significant, well-known work'. However, WP:ANYBIO explicitly states regarding awards that a notable subject has "received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". So, despite Bearcat's assertion in their original post, a person must receive multiple major award nominations to qualify. Thus, despite the Hilary Weston's inherent prestige, someone whose only major accolade is a single shortlist does not qualify as 'notable'. The other people shortlisted for the HWP who have Wikipedia articles have achieved other significant recognition or accomplishments in addition to the shortlisting. Perhaps Wong will achieve indisputably sufficient notability in the future but, by Wikipedia's standards, she hasn't done so yet. TheAnayalator (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: one of her books being topic of a major national TV show is equivalent to a visual artist satisfying "(b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Plenty of RS showing coverage to satisfy WP:GNG even if she could be argued not to pass WP:NAUTHOR. PamD 10:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAnayalator: my apologies: I made a mistake on that. I was a bit hasty and misread a couple key aspects of the notability issue when I endorsed the prod. (Let it be known I make mistakes now and then, although it is not often.) Bearcat's argument is also persuasive, so I am on the keep side now. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per TriCity News the book "took a prestigious BC Book Prize from the West Coast Prize Society; the book was also a finalist for CBC’s Canada Reads competition and shortlisted for the $60,000 Hilary Weston Writers’ Trust of Canada Prize for Non-fiction. It made the top 100 books for the Globe and Mail list in 2018 and, last month, it was placed on the long list for the 2019 Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal of Humour." Lots of independent RS talking about Wong because of her book. Qualifies as "won significant critical attention." HouseOfChange (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ANYBIO which states The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. This woman did not the the Hilary Weston Prize and has only been nominated once. She could possibly be noteworthy in the future but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our notability criteria for writers do not require a person to win a literary award before they're notable — for the top level national awards, being shortlisted is a valid notability claim. But at any rate, the comment directly above yours does demonstrate that she (a) has won a notable literary award, and (b) has been nominated for yet another notable literary award in addition to the Weston and Evans prizes, so she already clears your "multiple nominations" too. Admittedly the Evans and Leacock awards hadn't been noted in the article yet, but they are now, and they are notable AUTHOR-passing awards that can be and have been supported with real reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Monasky v. Taglieri. Individual notability is questionable, but his name is a reasonable search term related to the case, and there is shared material in the history of the two articles. RL0919 (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Zashin[edit]

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

I believe this would be the biography's third deletion. Non-notable lawyer. No SIGCOV. All mentions appear to be in passing due to a recent Supreme Court Case his law firm is involved with. Not a single quality source exclusively discussing his work, etc. PK650 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rework and move suitable material into a new article on the Supreme Court case, which is notable. Leave this as a redirect to the court case if Zashin is worth mentioning in that article, else delete. buidhe 13:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to WPXI#Local programming. Consensus here is that this is unreferenced and hence insufficiently notable for a separate article, sharing as it does many features with every other large American Independence Day fireworks show. I have left the history intact if any further information can be referenced and needs to be merged to that section. ~ mazca talk 12:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Star Spangled Salute[edit]

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

Article has been 100% unreferenced since its creation on 24 June 2007, 12.53 years ago. I previously proposed its deletion on 30 December 2019, but ZacharyAllenReynolds (talk · contribs) removed the {{prod}} saying, "I object to deletion. I want people to know about A Star Spangled Salute." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to WPXI#Local programming This article describes every major city American fireworks show on the 4th (starts around 9:30, has patriotic music tied into a radio station, located near a beautiful point); this is not special in the least. People can indeed know about it...in the WPXI article, where it belongs. Nate • (chatter) 04:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect since it is just a normal fireworks show. Nothing too special. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:G7. A speedy deletion tag could have been used instead of AfD. RL0919 (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Festival Offenbach d'Etretat[edit]

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

I just created this page, unfortunately without doing enough research. The festival seems to be a very minor affair, without staged performances, only a few concerts, and I can't find very many good references. I think the best thing is to delete it. Smeat75 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Silmarillion#Quenta Silmarillion. As pointed in the discussion, a redirect is reasonable while a separate article with only plot summary is a no-go. Tone 19:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fingolfin[edit]

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

Non-notable Tolkien character. Gets some hits on Google scholar, but none of them seem to be more than passing references or name drops. He seems to get the most mentions in a Google scholar hit titled "Nightfall in Middle-Earth", which (of all things) turns out to be about a Middle-earth inspired album by a German power metal band ("Nightfall in Middle-Earth" also cites Wikipedia). We've got some brief mentions of Fingolfin in reliable, secondary sources, but nothing we can base an entire article off of. Mentioned at Noldor#High Kings of the Noldor if we really want to make a redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fingolfin is only notable from an in-universe perspective. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When our best secondary source is partially sourced to Wikipedia and is about a band not the fictional background of the name we are so far from notability it is scary. I would discourage leaving a redirect because those really only serve to hide how many links in other articles go nowhere. It is amazing how many links we now have going to the middle earth geography section, even when that says nothing about the extremely minor place being named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Silmarillion, in which he has a reasonably significant role: lopping off Morgoth's toe has to count for something. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a minor character in a minor work.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are definitely scholarly sources analysing Fingolfin's character and role in Tolkien's work and theology, see for example [39] (focusing on Fëanor's character arc, which inevitably involves Fingolfin: the article specifically calls out his oath to Fëanor as part of its broader discussion of oaths in Tolkien's Silmarillion) and [40] (using Fingolfin's charge on Morgoth as an example to illustrate the discussion of his views of inner lights of forms in his mythology). The second point is further expounded on by this paper, which in the context of discussing the role of the Holy Spirit in Tolkien's mythology (not forgetting that he was a Roman Catholic) analyses Fingolfin as "a martyr type, like Stephen, whose face shines with the fullness of the Holy Spirit just before he is stoned to death by the enemies of Christianity". Double sharp (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Current article is lacking in coverage. I can't seem to access any of the above, but even AGF that it's all significant and relevant, remove all the pointless plot info in the article and I'm sure all of that would easily fit on the character list. TTN (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we're going to redirect somewhere, we should probably redirect to the plot summary of the applicable book. See Talk:List of Middle-earth characters#Inclusion criteria. While there's no wide consensus there, the current prevailing discussion is that some standard of notability needs to be set and it's not clear where to set it below GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The thing is, you can't exactly explain all of this analysis without saying something about the plot, at which point you kind of need an article. To explain the above points made by those analyses, you need a plot summary to explain what this oath from Fingolfin to Fëanor is, why it happened, and how he fulfilled it; and the lead-up to his challenge of Morgoth. In that case you need a plot summary, and combined with the analysis you already have something too long for a list that works better as an article. Of course, I'm sure most Silmarillion characters do not reach that level of notability, but there are a few which I think do: Finwë, Fëanor, Fingolfin, Finrod Felagund, Beren and Lúthien, Túrin Turambar... And the difficulty is that you may have to mention a non-notable character in the terse plot summary of each of those notable ones (e.g. Saeros for Túrin, Maglor for Elrond). So I think that you could easily end up having to let a lot of the non-notable ones on the list, but it should be OK if you kept it to very terse one-liners instead of long paragraphs, like "Maglor: second son of Fëanor, minstrel of the Noldor, fosterer of Elrond and Elros". Double sharp (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm open to expanding those lists beyond GNG if we can determine a set standard for inclusion. Because not everyone's definition of a useful list entry is the same. We wouldn't have Bilbo Baggins if his dad Bungo Baggins never existed in-universe. I personally think that Fingolfin should be briefly described somewhere, and that place redirected to. But if we start adding people straight to the list again, then the precedent becomes that the list is a repository and we get Bungo and Durin IV and every elf ever referenced in LOTR on the list because "they're important in-universe" (yes, this has been a serious issues with Wikipedia's Tolkien coverage). Do you have any ideas on what this standard could be? Hog Farm (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hog Farm: I would just suggest that a character can be added to the list if s/he absolutely needs to be mentioned to make the plot summary for some actually notable character make sense. The reasoning is that if they have to be mentioned, there ought to be somewhere on Wikipedia where you can get a brief note of who they are. So Saeros (for example) would make the cut, just about all the Elven descendants of Finwë probably make the cut, but obviously characters who never appear as anything other than a family tree entry (e.g. Bungo Baggins) do not need an actual mention. (Matter of fact, I'm not even sure he needs a mention in Bilbo's article like he currently has, but I guess it is irresistible for people to name-drop his parents' names since Tolkien wrote them in on the family tree: we should probably curb that tendency. More relevantly for Fingolfin's article, the same applies for Anairë.) A good guideline might be "if s/he doesn't appear in multiple parts of the plot in The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion, don't bother", which ought to get rid of most of the one-scene-wonders like Amlach son of Imlach and Galdor of the Havens, with an exception that proves the rule (Andreth). Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Silmarillion § Quenta Silmarillion. Though I appreciate Double sharp's argument to expand List of Middle-earth characters, I don't think this is the venue to discuss overhauling that list (but let's discuss it further on the talk page!). Of all the presently appropriate places to discuss Fingolfin and his deeds, I think this plot summary is the best. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Middle-earth characters#F. Goustien (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Goustien: I don't know if you read Hog Farm's or my comments above, but at present, that list only includes notable ME characters, i.e. those with their own articles. If we get rid of the article of Fingolfin, it would be inappropriate to list him on List of Middle-earth characters, at least according to the current inclusion criteria for the list. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Silmarillion#Quenta Silmarillion. I think we are getting very close to an AfD too far here. We certainly ought to have a place somewhere on Wikipedia that describes Fingolfin, even if briefly; a landing-site that catches the search, which is not improbable. The article received 28,189 pageviews in the past 365 days: we should not be creating 28,000 disappointments per year with one foolish action at AfD. That means that "Fingolfin" is at least a major redirect: and of course it must redirect somewhere sensible, which, I repeat, means at least a crisp account (the same can be said of many other Middle-earthers). I think the deletion of many of the Lists of Middle-earth folk somewhat hasty, and we might wish to partially revert some of those by creating brief lists of the most important of the characters to provide landing-sites where nowhere else is as convenient. I think we all agree that listing milli-elves, micro-dwarves and nano-folk (not to mention pico-hobbits) is a waste of time, but chaps like Fingolfin are rather more significant "in-universe" and he is already covered in the summary of the Silmarillion (which could be extended: in the book, he appears in 5 tales, actually). Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 13 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 , in the specific sense of "there is not a consensus to delete this article". All participants, including those advocating a "delete" outcome, seem to agree that this particular article is not useful as a standalone and is duplicating information elsewhere, but there is complete lack of agreement as to where the information is best treated - there are three different Ranger articles, plus Aragorn, a specific notable Ranger. At least one, and potentially two, of the Ranger articles are best dealt with via merges to one of the other articles, but ultimately none of them are going to get deleted wholesale, and an AfD of one of them seems very much an inappropriate venue as a result. A merge discussion linked from multiple talk pages is likely the way forward. There is consensus we have too many Ranger articles, but little more than that. ~ mazca talk 21:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

Content here is mostly duplicate of that at Rangers of the North, although a little bit is closer related to the no-longer existent Rangers of Ithilien article. There's no need to have a duplication of this content, especially when this article is extremely short and the other is more detailed. Hog Farm (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. Rangers of the North and the deleted content from Rangers of Ithilien should be merged into and redirected to this article. These two organisations are the original inspirations for the widely-used Ranger (character class) and the Middle-earth ranger is the origin of this meaning of ranger. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article duplicates the content of two different articles. One of those articles was recently deleted, as its subject was non-notable. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any information needed on the emergence of the ranger class in Dungeons and Dragons can be discussed there. Anything we need to actually say about the rangers can be said in the article on Aragorn. Going beyond that is an unjustified content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary dupication per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per Necrothesp. I've added sections for "Rangers of the North" and "Rangers of Ithilien." Goustien (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per Necrothesp. I think the concept of the "ranger" is important, influencing not just the Ranger (character class), but also fiction like the Ranger's Apprentice. Strider (Aragorn) is the most important ranger in LOTR, but Faramir is also a ranger when he first appears, and a group of 30 rangers appears late in the book. The existence of rangers is evoked several times. I don't think this could all be covered in the Aragorn article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just see PLOT and trivial appearance info. The one sentence of Influence is good, but seems better suited for Ranger (character class). Rangers of the North seems rather crufty and list-mergeworthy itself. – sgeureka t•c 08:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Aragorn and stop messing about. Aragorn is certainly notable as a major hero of Lord of the Rings. No other ranger meets that standard, I think, but the term is a sensible search term that readers may use and they should be landed somewhere sensible. I note that the ranger articles (Rangers of the North, Ranger (Middle-earth)) have some reliable sources; these should be merged to Aragorn if they add anything to that article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge to Aragorn. I think everyone agrees Ranger (Middle-earth) is a bit of an unnecessary spin-out from... somewhere. Chiswick Chap's solution might seem drastic, but it really does avoid a lot of nonsense. I don't think, even combined with Rangers of the North that this page would survive AfD. But, a clearly notable character like Aragorn would, and background on his people would truly improve the article. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per the arguments of those who suggested it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:9D13:46D2:7E86:16A2 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jiz Lee[edit]

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

Delete: Not a notable pornographic film performer. Being one of a limited minority group in porn (such as genderqueer) does not automatically make that person or their work notable.--NL19931993 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been banned for being a sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you ignored citations 9, 13, 14, 15, 18 in the article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I’d like to hear the reasoning why this subject met GNG in 2015, but no longer does. Did GNG change that much in scope? This subject has a generous amount of coverage that certainly seems to meet GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing GNG was asserted and a few editors bought in to that. The article was kept by non-admin closure. However, a closer look at the sources presented shows that the Fox News article is the only one that passes muster as independent reliable source coverage. The Daily Mail is now banned as a reference for facts and as evidence of notability. Two links don't even mention the subject. Finally the university's listing of the subject as a speaker does not count as independent. The university's prestige was used as additional evidence of notability. Wikipedia doesn't work that way even for professors. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — voicing Johnpacklambert in-depth significant coverage is a big deal to me & I can’t observe it in the article about subject of our discussion. Furthermore I’m voicing NL19931993 I’ve been wanting to say that also, it’s as if belonging to the LGBTQ community has become an automatic yardstick for notability.Celestina007 (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We see this a lot with claims of notability for very minor politicians. There are a few failed candidates who have been kept on the grounds that they got widespread press. I keep pointing out to people this was name dropping and not analysis of their position, one of them ran a much less significant than most campaign for the US senate, but too often the response is "they were mentioned in the New York Times, they are notable", without any consideration of the true depth of the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passing the GNG. These citations were already in the article.[41][42][43][44]. Her scholarly writings are widely cited by journal articles satisfying WP:AUTHOR.[45][46][47][48][49] Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination is a bit misleading, as they're at least as (almost definitely more) notable as a writer and activist. It clearly seems to pass GNG to me: it's hardly thinly-sourced so I don't get why attacking that someone cited Fox or the Daily Mail at one stage has anything to say about notability at all. Beyond that, Lee is just a pretty well-known figure (I've got no particular interest in anything they've done and I've still definitely heard of them as a queer woman on the other side of the world). The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG, and possibly other criteria. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the many academic citations. Toughpigs (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG. Totally relevant. Super over these weird nominations. This is the second one about LGBTQ people I've came across - both notable - by the same nominator. Missvain (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too Blessed to be Stressed[edit]

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

Unsourced stub of unremarkable television programme with no notable participants and no independent commentary. Sirlanz (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 02:09, 13 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) 15:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Tea[edit]

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

One is a meta-reference to a hoax article; the other two are partial title matches, and the "green tea with gold leaf" is not supported by the source which seems to be a personal website anyway. There is no specific entity on Wikipedia by the exact name "gold tea", so this is an invalid disambig page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The status of the nominator notwithstanding, the consensus of the discussion by other editors is that this person does not meet our notability requirements. RL0919 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jada Stevens[edit]

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

Delete: Not a notable pornographic film performer.--NL19931993 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bunch of directory listings and promotional PR sources does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since all we have and all we find are porn related media, awards and promotions. With nothing beyond that, our subject fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't find her own work also biography related to reliable source. subject fails WP:GNG.-Nahal(T) 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete To me it’s a borderline situation; if she had just a few more reliable sources I would say keep. (Aside: It’s kinda confusing when the nominator also votes, kinda redundant). ⌚️ (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening nomination of an AfD is a delete vote, that also includes a mandatory rationale. It is a terse, but not unusual, way for some nominators to format their nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we keep on using same rationale, 90% of biographical articles related to porn sector would be deleted. There was a reason why WP:PORNBIO was created in the first place. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are made more strict, then it is to be expected that a number of articles will disappear, along with other changes possibly happening, such as use of references. This is exactly the case with the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO. It is no longer valid - so articles that have appeared on the basis of WP:PORNBIO are bound to be re-evaluated. And if this means deletion, then deletion it shall be, of one article or of one thousand articles. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_January_6&oldid=1205215361"