Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 January	10 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus that WP:BAND is not met. If the forthcoming performances result in additional coverage, then it can be recreated at that point Nosebagbear (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peoria Municipal Band[edit]

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

=Non-notable community band with few sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is poorly sourced, but I searched for sources WP:BEFORE commenting and found five: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. While most are local interest, that does not preclude their use nor diminish from their notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - WP:BAND says that “articles that simply report performance dates” do not indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources mentioned are routine coverage of upcoming performances. There is nothing that shows there is significant, independent coverage that meets the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage appears to consist of performance announcements or mentions in name only. The band has a long history, but coverage found on Google Books or their newspaper archive is limited to name mentions. Unfortunately, there's nothing here to meet WP:BAND. Merging into the Peoria article could be justified due to the length of the band's local history, but there's currently no logical place in that article to merge to. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:44, 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 redirect to Sue Records#Symbol Records. Not notable per consensus, the redirect appears uncontroversial. Sandstein 08:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol Records[edit]

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

Non notable record label company that have no WP:CORPDEPTH and fail WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Oppose, meets notability threshold, Symbol Records had singles chart on multiple charts.~~strike double !vote - Twixister has Keep !voted below HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I just noticed I didn't sign my previous response. I'm not sure why this article is being considered for deletion when it meets the notability threshold. Symbol released over 40 singles and a few of the records reached the top 10 on the US charts, including the 1963 hit song "Mockingbird." Twixister (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Which means they are doing a decent job in their market, but that's not enough to make them pass GNG/NCOMPANY. Did they win awards? Did someone write a profile of them? Did someone call them significant? If not, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nocturnal306^talk 22:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sue_Records#Symbol_Records. Missvain (talk) 17:57, 16 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. Notability demonstrated with thanks to HouseofChange for some complex source hunting Nosebagbear (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annmarie Sairrino[edit]

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

Non notable filmmaker who does not satisfy nor qualify as per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Filmmakers like other creative professionals qualify via WP:NARTIST by producing notable work. Sairrino has been a producer or co-producer of many projects that have their own Wikipedia articles, most recently Root Letter but a bunch of other obvious wikilinks in the article. Finding coverage is complicated because (for example) her work with Tiger and Bunny is credited to "Annmarie Bailey," "Annmarie Baily," or in one case "Annmarie Baile" rather than "Annmarie Sairrino." HouseOfChange (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage found by HouseOfChange. feminist (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears she's more well known as Annmarie Bailey at this point. Her company seems notable, too. Missvain (talk) 19:18, 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. Consensus that the family as a whole doesn't demonstrate notability Nosebagbear (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priddy family (Sierra Leone)[edit]

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

This article has lacked proper sources since its creation in 2008. The only ref confirms that one individual held the family name but offers no support for the substance of the article. Notability of the topic is not established. Mccapra (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are loads of sources if you just search "Priddy family", Sierra Leone. There are also lots of sources about this family elsewhere in the Americas. I don't know however whether they are the same extend family brought back to Africa after abolition. From what I can guarge from the sources, although I haven't examined them in detail, I suspect this might be the case. Either way, I think this article is notable and should be expanded. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If I search for “Priddy family Sierra Leone” all I find is this article and its mirror on Wikivisually. If I search for “Priddy family” I come up with a number of ancestry and genealogy sites about a family in Somerset, but nothing about Sierra Leone. If anyone is finding lots of sources from these searches could they please add them to the article? Mccapra (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article is ultimately the result of the family having one notable member, a medic, who had a fellowship in a British Royal College (professional regulatory association) and an obituary in a professional journal. I am not clear how notable that person was, but that certainly does not mean that the family to which he belonged is also notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As not notable and not inherited. The article states "...one of the most successful settler families...", with one source that is used on Ebun Willie Robert Gorham Priddy, so there is absolutely no indication of such "family" notability. Otr500 (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and Otr500's reasons. There's a single source, possibly self-published, about this family. Only one member is notable, and he has an article. Only when multiple members are notable (for example, the Adamses, Windsors, or Jacksons) does the family get its own article. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 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 redirect to American Idol (season 9). Not enough notability external to the show to indicate notability, and agreement that his positioning in the show notability doesn't warrant an article Nosebagbear (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Garcia[edit]

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

Not enough coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep top ten finisher on the most notable singing competition. Sources exist WP:V. Wm335td (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Idol (season 9) as he's not particularly notable outside his run on the show. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:OUTCOMES: we usually merge or redirect runner-up for American Idol and such "reality TV shows". If consensus has changed, it would require revising a lot of articles. Arguably, 6th or 6th semi-finalists might get their own articles, but he was 9th. When he gets some independent notability, then a new article could be created. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 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. Consensus that notability is met (by various routes) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Godwin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are either recaps of the TV show she was on or tabloid articles about her relationship. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this article is clearly a notable figure as she has appeared on multiple national television shows and was 1 of the final 2 contestants, which makes her notability more prominent. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes general notability guidelines and she was a finalist on the Bachelor in Paradise. She's also been featured in - significantly - tons of women's magazines and notable publications. Whether she's a YouTuber, Bachelorette, or a celebutante. Missvain (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG --Deansfa (talk) 06:08, 16 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. Consensus to delete, primarily on notability grounds, but also on excessively promotional basis. I will also Salt the page, given the issues that have occurred to date. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyro Gyn Phi[edit]

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

Non notable, promotional article about a frat that meets no inclusion criteria. I'm doing this in lieu of letting the prod sit since it'll just be recreated. Praxidicae (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternity and Sorority-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete’This was tagged per WP:G11. While very promotional, it did not reach my threshold for G11. I did see it as WP:A7, and deleted as such. Creator requested reconsideration of the deletion, so I restored. (Such has been my practice with A7’s in the past.) I attempted cleanup, but was unable to establish significant, independent coverage from reliable sources. So here we are.-- Deep fried okra 22:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete *and* Salt I'm a fairly active member of Wikiproject Fraternities and Sororites and have worked in getting information on Fraternity and Sororities in the Philippines as well. I do not doubt that the organization exists, but I've tried looking even in places that google doesn't like sunstar.com.ph and philstar.com (both are newspaper(media company) websites in the Philippines) and *still* haven't been able to grab enough for an article. It is Geographically local in Zamboanga, but with school and local chapters which would mean that any media in Zamboanga would cover them, but national newspapers would be less likely since it has no presence in Manila. I'm leaning toward Salt given the behavior in moving back and forth from Draft to mainspace and back. I'd be willing to work with the original editor in Draft, but not until after this AFD is finished.Naraht (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just move protected the thing. Creator moved it to draft and Praxidicae moved it back. I think it best if we let this run and determine notability.-- Deep fried okra 17:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel my G-search revealed an active and vigorous SEO effort. Your mileage may very.-- Deep fried okra 17:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. In the google search once Facebook, tripod.com (for an old site) and tyronians.org were deleted, what was left that wasn't videos was largely chaotic and not really useful to anyone. I don't think the situation with Tyro Gyn Phi on the web changed significantly because of any effort to get it accepted by Wikipedia. Instead, it represents what happens with a group which while Fraternal, is closely geographical by has little corporate organizational structure. I'd call it the exact opposite in the Fraternity/Sorority Universe from a US Nation wide honor society in a field such as Economics or Spanish) There are other similar geographical (rather than university based) organizations in the Philippines. Take a look at a version List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines prior to the great cleanup in October 2018 to get a feeling for things. However, none of that makes a difference on *this* article's status.Naraht (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable promo article.--Darwinek (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is promotional, not encyclopedic.TH1980 (talk) 03:05, 16 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. Consensus it's an unneeded content fork that is not independently notable Nosebagbear (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snizhne incident[edit]

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

Non-notable individual event that was part of the larger Battle in Shakhtarsk Raion, where it's already mentioned in roughly the same detail. There's only one reliable source, a short news article (archived copy) which doesn't really provide much in the way of information, let alone notability. I don't think it'd be useful as a redirect, since "Snizhne incident" doesn't seem to be used to refer to this event anywhere else. ansh.666 21:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneccessary fork with minimal RS Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SOAP. This is thinly-veiled agitprop. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 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. Being bold and deleting this one early. Missvain (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Phoenix[edit]

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

Nottingham property developer whose RS is from asking £10m for a house in Nottingham (despite some of the RS, £10m is a long way from the UK's most expensive house); and even that RS is mostly press releases from Phoenix (he added a charging station for an electric flying car). Zero SIGCOV (or really any COV on him, outside of his £10m house) in the main UK papers (e.g. The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, The Times, or The Independant). Article has a WP:PROMO feel (and I suspect some WP:UPE behind this). I ask the community to decide, Britishfinance (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. My initial thoughts were the article should be deleted, as it has a promotional tone and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. However, outside of the news of the £10m home, Guy Phoenix has had some news coverage for his property developing business, albeit mainly in local Nottinghamshire newspapers. There are sources that Guy Phoenix has won some UK architecture awards. It's a marginal decision for me, but possibly newsworthy enough to keep. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His "awards" are non-notable trade awards (e.g. in return for a fee you can "earn" your award) – they do not get covered in any proper UK RS (unlike the notable UK property awards). Also noting that the author, Silkeop3, has been blocked for spamming. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you for that information. When I voted "Weak Keep" I wasn't aware that the author had been blocked for spamming. I would have no objections to this article being deleted. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage found are merely passing mentions and of the subject, not enough for a page now. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Lapablo (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing mentions are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - confirmed paid-for spam written by a sockpuppet. MER-C 02:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough in-depth coverage to prove Phoenix passes WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam for a local real estate salesperson. I remind the reader that if this were 2008, we could assume good faith, but in face of clear evidence in 2020, this is just abuse of a charity. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caramel (band)[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and instead must meet certain achievement-based criteria, and have a certain volume of reliable source coverage about them, for an article to become earned -- but the only notability claim in evidence here is that their debut album was released just a couple of months ago, and there's just one actual source being shown (the article was otherwise liberally tarted up with a lot of offsite links to primary sources, which I've already removed as WP:ELNO violations.) As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing to support it, but nothing shown here is enough yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. I just now briefly worked on the article to clean it up. When I searched for content, it was very difficult because hits for the food kept coming up before the band. That tells me that even as "Caramel (band)" they're not as notable as the food as consumed by bands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have since included more references to articles. I understand what you are saying but many bands on here that are fairly well known have names that would pull up something else before you'd find them on a search engine. It would be a shame if this was deleted as I was planning to detail a lot more about this group. Forgive me as I am fairly new to all of this. Weeyam (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what Walter Görlitz said; he said that even using "band" as a disambiguator to limit other things coming up in the search this band still got outhit by other things, which is not the same thing as "this band isn't the only thing that would ever come up in a Google search on its name at all". Very few bands would ever pass that latter test at all, because bands routinely name themselves after people and places and things and words. But that's got nothing to do with our notability criteria, at any rate — the notability test is not the uniqueness of the band's name, but the ability to find reliable sources that are covering the band in the context of one or more notable accomplishments.

Please familiarize yourself with our notability criteria for musicians, and with what constitutes a reliable and notability-supporting source. We do not guarantee a Wikipedia article to every band that exists on the planet, and we don't deem bands notable just because they've been covered in blogs — to get a Wikipedia article, a band has to (a) accomplish something that passes the notability criteria for musicians, and (b) receive coverage about that in real media. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. I also struggled to find anything outside of the few sources y'all dug up. Missvain (talk) 18:07, 16 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 that sourcing requirements are met Nosebagbear (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Margaret Sackville (1562–1591)[edit]

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

Can't inherit notability as the wife of an earl, especially since she died before he became an earl. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe notability is demonstrated. Women of this period tend not to be recognised in the same way as their husbands, because they were nominally less powerful, but it seems to me that she was an eminent member of an eminent family. Deb (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article on a would-have-been countess meets WP:GNG; this article is well-sourced and detailed for a woman of her station and time. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Does not being dedicatee of a poem by a notable poet provide some notability? Otherwise the content is mere genealogy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much of biography is "mere genealogy." Do you mean her Family tree? There is more than pedigree present in the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - an incredible number of independent sources for a woman of this period. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG and she's doing better than most women in the peerage project from this period! Missvain (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - highly notable and connected in her time. I also note she's related to the current ruling house. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Junk Miles[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, with only one (MyChicagoAthlete) source with any potentially significant coverage of the podcast. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree - this simply doesn't meet WP:WEBCRIT. The vast majority of sources are not independent. Others only mention the subject in passing (such as this). Some don't even mention the subject at all (such as this and this). The source that the nominator mentioned as coming closest to meeting the WP:GNG criteria is local coverage. Maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON for this podcast - but for now, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources include 1 major independent source fully about the Article as noted above, along with multiple other independent sources including ranking in Top Ten Running Podcasts by Apple, a reference by "Canadian Running Magazine", and reference by "Runners World" (a major runners web based magazine). Jkiffmeyer (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the other sources are just mentions rather than significant coverage, which is what WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT#1 are about. So far, the subject falls short of having multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

No evidence of canvassing that I see. Facebook post does not appear to be placed by or at the request of an editor, did not call for any action, and has not resulted in any impact here. Based on my review of wikipedia canvassing page I recommend the canvassing notice be removed. - Jkiffmeyer (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Jkiffmeyer. _SUPER ^ASTIG 07:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 source does not make GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG has no requirement for more than 1 major source. Having 1 major source and a few other mentions by sources means this discussion for deletion is valid, but not a clear indication for deletion. - Jkiffmeyer (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass general notability guidelines. I could not find multiple reliable secondary sources in which the subject is given significant coverage. There is also not enough coverage for the podcast - from mainstream resources - to warrant WP:BASIC at this time. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON. It can always be drafted if the creator of the article is concerned and wishes it to be. Missvain (talk) 18:10, 16 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 20:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shanice Marcus[edit]

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

Totally non-notable. Page was created in 2011 and immediately tagged for notability. Creator removed notability tag. I came across this as a random article and made some edits. In particular, I removed two claims that do not add up. Firstly, "Her first major movie role was in Franco-Canadian's Nos 18 ans." She is not listed in a major role or anywhere else as far as I can see. (And what/who is "Franco-Canadian's"?) Secondly, she is "known her portrayal of Nicole in the film Nos 18 ans"; ditto, plus there doesn't seem to be a Nicole part in the film!. The only reference given, to the NY Times, is not specific. Her website is all but blank. Which leaves that she went to an audition and appeared in a video - no refs. Total non-entity in a page that lacks substance and sources and appears no more than a (poor) attempt to promote a career that is at best lacklustre and more likely non-existant. Worth keeping in mind that there is no corresponding article in French Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above arguments by nominator Theprussian (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when you most notable film role is a part that is so minor there is no clear evidence it exists you are not notable. And that is assuming the truthfulness of some claims that are nota actually proven.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nomination. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:43, 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 keep. BD2412 T 23:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Machin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY due to a single soruce which is the person's own personal website (Which is inaccsessible due to a subscription being required for verification) and also the fact that he seems to have provided little contribution to cricket. Theprussian (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - the website isn't my "own personal site". That is a lie. Please do not send articles to deletion just because you don't know anything about the reference. Can someone please help by adding a reference to CI and reformatting the references accordingly, as I've forgotten how it's done these days. Links do not need removing simply because they "require subscription". If you wish for the references to be checked and/or amended, please ask in the appropriate place. For someone who is "fed up" with the userbase and their "stuck up nature", who don't help editors who wish to "edit or create articles", who has only created five articles in the last two and a half years, and would rather send them to deletion, this is an odd frame of mind to be in. Please do not post the AfD notice in the wrong place, either. Bobo. 20:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, calm down. I never said this is your "own personal site", by that I meant that the only reference for the person discussed in the article is their own personal site. Secondly, I looked up any sources on this player and got nothing. Also the fact I have created only 5 articles in 2 years has nothing to do with the AFD, please keep the argument relevant to this discussion. I am not personally attacking you, I created this AFD as a way of discussing whether it is appropriate to continue to keep a record of this person on Wikipedia - a democratic and fair process. You are welcome to argue why/why not but please provide reasonable discusssion. Ps. DO NOT accuse me of dishonesty.Theprussian (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is a notable cricketer ... --Roisterer (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCRIC, played only minor counties cricket and therefore fails the "played at the highest international or domestic level" criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.22.80 (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is factually incorrect, please read the article more carefully, and please log in if you want your !vote to count. Bobo . 11:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bobo192 how is it factually incorrect? He played a single match between Bedfordshire and Northumberland, both of which are minor counties. A match between two minor counties is not the "highest domestic level". That's like saying anyone who plays in the first round of the FA Cup is notable for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.22.80 (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The match had List A status, doesn't matter if they were minor counties or not. StickyWicket (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in a List A match, therefore passing WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Does NCRIC cover this even if this match was over 40 years ago? Theprussian (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as notability is not temporary. There are thousands and thousands of sportspeople on WP (not just cricketers) who've made one start in their sport from 40+ years ago (and more). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I wonder how many of those one-appearance names have been deleted in comparison with cricketers who meet the same criteria. For that matter, I bet there are hundreds of initialed names in those lists too. But you know. Life wouldn't be fun if we ran by clearly definable rules, would it? Bobo . 20:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." WP:NSPORTS we are sort of clutching at straws here. Tbh, I think most of these token articles should be purged from this site or merged into one super list. But alas. Democracy Rules :/ Theprussian (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ever noticed how every single word of that guideline is a weasel word? "Does not mean"? "Must be kept"? You mean we're going to randomly go off our own opinions rather than actually having workable criteria or even working to indefinable and indefensible criteria like GNG? This is how Wikipedia becomes destroyed and worthless. Bobo . 23:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has played List A cricket, the highest domestic level of one-day cricket. StickyWicket ([[User
Comment. Anyone else find the random appearance of an IP just slightly suspicious? No, just me? StickyWicket (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the random appearance of an IP which is suspicious, it's someone randomly taking an article to AfD without knowing anything about the topic that saddens them so much. Bobo . 20:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a 2 line article passes the arbritrary regulation set by WP:NCRIC (which is funnily enough, set be these Wikiproject in charge of the cricket project and not be an indepndent group) - it does not mean we need to keep 6 million 2 line articles about some non-important players. Why can't we just have a list? This issue has been raised before many times and any civil debate is pretty much shutdown. Theprussian (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:If you believe, with your knowledge of the subject and its sources, you can improve these articles, go ahead. Complaining that other people haven't done the work that you're protesting against, when most of the work I did was ten years ago or more, is slightly contradictory, and, frankly, insulting to the work I've put in and the aims and goals of the project. People randomly deciding to become exclusionists purely for the sake of destroying the goals of a project, means Wikipedia can no longer attain its goal of being the sum of all knowledge. As for CRIN, it is identical to every other competitive team sport guideline. If this debate were going on in any other team sport, the exclusionists would probably be topic-banned... Bobo . 23:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming this is a personal attack on yourself - it really isn't. Every person who has edited Wikipedia has had bits written out or deleted entirely, it part of being apart of this project. I'm just sharing my view on this matter - that's all.Theprussian (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusionism is an insult to the cricketing project and its members who have spent the last 15 years expanding knowledge of the subject. I will continue to maintain over and over that the conversation where we determined that NSPORT was too inclusive and should be beneath other "guidelines" was a complete mess and without any form of consensus, as I have suggested here. Note Herostratus' comment regarding the sense that any article should have "sufficient good sources" - please feel free to remove every single reference to CA if you wish - "some reasonable number of people would be interested in the article" - why else do we have a dedicated project - and that "somebody can be bothered to actually create the article". When I look back at the articles I created in my early days, there was so much "low-hanging fruit" in terms of footballer articles. Of course I "can be bothered". "Could be bothered", I should say. I can't any more, my work is being attacked and deemed unwelcome. Bobo . 23:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only because he played a significant number of minor county championship matches. This convinces me that there will almost certainly be sources which deal with him in a reasonable level of detail - year books, newspaper reports etc... I certainly don't believe that his single List A appearance makes him notable in itself - and if that was all we knew about him I would argue for a redirect to the list of Beds cricketers. From a technical point of view there are a number of reasons why WP:NCRIC is flawed in cases such as this.

None of this is a criticism of the nominator. The paywalled source is difficult to access and it's from there that I was able to see how much minor counties cricket he had played which is the only reason for my keep vote. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could always expand on details of his Minor Counties career, but frankly any material other than his career details is just excess bumf. As is the case for every other first-class cricketer. But still people expect an article to be full of excess flowery nonsense. Without facts an article is useless. And if people expect more than facts, then they're in the wrong place. The article still remains identical to how I created it eleven years ago. If anyone is upset with the prose text of an article, then... um... fix it? Of course it's not a criticism of the nominator. I still can't help but feel victimized. And please convince me I should feel otherwise. If this has been randomly sent to AfD, you might as well do the same with 80 percent of my article creations. Bobo . 11:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some level of detail sourced from prose sources rather than being obvious statistical synthesis from scorecards and the like. Or the hope that this might be possible to do at least. Which is why, in this case, I tend towards keep. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor counties competition is exactly that minor, and we should not keep articles just because someone somewhere wrote down about minor sports competitions. Any reasonable standard for inclusion would delete this article, and a lot of other sub-standard cricket articles that we have. Cricket and football are both crying out for us to rid outselves of the huge number of articles on people who in any other place we long ago would have recognized were just run of the mill and do not merit an article. There and alos we have a lot of articles on run of the mill actors we need to scrap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The match had List A status, regardless of whether the team(s) involved also played in the Minor Counties Championship. You are either voting on a false premise or not understanding the status of the match. We cannot simply remove every article of every player from Beds, etc, etc, just because these teams also happened to play Minor Counties cricket. Otherwise there would be no categories for these players. If you wish to complain that the brightline criteria of some subject(s) allow for more defined rules than the fluffy criteria of others, an AfD conversation is not the place to do it, and this should be raised on their pages, not ours. Why are people so keen to state that a "reasonable standard for inclusion" should exist without suggesting what it should be? Is that because everything happens to be fine as it is? And is your complaint that the articles are "run of the mill" or the people themselves? You seem to be trying to make two points at once and failing at both. Bobo . 08:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Nom's claim that citations are from site run by subject are patently false, and the bit about a subscription needed is completely irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NCRIC played in List A cricket, and passes WP:GNG with reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC which provides a presumption of notability. Johnlp (talk) 22:07, 17 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 20:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monica's Aca & Alla[edit]

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

A restaurant that does not appear to have anything but local notability. All of the sources currently being used in the article are from local, Dallas publications, and searching for additional sources, both under the original name of "Monica's Aca & Alla" as well as other names it has gone by, only turns up more of the same The small blurb in the New York Time's travel guide for Dallas that is listed as an External link appears to be the only real coverage it received beyond the Dallas region, which does not appear to be enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I write regularly about restaurants and this one has received little to no coverage outside of local media. They do have one dish (lasagna) published on the Food Network website, but, at this point even I can get a recipe published on it. Missvain (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This restaurant no longer even exists (under this name of owner); Monica left, and another owner/operator took over the location, effectively running a new Mexican restaurant in its place now. I think it’s possible Monica has enough notability to warrant her own page (and I might look at pulling together enough sources to create one), but this restaurant wasn’t notable and there’s not enough coverage of it to justify or salvage this page. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing for this article is essentially nothing but local "best of" lists and a travel guide-like blurb in the NYT. Ultimately fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:58, 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 keep. Keep as the sources were found, but please add them to the article. Tone 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Game Theater XP[edit]

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

A PROD was added on the basis that the product appears to be non-notable. A citation was added and the PROD was removed by DGG, however, I do not believe the cited coverage is significant enough alone to consider the product notable. SITH (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed prod because it needed a more comprehensive check for references in the field than I could do. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3-page review on Tom's Hardware, another 3-page review, IGN review, long review in the Globe and Mail. I think this is just what adaquate sources for a piece of notable hardware are going to look like, they'd all be fine to cite to build up a pretty good article here. And that's just from the first page of Google results. --Here2rewrite (talk) 19:54, 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 Procedural close. Procedural close. Delete discussion at Rfd (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 21:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

F Line (Los Angeles Metro)[edit]

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

LA Metro has tweaked the letter assignments and will no longer establish the "F Line." RickyCourtney (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as this is a redirect not an article. Use RfD instead. Ajf773 (talk) 18:49, 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 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idle Theme Park Tycoon[edit]

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

Non-notable game. No signs of significant coverage; fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Follows all guidelines and is correct in information Thursby16 (talk)

@Thursby16: The Idle Theme Park Tycoon has not met the General notability guideline. This is because the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you could demonstrate how it does I will happily change my mind. In regards to your second point, I suggest reading this essay: WP:BUTITSTRUE. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it does not meet all the guidelines since with the only references being an about us section for the developer and links to the App Store and Google Play Store it fails WP:N which calls for significant coverage by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article only consists of primary sources, no secondary sources provided to establish notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 00:24, 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. Tone 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FearlessRevolution[edit]

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

Non-notable website; no signs of reliable significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Most references used are unreliable forums. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to meet WP:NWEB --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 18:18, 16 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 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keisha (actress)[edit]

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

Sourcing is terrible. Doesn't meet current standards for a BLP Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO. Porn awards are no longer a free ride to notability. Wm335td (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is terrible. I remember back in 2012 when someone lobbed an attack on Wikipedia for having more articles on pornographic film actresses than women poets. I am not sure even then that was actually true, it may just have been women poets were less likely to be categorized as such, while pornographic film actresses were always categorized as such, poets were often just in geneder neutral cats but pornographic actors never were (even when for unfathonable reasons we did not seperate non-pornographic actors by sex, despite this being the term where the male/female terms have survived the most, actress is still a word, poetess has been dead well over a century).John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:GNG. Porn awards, after the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO, no longer confer notability attributes on a person. -The Gnome (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No sources at all in one of only four content sections is bad, but the AVN Hall of Fame and the XRCO Hall of Fame are not some unclear former WP:PORNBIO awards. The latter article literally says "some of the most notable adult entertainment works and workers", that matches WP:NARTIST "The person is regarded as an important figure" or "(c) won significant critical attention". –84.46.53.207 (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the independent indepth coverage of them being in the HOF showing these awards are meaningful within the wider world? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I also can't tell why a Nebula award or Turing award are meaningful within the wider world, but whatever a good answer might be, it should not depend on a former enwiki-internal guideline or policy. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i invite you to look at all the discussions relating to the red links in the list of project porn deletions and see how many were members of a HOF. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to say that surviving ten years in the sex industry is automatically notable, I'm trying to say that it's not the same idea as those hilarious "sex toy" + Adultcon "roll of honor" awards I've removed from Sasha Grey. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nebula and Turing Award winners get mainstream press attention for these achievements (the very basis of wiki notability). The affected secondary guidelines (WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE) rely on independent reliable sources that attest to the significance of the person's achievement. Porn awards, including hall of fame inductions, generally don't have that kind of independent support. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that you fixed the Adultcon {{notability}} tag, thanks, and a better answer than only an ACK in an edit summary: Out of curiosity I tried a BEFORE on 15th AVN Awards, there is one independent Adult Cinema Review source for this award. No MSM, but MSM (mis-)representing the wider world also don't always cover Nebula + Turing + Postel award + Hugo award + Fields Medal. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite my best efforts to dig up reliable secondary source material outside of non-mainstream porn sources, Ms. Keisha does not meet general notability guidelines. And alas, AVN is not a mainstream award - you can't even compare it to the the Nebula Awards, which get covered in mainstream publications. Basically, if you aren't into porn or in the industry, you likely don't care. You don't see the Los Angeles Times writing about the AVN awards like you do the Nebula Awards. We're working hard to cut out the cruft for WP:PORN and focusing on quality content about truly notable subjects. Now, once I gain access to Porn Journal and dig up some hard copy sources I'm trying to purchase and I find something about Keisha that helps her pass, I'm all about working on it... but for now, delete. Missvain (talk) 18:23, 16 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 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aja (actress)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited and the sources discuss films not her as an individual. This is thin gruel for a BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Fails GNG. Porn industry awards do not confer notability per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO. Wm335td (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the GNG. Industry awards are a PR push front.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winning porn awards (WP:PORNBIO) was the only rationale for keeping this article at the previous AfD discussion despite the lack of good sources. Won-porn-awards-but-the-sources-are-crap porn biographies like this one were deleted even before PORNBIO was taken down. An independent search for sources yielded a brief book mention. No real claim for meeting WP:BASIC and WP:ENT notability needs more reliable support than Adult Video News. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:GNG. Trying the inheritance angle does not fly. And porn awards, after the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO, no longer gift notability to a person. -The Gnome (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources on which I can build an article that meets notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 18:28, 16 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 20:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chasey Lain[edit]

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

Only real world notability is in relation to The Ballad of Chasey Lain. Suggest a redirect after deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we no longer keep porn star bios unless there is SIGCOV. In this case there is not and we have recently depreciated WP:PORNBIO. Wm335td (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant RS coverage needed to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. Sources in the article don't qualify as significant coverage by independent reliable sources. An independent search for additional coverage gets a brief mention in an article concerning the After Porn Ends series. Lukewarm on a post-delete redirect over BLP over porn BLP concerns. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough significant coverage to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. Porn awards, after the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO, are simply not enough. -The Gnome (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Subject does not meet general notability guidelines. Redirect to "The Ballad of Chasey Lain" Missvain (talk) 18:30, 16 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 20:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Big World of Little Adam[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY - it existed and had some coverage in non-notable publications. Boleyn (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The show is listed in the print books The Encyclopedia of Animated Television Shows and Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, as well as the website Don Markstein's Toonopedia. It packaged NASA documentaries for children, and has some relevance to the American public's understanding of the space race in the late 60s. Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is not temporary for this 1960s cartoon. WP:NTEMP Toughpigs has demonstrated that sources exist. WP:NEXIST Wm335td (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hug^syrup 17:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing to add to the discussion, but I find the opening keep argument convincing enough to lean that way for consensus. -2pou (talk) 14:42, 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. Tone 20:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KIU System[edit]

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

WP:PROMO for non-notable company HouseOfChange (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is indeed WP:PROMO, blatantly so.TH1980 (talk) 03:01, 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 20:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Sipper[edit]

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

Doesn't meet our standards for notability S Philbrick (Talk) 16:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some thorny issues not immediately obvious if you look at the current version of the article. They are the subject of the confidential ticket:2020010810007402 , although some of the issues are directly and indirectly discussed at User_talk:Sphilbrick#Place_for_ResponseEditor_to_post

I will openly concede that I see arguments on both sides of the inclusion of this very negative information, and I'm ducking that issue by suggesting that the entire article should be deleted.

While you will note that it currently has no sources, that's a little misleading. If you look at a prior version:

here

You will see that some editor tried to add sources but did so improperly. They were removed in a recent trimming of the fluff.

After the removal of the fluff, even if someone went to the effort of coming up with sources for the claims in the article, this doesn't appear to meet our usual standards of notability.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG either. A quick google search doesn't provide much to add. Lunar Clock (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an unsourced biography of a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not close to meeting notability no matter how hard I look and I do try. Collect (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing and a further search didn't come up with much to establish GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:13, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GameDev.net[edit]

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

Non-notable website with no independent sourcing, and my own search turns up nothing but press releases. Fails WP:GNG, WP:WEB and WP:NCORP. Hug^syrup 16:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 16:20, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cinephile (band)[edit]

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

Despite being featured on CSI (which I suspect has featured an awful lot of bands over its hundreds of episodes), there's no real evidence this band is notable. No independent/secondary coverage I can find at all. A redirect to Kenny Inglis doesn't seem like a good solution as that article appears just as bad. Hug^syrup 16:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 16:15, 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 20:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amoebic Dysentery (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable garage band signed to a non-notable label. Their claim to notability is amusing but doesn't quite cut it. 0 references in the article and my search turns up nothing further, although admittedly it's a little tricky searching given the name. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BAND etc. Hug^syrup 16:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 16:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have not found anything that indicates notability about this band. As I mentioned on the Neurovisceral Exhumation and Pathologist deletion page, goregrind is a very underground style. I have only found databases and trivial mentions. The only reliable source I could find was on Blabbermouth, but that article is not about the band's history (https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/deathgasm-to-release-perverted-coloring-book-concept-album/). Even though Blabbermouth is a reliable source, there aren't any more sources that indicate notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 18:31, 16 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 Draftify. Will move to draft space under the same title. RL0919 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Only one cited source even sayes anything about what might happen in DTM 2021 with latter sources confirming that it won't actually happen until 2022. A google search to determine if this article could be expanded yields only sources which state that DTM might change its name (WP:CRYSTAL). In these article 2021 is only given a passing mention. Therefore this article fails WP:GNG.
SSSB (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
SSSB (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.
SSSB (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace or author's sandbox. I think it will be better solution. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:50, 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 20:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cpt Anarchy[edit]

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

Video gamer showing no real evidence of notability. Sources are PR or primary, and my WP:BEFORE turns up nothing. Hug^syrup 16:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 16:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 16:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sigificant coverage; fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 18:47, 16 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) Hug^syrup 16:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michael the Archangel Church (Monroe, Michigan)[edit]

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

Non-notable church. The article is one big advertisement with text from its own website, and there is very little secondary information available online to support its importance. —Notorious4life (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotButtigieg (talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--this is considered a historic house of worship by the Detroit Historical Society. Here is a news article with in depth coverage about a special church service at the church. Along with references #1 and #3 from the article, this means the article is notable...also, here are three news articles about their employees[7] [8][9]Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The link provided above by NotButtigieg is a self-published source listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as an unreliable source to be avoided when making references. This link (historic house of worship) simply lists the church on a Historic Houses of Worship tour, while providing no other information at all. Appearing on a list of four other Monroe churches for a commercial tour does not create notability. This news article is about a little girl's first communion with no additional information about the church itself. These three links, [10] [11][12], merely describe three employees at the church with no other descriptions about the church itself, other than the name of the church appearing as their new workplace. —Notorious4life (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"no additional information about the church itself"-the information about the parish is about half-way through--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles about buildings of historical and architectural interest are usually kept. It is passing the Earwig tool copyvio test and any promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Building of historical and architectural interest, this probably of NRHP quality. Article may need work, but not a reason to delete.Djflem (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my standards for notable churches. "The building is more than 100 years old ("The present building was built from 1866-1867") ... "It ... is notable for its architecture" (see two images), and "It has been notably large for its denomination, either in the size of the buildings or its congregation numbers" (1,200 congregants). Bearian (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Its parochial school adds to notability, too. About NRHP listing, many churches which would be eligible choose not to participate. --Doncram (talk) 14:02, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tobi Bakre[edit]

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

Subject of the article clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER, with the article written in a promotional tone. He participated in a popular reality TV show, Big Brother Naija (season 3), but failed to emerge as the winner. With all said, I don't see why we should have a standalone article about him at this time. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think original editor wasn't aware of Wikipedia manual of style. I've made some changes including copy editing and adding new references. Removed promotional content. Looks notable now. Lunar Clock (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunar Clock: on what basis are you voting keep? On the basis of Wikipedia manual of style or removing promotional content?? NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nnadigoodluck: thank you for inquiry. I found some indepth converage and added few more citations as well. These includes Legit, The Punch and Guardian Nigeria. All of these are notable sources. And yes, I've remove promotional content and did some copy edit too. So yeah, they count as well. Lunar Clock (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That he didn't win doesn't make him unsuitable for wikipedia, after all Ebuka Obi-Uchendu, DJ Bally, and Miyonse Amosu all have wikipedia pages but didn't win the show too. What matters is what he has been able to achieve. Tobi Bakre is a well known and grounded name in the Nigerian entertainment industry and by all means, notable for Wikipedia. Kojomo (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kojomo: As I noted, the subject of your article fails WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BIO. Being just known as you claimed doesn't warrant a standalone article for him at this time. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Nnadigoodluck: here. Just because others have pages doesn't mean he qualifies automatically. He has to pass through notability check too. Lunar Clock (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - under WP:ENTERTAINER I could see criterion #2 been satisfied as per WP:THREE i’d say there are more than 3 solid references which are are definitely WP:RS. Per WP:GNG in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources are not necessarily met but Wikipedia has a policy whereby multiple sources could be used to substantiate the notability of an individual. In all there’s no real reason for it to be deleted.Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 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 20:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lviv Convention Bureau[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 19:41, 16 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. Sandstein 06:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Artists Ireland[edit]

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

No apparent substantial sources. The ones in the article are either mere notices of press releases. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I've added a few more sources and information about their activities and will continue to do so. The organsiation is very important and longstanding in Ireland with a significant membership base and numerous publications. Hesperian Nguyen (talk)
Delete The coverage is all minor. The trivial and minor sources Hesperian Nguyen has added do not help notability. as they say on their talk page, VAI are their own publisher of most things, and newspapers don't write articles about them. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added many better citations tonight – I admit this article needs work – from major news sources. [13] a quick search in the Irish Times shows how frequently they are relied on and talked about on key issues affecting Irish artists. Further, I don't think it is fair for ThatMontrealIP to use casual conversation from my talk page out of context to support claims for deletion. I was asking for advice on a nuanced topic. Hesperian Nguyen (talk)

It is not out of context, you were talking about the article subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that it is out of context in what I was saying about the article subject which is that despite a clear history of publishing books, documents on policy, and their own newspapers, there remains a scarcity of articles solely on the organisation. Further I was saying that individual artists pages are not held up to the standards this page is being held to, and that I have experienced similar problems trying to improve gallery articles. I was asking for your help in navigating this dilemma. This context was entirely missed. I'd appreciate it if you don't misuse my words in an effort to undermine a reasonably proposed article about an organisation with a lot of credibility and influence. Hesperian Nguyen (talk)

Like you said, there remains a scarcity of articles solely on the organisation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And as you said: "You should be carefully synthesizing statements form several discrete sources"... which is what I've done/am doing :-) Hesperian Nguyen (talk)

Keep, the page is now well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:ORG it is clear this article qualifies. I will add some more details about the artist welfare work and the artists payments work as both constitute continued influence, impact, and coverage of the VAI. Hesperian Nguyen (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the body is real, active and known in arts and policy circles, if not with a strong public profile, and there is now enough referencing to support this.SeoR (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 19:42, 16 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. While I gladly welcome coverage about sex work around the world, this specific type of promotional list belongs on maybe WikiTravel, if anything. Missvain (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brothels in Vienna[edit]

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

wikipedia is not a directory and this looks a lot like advertising or a "best of" list i'd expect to see in a local magazine. There is only one notable entry here, so it's useless as a list. Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I understand your problem, but there are many well-known places on the list what will have articles soon. If you don't need a such extensive list then do we cut down the list part and mention only the most important places? There are 20-30 well-known places in Vienna. -- Csaszar.viktor (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Obvious fail of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and also WP:NOTADVERTISING. Any grounds for speedy deletion? Ajf773 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quick delete Entirely WP:OR, directory of non-notable businesses. Reywas92^Talk 20:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only one has an article, so NOTDIRECTORY applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:00, 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 delete. Sandstein 06:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Maynard-Brewer[edit]

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

Has not played in a fully professional match between two fully professional clubs. Swansea City U21s is not a fully pro team. Simione001 (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this was only recently nominated for AfD and allowed to be moved to draft to be improved. I suggest some good faith is needed here to allow the article to be improved, rather than multiple nominations. Bookscale (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its been recreated without improvements so should be Draftify again. Simione001 (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should not be draftified, because there are always people who wander around draft space and "reactivate" articles that seem ok. (Like this one.) It also doesn't need improvement in itself, we would rather be waiting for the guy's career to take an upturn. Instead it should be userfied. Geschichte (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either 'delete as non-notable or move to draft as per previous AFD outcome. Giant Snowman 12:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some desire for draftifying, but also some objections
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy for it to be userfied to avoid multiple recreations until the article is ready. Bookscale (talk) 08:38, 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 and redirect to Institute of Physics#Awards. Sandstein 06:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Bragg Medal and Prize[edit]

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

Minor non-notable award. Of the current version's 19 sources, most are not independent, being either from the Institute of Physics own website or press releases from institutions of awardees. Solely references 3, 11, 13, 17, and 18 are somewhat independent, but all are only in-passing mentions (and most are mentions of the award in obituaries of former awardees). Note that the IoP has a huge number of awards (43 if I counted correctly), with no less than 5 in the category "education", of which this is only one. No evidence that this meets WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unenthusiastically. Not the kind of article I would normally hasten to prune, but the sourcing here really isn't great, and mostly consists of institutional publications being pleased about faculty achievements. The IoP prizes are notable and important in the aggregate, but for most of the individual prizes (excluding the Dirac medal and a couple of others) I think we would struggle to establish sufficient standalone coverage. - On a side note, Institute of Physics now has three dozen circular redirects, which probably ought to be straightened out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I'm the creator of this article, but after careful searching online those are the best references I could find, so I'm happy to concede this particular award is not sufficiently notable for it's own article. On a side note, which would also handle the various circular redirects on the main Insitute of Physics article too, I propose the IOP awards overall have their own spin-off article. This would also stop the main article getting too long. And just keep the very limited number of notable awards with their separate pages too. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another couple of refs in any case, but they aren't really significant. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:23, 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandebo[edit]

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

SPA/COI article, no meaningful coverage in any language. Praxidicae (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 20:22, 16 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. Significant opposition to the article certainly exists, frequently citing WP:TOOSOON which, while an essay, elaborates on many valid points about notability guidelines and the policy against unverifiable speculation. But as trivial as the topic may be considered by many, the coverage in reliable sources has been anything but trivial, and those advocating to keep the article have pointed to the sheer volume of detailed information about this specific event. There's a lot of validity to the complaints about the name of the article; good points have been made that Megxit is something of a tabloid creation, but it's clearly being heavily used, though whether it quite meets the "commonly recognizable name" bar of WP:COMMONNAME certainly can be argued either way. Further discussions can potentially be held as to moving it to a less tabloidy title, but even among those advocating a rename in this discussion, there is no particular consensus at all as to what that title might be. Ultimately, there is an increasing consensus, particularly among later participants as the event has developed, that there is sufficient detailed reliable-source coverage to maintain a separate article on this event. ~ mazca ^talk 12:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megxit[edit]

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

This is a moment in the lives of two people. One decision. It does not deserve a stand-alone article in an encyclopedia. There is no reason to treat it any differently than, say, Camillagate. Surtsicna (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also something unprecedented in the history of the royal family for senior royals to step down without discussing with the Queen first. This will continue to get coverage and "Megxit" like Brexit will become a well known term. Even if we don't have a article under this title and move it to "Resignation of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" it's clearly something notable. And no doubt this will be getting thousands of searches and people looking for information..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An heir apparent likening himself to a tampon was also quite unprecedented and everyone wanted to know about it but people have moved on. Now it is a footnote in his biography. This is no different. We should stop seeing encyclopedic material where there is none. Surtsicna (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're very much a royalist though, admit it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But then nobody would call me a communist anymore. I quite enjoy the variety. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex#Marriage and fatherhood. If more develops, it may be fruitful to create a new section under that titled something like "Resignation from royal duties". BD2412 T 13:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As suspected this has continued to get coverage and use of the term. It got 6000 views yesterday, people are looking for it. Eventually I'm certain it will have enough for a full length article as it plays out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON – Wait until the term gets traction. Can be mentioned briefly in the main biographies of both protagonists, though. — JFG ^talk 13:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON Theprussian (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex#Marriage and fatherhood per WP:TOOSOON. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notice that we don't have a Retirement of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh article? Honestly, this isn't a world changing event. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TOOSOON - Just mention the term on their respective articles. Not to mention that this is not important enough to have a standalone article. Especially since their roles in the future are not clarified, and technically they have "not" resigned; they are just reducing their responsibilities. Also, Prince Philip and Prince Andrew have completely stopped working on behalf of their family, but we don't have articles about their so-called retirement; and we shouldn't. Keivan.f^Talk 17:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since a week ago, the term "Megxit" has gone viral and now all news broadcasters are covering the topic. With the existence of reliable sources, the article can definitely stay. Keivan.f^Talk 01:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft is the only logical solution here. It is a notable event (hence why readers came here looking for this article) obviously but still too soon to write a proper, informative article about it. ⌚️ (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which readers are you talking about? Surtsicna (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1800 views yesterday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - All these!

in a few hours the tool will show how many. ⌚️ (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a "draft" can just as easily be written as a section of the proposed redirect target, and then broken out into a new article if it reaches sufficient independent notability. BD2412 T 02:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to a new section of their articles.Sir Magnus (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's received significant coverage, and the term is mainstream and widely-used. Sir Magnus (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON - Let's address in section on their Wiki pages, and then a separate article can be created if there's sufficient notability established over time to warrant this subject having its own separate page. Until that time, there's no reason to even request a Merge since there's all of one sentence of material on the page... Shelbystripes (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. This event represents the formation of a new royal "brand" (Sussex Royal). There will be a great deal of new material as things develop, and it would be better to have it in one place rather than duplicating it at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. Netwalker3 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If and when the "Sussex Royal" brand receives WP:SIGCOV, then indeed that would be an appropriate article to incorporate its genesis and the "Megxit" moniker, instead of duplicating such information in the articles of both protagonists. — JFG ^talk 17:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sense Check. A couple of points here:

1. This can't be a full delete because the term "Megxit" is now appearing in the headline, and body, of SIGCOV pieces by the highest-grade RS (e.g. WP:RS/Ps), such as 'The Telegraph', 'NBC News', 'The Guardian' - I could list at least 10 more full SIGCOVs with the term; therefore the term "Megxit" will always be a valid Redirect to Prince Harry (and never a delete).

2. The UK and International high-quality RS on this term (and affair), is growing exponentially by the hour, however, Harry's main article says little of it. Therefore, redirecting what is one of the biggest trending stories globally (and therefore worthy of chronicling in some form), to an article that does not yet mention the term, is not yet appropriate.

3. There is a 50:50 chance that this article will always exist outside of the main Harry/Megan articles because there is so much going on, and commentary being written from the affair by the highest quality-RS, and its Megxit's long-term implications for the UK monarchy (and a related racial aspect), and would only clog-up Harry's BLP article.

Therefore, we should close this as a no consensus and let things settle for a month to see how big this affair gets. After then, it will either be a Redirect or Merge into Harry (and/or Megan), depending on how much material from this affair is in their main BLPs; OR, a useful standalone WP article. Britishfinance (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even Trump is commenting with: "Trump on 'Megxit': 'I don't think this should be happening to' the queen", via another WP:RS/P, USA Today. Britishfinance (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you hadn't said that, I remember ASAP Rocky... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point :) Note to self for future ref. Britishfinance (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect for now, but would support a delete too. I don't know about anyone else, but I've been having sleepless nights worrying about how these multi-millionaires will be able to cope in the real world. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex#Public role for now. I've taken a few days to think about it, and while this clearly is a major news story, there's just not that much to say about it yet other than various reactions and speculation. An article can always be recreated in future (hopefully with a better, more encyclopaedic title, once the media settle on one) but I don't think there's enough content to justify a spin-off article at this time. Robofish (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I would say that, since the term 'Megxit' clearly refers to Meghan, it should logically redirect to her article rather than Harry's.) Robofish (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've no strong feelings about whether this event is notable enough for a standlaone article, but if it were kept I think Resignation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would be a more encyclopaedic title. Ham II (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have over 10 WP:RS/Ps with Megxit in the title discussing Megxit in the body; we also have Brexit as a standalone article. Britishfinance (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article Brexit was titled United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union for the first 10 months of its existence, and the first request to move it to 'Brexit' closed with no consensus, so it took some time for that term to be considered encyclopaedic. Looking quickly at the Guardian's website, the most prominent articles don't call this development 'Megxit', but a search for 'Megxit' does also produce several results. I'm convinced that 'Megxit' is still slang at the moment (as 'Brexit' was once considered to be), but while I think the way to determine the real WP:COMMONNAME would be to weigh the RSs which discuss this event but don't call it 'Megxit' against the ones which do, I've no inclination to do something so tedious which would almost immediately become dated. Ham II (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the "background" section of the article, some RS are clarifying that they have not "resigned" from the royal family (for reasons explained), and thus "Resignation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" is not necessarily appropriate at this stage. Britishfinance (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Spanish Wikipedia has a larger article on Megxit which might be useful for material (not that we need more sources as we are already heavy in the highest quality WP:RS/Ps, with Megxit in the title and body as WP:SIGCOV). Britishfinance (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a few weeks and see per user:Britishfinance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per (part of) nom('s rationale), Britishfinance, and others. Oppose rename, per Amakuru and Arbil44 below, and also oppose merge with future Sussex Royal Foundation, per part of Drmies's rationale below, as this is much broader than the pair's charitable foundation. Lukewarm to a future merge into one or more articles, assuming one or more suitable merger targets present themselves. It's a very real current event, which will have historical significance given the emergency meeting, dubbed the Sandringham Summit, called by The Queen. It might be too soon, but in this case, that's hardly sufficient a reason to outright delete. ~~I'd be mildly supportive of draftification/userification to add sourcing, but~~ It's an event that ultimately should have an article and we need to respect attribution and the contributors of this article against this article being blown up and re-done weeks later by someone else. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And note that the creator and a major editor of this article is one of the most proficient FA/GA rated editors on WP. At the moment, when you google "Megxit", you get a Spanish-WP "Megxit" article (per above), with NPOV tags, and not what en-WP has to offer because one of the highest trending news stories globally ... is stuck at en-AfD? Britishfinance (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, Great point! That actually also effectively nullifies the "redirect" arguments, too, no, since there is, potentially, no clear redirect target (i.e., the case could be made for redirecting to Meghan, to Harry, or to Spanish Wikipedia). Doug Mehus T·C 18:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britishfinance Not disputing what you said about the Spanish Wikipedia widget as Google Personalized Search is likely at play here, but what I see when searching, from a logged in Google Canada web search, is no Wikipedia widget whatsoever. Using a StartPage, which is essentially an anonymous Google web search overlay, search, I also see nothing. Using DuckDuckGo, I see Megxit from English Wikipedia. Doug Mehus T·C 18:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, just seen that in Europe (my patch), Google has taken the Spanish-Megxit article off there the main search listings (probably given tagging). Parts of it read like a tabloid article in my view. Britishfinance (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with possible rename. Very real current event as agreed with others. TheKaphox T 21:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per my comments above, and now that Dr. Blofeld (one of the most experienced FA-GA rated editors in WP) and I have over 20 refs from WP:RS/Ps using "Megxit" in their title and body to describe this event it is never going to be a delete. In addition, the RS also show that it is not an "abdication" nor (at least currently) a "resignation". Other social media terms like "Sussexit" made much less appearance in WP:RS/P (almost none); however the term "step-back" gets some use (although at a much lower lever). Until we know how this highly notanle "current news event" develops (e.g. maybe they will end up fully and formally resigning), I think "Megxit" is the title for now. We can always revisit any case for a merge in a few weeks/months time. Britishfinance (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider a title change. A topic of lasting significance. It's certainly not common for senior members of the British royal family to "step back", and this is generating significant, ongoing coverage AusLondonder (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wait for the dust to settle, then consider whether a merger would be a good option. For all we know the two may well be planning further ventures resulting in continued impact/significance down the line. Or perhaps the whole thing may fizzle down, though that appears less likely. We don't know for sure yet, but keeping the content in a separate article for now aids readers compared to splitting and merging the content here to the two BLPs, which would be messy. feminist (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feminist, Well said, I'm not opposed to a future merger or dual merge with the respective Harry and Meghan articles, which, on first glance, seem to be unduly flattering. There was no mention of Harry's youthful playboy escapades in Calgary and Las Vegas, for example, nor really any previous controversies. But, I don't see how either a "delete" or "redirect" are helpful here. Doug Mehus T·C 14:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a significant and current event however I agree with other users that a rename may be appropriate Davethorp (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This might not be quite as big of an event in the royal family as Edward VIII abdication crisis, but it is huge. Just about every news outlet has at least one story about it if not more[14]. The event will very likely have a lasting impact, and as well will likely be talked about for years, even decades to come. There's been a suggestion this might be merged "into Harry (and/or Megan)", which highlights a problem. This isn't just Harry stepping back from his duties; it's Megan too. So where do you merge it to? One? Both? I say neither. It's a major event in and of its own accord, and needs a stand alone article. As to the title, I find "Megxit" rather less than appealing, and even offensive potentially. But, on Google it tracks with 44 million+ hits [15]. Interestingly, Google calls it "Resignation of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" [16], and the Wikipedia link....goes to Megxit. That title would be a mouthful and is unlikely to become the title. I'm open to suggestions on an alternate title, but I think we have to go with what the public is calling it, regardless of our feelings of its problematic nature. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with much of the above and the issues of where to redirect/merge (this is really about both of them). The article had "Resignation of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" as an earlier bolded term in the lede (which google have probably picked up on), however, as several RS have pointed out, it is not (as yet) a "resignation". It was a fair nom at the outset, however, in the past few days it has become a huge story and every WP:RS/P, from every corner of the globe, is covering "Megxit". The Times, the holy grail of newspaper RS/P, has just run an article about whether it could be a "Hard Megxit" or a "Soft Megxit"? Britishfinance (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft and Britishfinance, Hammersoft, I agree with what you said as well, and I, too, think it's appropriately named as "Megxit." Some Royal watchers and, indeed, the Royal family, may not like our naming convention for this article, but I think it checks all the boxes in terms of concision and what it is being commonly referred to. I do think a couple paragraphs on this is worthy of inclusion in the Harry & Meghan articles, potentially even The Queen as well, with "main article" section hatnotes to Megxit. To be clear, I am very much a supporter of the monarchy, the Commonwealth, and especially The Queen, whom I adore and for whom I have great respect and admiration; however, I have to set aside those feelings. Megxit is the perfect titling of the article; if, in the future, more, different controversies ensue and Megzilla becomes the new common name to refer to Meghan and the myriad future controversies, then we can re-consider renaming such a hypothetical future, multi-issue article.

Britishfinance, I'm surprised to hear you say The Times is the "holy grail" of newspaper reliable sources. I'd have thought you'd have said The Daily Telegraph, as I've heard that's The Queen's preferred daily broadsheet newspaper. Though, I don't disagree with you—I like both papers, and I think The Independent is very good, too. Doug Mehus T·C 20:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, The Telegraph is an RS/P but is a right-leaning royalist slant (the ying/yang to The Guardian (another RS/P) left-leaning anti-royalist slant). The Times is the one in the centre (on all subjects) and the most balanced of them all, imho. If you had to pick one UK newspaper RS/P, I think it would be The Times? thank. Britishfinance (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, Ah, yeah, that makes sense, and thanks for confirming that The Telegraph does have more of a royalist/monarchist tint (with The Guardian being roughly opposite). I know The Daily Mail isn't as well regarded, but I do enjoy their "ThisIsMoney.co.uk" personal finance news source, which I find to be a great source of coverage on UK banks and building societies and their branch closures (personal fascination). Doug Mehus T·C 20:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Historically significant and notable. Perhaps a rename. But, definitely a "keep". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already notable. Ramification for years. Plus, it will trigger editors who don't like this kind of stuff. Win win all around. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Megxit" is silly. This'd be media's ploy to involve Meghan Markle as having some negative responsibility on all this happening. Set it as a redirect, perhaps, but the article name should be changed to something more objective that does not involve jargon. Tytrox (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tytrox, we have Brexit or Wexit/Wexit Canada. It's entirely neutral. Doug Mehus T·C 23:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus thanks for pointing that out. TBH I wasn't aware that those articles existed (have never bothered to look for them), but I otherwise stick to my opinion (on general terms) that using jargon as the article title shouldn't be practiced. Tytrox (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tytrox, Sorry, I wasn't meant to be patronizing, and hope no offence was taken. In hindsight, I need not have mentioned it; my point was that I do think Megxit is a perfectly neutral title. Often we tend to perceive things as being slanted in a way that is opposite to our own. Some people, viewing her as behaving in a diva-ish manner, for example, might think Megxit is unduly flattering to Meghan Markle (by its more subtle, neutral tone, and by naming the event after her). As I say, I don't hold that view and think that Megxit is neutral. Doug Mehus T·C 00:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus All good mate. I didn't view it that way, so no offence taken. I was just giving an observation that I genuinely didn't know those articles existed. The whole thing you point out about how people view her is a matter of subjectivity, whether it's in good or bad light. I just feel the jargon use in the title somewhat betrays the nature of Wikipedia. I'll also clarify that while I'm not entirely dismissing the notability of it, I just think we can surely come up with a more meaningful title. Tytrox (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename. Event is definitely notable, but I don't think "Megxit" is the WP:COMMONNAME (this is not like "Brexit"), and it's a "neologism" anyhow (it's nothing more than a tabloid creation, and we should not be following their lead). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IJBall, Interesting...I've got to read up on the difference between a "neologism" and a "portmanteau," which is how the article describes it. Can it be both a neologism and a portmanteau? Doug Mehus T·C 01:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's inaccurate to characterize the word "Megxit" as exclusively a tabloid-created word. Especially if the idea is to make it seem like an illegitimate phenomenon. It was the lowest of low-hanging fruit and people were saying it on Twitter pretty much immediately after the first announcement. (inb4 "Twitter isn't a Reliable Source." That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that "it was made up by tabloids specifically to direct this at Meghan Markle" is inaccurate and not a good argument against the article's name.) lethargilistic (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep with possible name change. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm here because I was looking on the homepage for this article and to my surprise, it wasn't there. I live in New Zealand, which is part of the Commonwealth, but as far away from Britain as you can get. The Australian bushfires are obviously a big thing in this part of the world and despite that being much closer (the sun is often obscured from the smoke, although we are some 2000 km away from the fires; still a lot closer than Europe), Megxit has been the lead item on the main news most evenings since this has happened. So yes, it would appear to be a most notable event, not just a wee bit notable. I don't really care what the article title is going to be and frankly, that should not be the topic of an AfD discussion in the first instance. It is something that can be sorted through the appropriate process. Schwede 66 10:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is usually superb with current affairs, so much that I had expected to see Megxit already created and to see it on the main page too. The "Megxit" title does sound tabloidy but the fact even the most reputable publications are calling it Megxit now, I don't think we can ignore that. They're even making Megxit mugs now LOL. 12,000 views yesterday, interest in this has doubled.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, Doubled on Wikipedia. Interest and use of the Megxit term has ballooned by an unknown factor, probably of astronomical size. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 15:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately their future ex-Royal activity will be under the Sussex Royal Foundation, which will resolve issues of redirection etc. Megxit has become such as massive global term now that it will likely remain the title of the article describing the event and the weeks afterwards (until the Foundation is going in April). Other more formal terms such as resignation etc. are incorrect (per the article). What any reader will search for, when researching this mad period, is Megxit. Britishfinance (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britishfinance, Even then, I still think Megxit as a standalone article from Sussex Royal Foundation if and when Sussex Royal Foundation is deserving of an article. I don't think we should ever condense and merge Megxit to a mere section of a Sussex Royal Foundation article as to do so would be both undue and overly puffery, eh? Doug Mehus T·C 15:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename.It's being talked about by many news sources and is starting to become more well-known, though I feel like it should be renamed to something else. Fernsong (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. Way WP:TOOSOON O3000 (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If an event that is capable of generating over 50 SIGCOV refs in the highest grade RS (e.g. WP:RS/Ps) is TOOSOON, then we should shut down all "in the news" Wikipedia articles; there have been very few that have ever generated this volume of SIGCOV pieces – even after a year. We have The Times (one of the highest-grade RS out there), saying Hard or soft Megxit? What’s on the table; or on a more serious note, MSNBC (another high-grade RS) saying How racism in Britain contributed to 'Megxit’. Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to...well, that's another matter. The Harry article, I suppose, or a general article on the British royal family, it doesn't matter much to me. (No, not to Sussex Royal Foundation--the whole thing is bigger than just a business venture.) That this got 8000 views is not a surprise--it's a happening thing, and a valid reason to make a redirect. That we should have an article under that name is another matter. The article right now, of course, reads like a well-organized selection of celebrity trivia, with half the article dedicated to "reactions" and a chunk on the business aspect of it. Once you take out the NOTNEWS stuff, and once we are done with this in the news cycle, there's not much left, at least for now. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is, wrongly or rightly, one of the biggest news stories in the world (hence why this article is constructed from the highest grade RS, all of whom have full SIGCOV pieces on the story). It will always be an article. It also has "legs" to it that these RS have raised (and are in the article), around racism and the structure of the UK monarchy . However, all that aside, in a platform whose ratio of articles-to-active-editors/admins is rising relentlessly, having a well constructed article on "Megxit" is a great display to future editors of what WP can do (e.g. parse through all the junk-RS on this topic to capture the most important facts). UK royalty articles are collectively, probably the most viewed articles in Wikipedia by our readers. Unfortunately, because of this AfD, this article appears in few google searches on the topic (some !votes above have registered surprise that they could not find it easily). I think we are scoring an own-goal here. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Drmies, I agree with Britishfinance and others that this article is notable on its own, so I'm not sure how redirecting makes sense. We'd have to duplicate the content on each of the articles for Meghan and Harry and, even then, WP:BLP or other policies may constrain us in terms of how much detail we go into on it. The one thing I strongly agree with you on, though, is that Megxit is entirely separate of Sussex Royal Foundation as it's way bigger and broader than that foundation, which may be deserving of its own, separate, standalone article in the future. Doug Mehus T·C 17:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I disagree that it should stand on its own, so for me redirecting makes sense! BTW, don't be mistaken on the BLP: it applies everywhere (including in other namespaces), so whether something is in the article on the person or the article on a -gate or -exit does not matter. There is no difference in how much detail is licensed in one article or the other except by editorial common sense and MoS guidelines. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, Thanks for the clarification re: WP:BLP. Though, given the neutral tone of the article and that we have multiple articles on Donald Trump and various controversies, I don't think there is a WP:BLP violation for giving undue weight to this story, right? Doug Mehus T·C 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ~~nom,~~ Britishfinance. Their points make the most sense for now. CaroleHenson (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out "nom".–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom, Britishfinance. --IndexAccount (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose rename - I'm not sure why so many are invoking WP:TOOSOON on this, which isn't policy or guideline, it's only an essay, and if applied literally would mean we'd never add articles about current events. Much as I personally think the story is overblown nonsense and it shouldn't be a big deal, it's clear that this has enough substance and enough reliable source coverage to easily meet our standards for both notability and having a standalone article. It's a bigger deal than Covfefe. On the naming, although I wouldn't be opposed in principle to a descriptive title I think there's a big problem with defining what that is. For a while the article was titled "Resignation of..." which is inaccurate. They haven't resigned from the Royal family, they've just "stepped back" from some of their duties. As such, the current title which has gained lots of traction in lots of sources, describes the topic in a WP:CONCISE fashion and with enough frequency to justify as a WP:COMMONNAME. In short, leave exactly as is. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, Here, here. And, well said. I had forgotten Covfefe has a standalone article and you're right, this is way bigger than that. There are potential implications for the British monarchy and, indeed, all Commonwealth countries. It may not be as big as Brexit, but it's arguably bigger than Wexit Canada/Wexit, which also has a standalone article. So, you've made me add to my own "keep" !vote above by both opposing a rename and a merger with a future potential Sussex Royal Foundation article as Drmies rightly points out this is much bigger, and broader, than their charitable foundation. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose rename This is the most significant royal event since Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII.Arbil44 (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

-Loaded, non neutral title

-Wikipedia is not a gossip column

-WP:TOO SOON

-The existence of the Wikipedia article is likely to promote the use of the term thereby becoming a self fulfilling prophecy that the term is relevant. Check back in a year and see if anyone is still using it Slywriter (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is already a global trending term, and this article does not appear on google search because of the AfD, so it is not contributing to its trending. Rather than being able to read a well structured en-WP article on the topic using the highest grade RS, people have to wade through literally thousands of global RS on it, a lot of which is junk. Britishfinance (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a reader searches in google under "Megxit site:wikipedia.org" (i.e. show me what Wikipedia has on Megxit), you will get a Spanish Wikipedia article on Megxit, and a Hebrew Wikipedia article on Megxit; but nothing in English Wikipedia as we are still in the AfD quarantine. Britishfinance (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britishfinance, Oh, interesting...Hebrew Wikipedia now has an article on Megxit? Interesting. There's got to be a Wikipedia policy, essay, or guideline, that recommends, where possible, English versions of foreign language Wikipedia articles, for accessibility purposes, too. Doug Mehus T·C 17:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Different Wikipedias have different notability standards, and we don't know if other Wikipedias' articles actually fit with their notability guidelines. That would be a very bad idea if it was implemented. BTW Dmehus, on accessibility please adhere to MOS:LISTGAP with your comments. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 20:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J947,

Thank you for clarifying the different notability standards for different Wikipedias. As to MOS:LISTGAP, I was not aware of that policy, though I'm not sure which part you were referencing. I have seen many, many editors indent one further level with each subsequent nested reply. Some editors use an asterisk followed by colons, whilst others use all colons. As long as editors aren't inserting multiple bullet points with each indentation, I can see no real difference between the two styles. If referencing extra blank lines, I haven't been? That was Slywriter's post above, so my using reply-link likely ignored the extra blank line below his or her comment? Doug Mehus T·C 20:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that you responded to '*' with '::' once (it only happened when you didn't use reply-link). J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 21:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes the standard for NOTNEWS by miles and even if TOOSOON was a policy then this is most definitely not too soon. The gist of TOOSOON is that it has to be verifiable by non-independent sources. Of course this is verifiable by non-independent sources. I have no opinion on the rename. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 20:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J947, Question: Do you mean verifiable by "independent sources"? Great point referencing WP:NOTNEWS, too, and refuting WP:TOOSOON by rightly noting it's an essay that seeks to offer guidance rather than a hard policy and also that this is not too soon. Doug Mehus T·C 20:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing, I meant non-independent sources. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 21:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unfortunately. Clearly passes NOTNEWS by spades; there's continued coverage in reliable outlets (internationally), and although the name is somewhat of a tabloid tripe, the story itself is not. And, as if it needs repeating with so many experienced editors in the room: changing a page's title is about as far from a reason for deletion as we can get. That's for the talk page with a cucumber bleedin' crustless-sandwich on the side. ——SN 54129 20:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, Yummy...you've made me hungry for a cucumber sandwich, but I prefer my cucumber sandwiches with crusts. Doug Mehus T·C 21:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, though I don't have a good target at the moment. Note also that there are plenty of articles stating that Megxit is a tabloid creation (for example ‘Megxit’ Is the New Brexit in a Britain Split by Age and Politics at The New York Times, #Megxit misogyny: How Piers Morgan and British tabloids made Meghan Markle a scapegoat at Economic Times, 'Megxit' may seem like a simple portmanteau, but it has far more sinister undertones at ABC News), or that its the result of tabloids "having it in" for Meghan Markle (for example As the Queen calls a crisis meeting over ‘Megxit’, what's next for the British royal family?, and many others). This should be made much clearer in the article. Mind matrix 03:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article explicitly says in the first sentence of the section titled Megxit#Naming, that the term was created by British tabloid, The Sun. The article also says that the term “Megxit”, per the highest grade RS, is also notable for its embedded implication that Meghan drove the decision. The highest grade RS also says “Megxit” is notable for its pejorative aspect, which is another aspect of the story (eg animosity of British tabloid media to Meghan, and/or aspects of racism). And, less than a week after the term was created, the RS have been reporting on the explosion in “Megxit” merchandising.

In addition, per both google search stats, and use by the highest grade RS (per the article), “Megxit” is by some distance, the WP:COMMONNAME, and the most likely search term a reader would use.

And of course, AfD is not for naming articles. Britishfinance (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britishfinance, Megxit now has half has many pageviews as Google Search in the past 30 days, and it's not even been 30 days. Doug Mehus T·C 09:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even today, just 7 days after the announcement, the three highest grade newspaper RS in the US, all have SIGCOV pieces on "Megxit" (e.g. COMMONNAME), with the NYT exploring the meaning of the term in more detail and its links with the same voter split from Brexit (e.g. the term is itself becoming the topic).

New York Times (15 January 2020): ‘Megxit’ Is the New Brexit in a Britain Split by Age and Politics

Wall Street Journal (15 January 2020): ‘Megxit’ Causes Global Uproar. Canada Shrugs.

Washington Post (15 January 2020): How Megxit put Queen Elizabeth II in the role of crisis manager once again

I had my doubts originally, but Megxit has undoubtly become a standalone WP-notable topic now. Britishfinance (talk) 10:23, 16 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 20:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rupak Sapkota[edit]

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

Subject of article is a non notable scholar who has no in-depth significan coverage in reliable sources hence does not qualify as per GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tough one. It's true that GNG is not unequivocally met. But I would usually vote KEEP appealing to systemic bias on this kind of borderline cases relating to Nepal but for some additional considerations. This, this and this are the SIGCOVs we have. My search didn't reveal anything else and I'm inclined to think this is all there is, considering the article is almost certainly WP:AUTO or at the very least WP:PAID. The first source is just a poor man's second source covering the same event, while the third one, the very existence of which is impressive contributor toward presumption of notability, doesn't itself bring much to the table by way of potentially supporting new content. Additional arguments for Keep include the facts that

the subject seems to be one of the foremost Nepali scholars on Nepal-China relations not to mention actually knowing Chinese and having a PhD, and therefore the go-to expert for news media, print and otherwise, national and international.
the subject seems to be a prolific contributor to newspapers, although the google scholar stats are unimpressive.
the subject is the son of Agni Sapkota and therefore, WP:CRYSTAL alert, is only going to move upward and onward (incidentally also an argument for DELETE (WP:TOOSOON)). As we have enough independent SIGCOV to maintain a stub, we might as well keep it to save trouble of recreation.

The argument for DELETE would be:

As with creation, the only interested party in maintaining/updating the article is likely to be a WP:COI one. An undisclosed COI editor let loose on an article no one else is interested in maintaining, does not an encyclopedic entry make. The article itself requires a lot of cleanup already, almost to the point of qualifying for a WP:TNT. So, it's preferable to nuke this one and wait for the subject to become truly notable enough for an independent editor to recreate the article.

Weighing everything, it's a WEAK KEEP from me if the article creator discloses their COI and commits to following policy, before this is closed, and otherwise a

DELETE until such time as the subject attains unquestionable notability (1.5 to 2 more SIGCOVs meeting the criteria). Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion. We need to quickly destroy any articles that are such or we will be flooded by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 13:39, 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) 12:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikka[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non notable organization falling short of WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable promotional article. --RaviC (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam from a self-confessed and now blocked spammer (Special:Undelete/User:Viyyom, Special:Undelete/Rakesh v Mishra). MER-C 03:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable promotional article. scope_creep^Talk 14:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not-notable. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:15, 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 keep. Tone 20:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2S15 Norov[edit]

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

I couldn't find much about this in the Google search index. The article just solely rely upon a single source and that too is in Russian language. Abishe (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not seeing any valid reason for deletion. It's to be expected I think that references to a Soviet weapon are in Russian, and there is no prohibition against using Russian sources for articles, or indeed for an article to be wholly based on non-English language sources. It crops up in other Russian language sources, the Russian wikipedia's article on it is at ru:2С15, and a search in Russian will reveal images of it as well as further sources. The fact that mentions are scarce in English sources are understandable, it was apparently a development of the 2S1 Gvozdika developed by the Stela works, but after a long and torturous design process, it was eventually shut down with only a few prototypes built. From the pictures are available, some of these still exist in various states of disrepair. As with many articles, it could use improvement and expansion, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Spokoyni (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have sufficient coverage in RS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 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. Sandstein 11:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Dobre[edit]

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

The subject is non notable and WP:TOOSOON. It misses out on WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:38, 16 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 as a navigational list for the many articles about decades. The nomination statement seems to be suggesting that all the individual decade articles should be deleted, but none of those are properly nominated. RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of decades[edit]

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

Delete or reform.

Users went very far down a rabbit-hole in creating all of these articles, but failed to consider the logic or necessity of them.

Decades might make sense for the 19th/20th century, but the phrasing gets increasingly nonsensical as you look back in time – "the 1150s", "the 330s", or "the 0s BC". Almost nobody would ever refer to time in these terms. They're not notable.

The bulk of these 'decade' articles are only duplicated content from the 'year' articles. If this list contained only the noted decades with proper articles, that would be fine but the same function could be fulfilled by Category:Decades.

A special mention for the invented pre-AD decades... "the 1010s BC"? (That's 1019 BC – 1010 BC.) -- Demokra (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per abive argument, lmao this is such a silly article to have. Why do we need another meainginless list of a different way of meauring time?Theprussian (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid organization/navigation page for time periods; a merge with List of years or List of centuries could be appropriate though. Are you suggesting deleting pages like 1010s BC and 1150s? No, that's a standard way to organize historical events though merging the former into 11th century BC seems like a good idea, as well as merging some year articles into their decade articles. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a navigational aid or merge to List of years (a new column at the head of each row of ten years seems ideal). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as there are that many articles linked to, this list is valid. If you want to get rid of all of the many decade articles, then do so first, then the list has no purpose. Until then it aids in navigation. Dream Focus 01:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focuses' good argument. Hog Farm (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is talking specifically about all the articles linked to this one, which isn't what the AfD is about. This one, is for navigation, and perfectly valid. Ajf773 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is there a guideline for, "we can have categories and lists both"? I see people claiming we cannot so often. Anarchangel (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DELETE: It is ridiculous listing groups of ten years as decades but excluding years 1 to 9 because they do not constitute a decade. Do it properly from year 1 to the end of year 10 = the first decade, followed by the other decades to produce a consistent result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvadasz (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this page provides useful navigation and provides a good place to showcase the logical conflict between cardinal/ordinal decades, where in our current counting system the first span can't be a real decade. That is useful information to have visually available and discoverable to readers searching for information about decades in general. This should not be deleted or limited to pages about other topics or specific decades only. --Krinkle (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dede2008 (talk) 11:17, 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. Sandstein 11:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GreenFiber[edit]

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

Non notable organization that has not been discussed in reliable sources. It possess no WP:CORPDEPTH & fails WP:NORG. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there’s no evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:40, 16 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, after a discussion that has generated a great deal more heat than light. —S Marshall T/C 16:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota)[edit]

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

Lake is not notable. All that is known is its location (and hence also elevation) and uninsightful assertion, from its name, that it is named for a bachelor who lived nearby. I presume that was either a) simply made up by the commercial author of a typical place names book, which just asserts "Bachelor lake, in Stark, was named for a lone homesteader there, unmarried" while in fact it was named for a childhood pet or a song or a place where someone grew up or in honor of their uncle or whatever; or maybe b) there was a bachelor there, but in either case it is not interesting or encyclopedic and does not suffice to open a Wikipedia article. Note, there has been a fairly wide misapprehension that Wikipedia is a gazetteer about lakes, while that is not true. This does not meet wp:GNG or wp:GEOLAND or any other criteria for existence. This is similar to recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax Lake, where all that was known is the location and an assertion it was named for where someone came from. Doncram (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brown County, Minnesota, where the lake is mentioned. I can't find any information about this feature except a couple of brief mentions that only establish existence. If the lake is not deemed to be a likely search term, then I'm fine with deletion. Hog Farm (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that redirect idea; we should consider alternatives to deletion. I see the county article does, oddly, have a Geography subsection "Lakes", with a list of names of lakes and the only reference being a link to Google maps. I am inclined to simply delete that list there; it makes sense for county articles to list towns and other populated places, but about lakes, it could merely be said "As can be seen from looking at a map, the county has a number of lakes." Which is true for any county in Minnesota. There is no subsection for rivers or forests or anything besides "Major highways" and "Adjacent counties". Substantial rivers seem more interesting to me, and are covered in prose discussion in the geography section, where it is also given that "611 square miles (1,580 km2) is land and 7.4 square miles (19 km2) (1.2%) is water"; that alone seems like the right level of coverage about ponds, lakes, whatever, to me. If one were to expand more about geography it seems to me there should be more discussion about the 98.8% which non-water-covered land, instead.

I further see that three of the other listed lake names link to articles similar to this one, with no information besides location and an assertion of naming reason attributed to the same Minnesota place names book. The place names book itself cites no sources for anything, it reads like it is passing along rumors/speculation, in my reading, as I may have suggested above. Anyhow personally I think deletion followed by deletion of that mention at the county article seems appropriate. --Doncram (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability for one of Minnesota's 10,000+ lakes. Also delete School Lake (Brown County, Minnesota), Juni Lake, and Altermatt Lake. Reywas92^Talk 08:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota. MB 03:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; each of Minnesota's 10,000+ natural lakes are notable as explained in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), given that "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". Instead of being redirected or outright deleted, the lake articles should be expanded with details like surface area, fishing opportunities, etc.– Gilliam (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, surface area is a statistic, not a notability-establishing fact. The idea that merely knowing it has a name and where that name could have come from is notability is utterly absurd. This is not information of substance whatsoever. So can you provide the content it could be expanded with? It's a generic small body of water that no one has ever written anything of substance about apparently. Reywas92^Talk 02:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - with a bit more research, I discovered that this is not just a natural lake, it is a protected natural lake per the Minnesota DNR which classified it as "Natural Environment (NE)—This classification is intended for those waters needing a significant amount of protection because of their unique natural characteristics or their unsuitability for development and sustained recreational use." NE has the "most restrictive development standards." It clearly passes V and N per geo features. More sources in my iVote below. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Holy crap nobody cares. You're acting like this is some great body of water that a bunch of official people decided was worthy and proclaimed to the public "Bachelor is special!" when in fact it was just mentioned in a table on a state report on the Cottonwood River (Minnesota), which administratively determined that since the river is polluted, some bodies in its watershed are at risk. Countless places are "protected" to various extents by falling under a variety of zoning and development rules – things don't get their own articles just because they can't be bulldozed at will. If you wanted to summarize the results of this study in the river's article that could be nice, but the idea that every concept barely mentioned in a routine hundred-page report that is not independently covered needs its own article is nuts. We are WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Or are you going to do this for the rest of the millions of tiny lakes and streams out there? This still has zero sources that meet not just the "significant coverage" requirement but a has-a-single-complete-sentence-written-about-it expectation. Reywas92^Talk 22:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Settle down, please. Per WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If that wasn't the case, I would have assumed a much different position. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:GEOLAND#4. Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. Minnesota has a requirement that a lake be at least 10 acres (bachelor lake is 97 acres). Wisconsin has no such requirement. What that means is that lakes in Minnesota are notable, but in Wisconsin any old pond can be called a lake. Looks like a good fishing spot, Here is a 1943 map of Bachelor Lake. Lightburst (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? Looks like a good fishing spot? Seems like you were fooled by fake news. There is NOTHING valid, besides the location of the lake, in that hookandbullet.com "source" about fishing. It suggests that it has info about fishing at Bachelor Lake, but it does not. Lightburst, I assume you did not read it? That is like other commercial series of webpages ostensibly providing information about lakes, based purely on the coordinates. Why not pad the article out with assertions about weather in the general area, based on just the coordinates, too? I think there must be a "source" for that too. [Later: actually some or all of these ad pages do in fact have junk weather stuff, which I didn't see. However it is either entirely made up or is current weather info from the general area, generated by some lookup of a weather service based on the coordinates alone. It is manufactured, as if it was about the lake, but is not. And in this case it is supposedly current weather, which is not for us to use in the encyclopedia. The other kind of useless weather stuff which could be manufactured would be statements about average weather in the state of Minnesota or other large area in general. --Doncram (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC) ][reply]

And the "lakeplace.com/lakefinder" source, yeah that is another commercial site. It suggests it has photos showing the lake, but clicking brings you only to ... Google maps.

About the 1943 map, well, that is not a source to say anything about the lake, either. From Google maps, we already knew there is a lake there.

Selective quoting from wp:GEOLAND doesn't exactly convince me. How about its statement that 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 (while maps do contribute to verifying existence). --Doncram (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 1943 map shows Bachelor lake and it was certainly notable throughout the history of Brown County and Minnesota. And the links I have provided do not confer notability. However you missed this on the fishing spot link so I will help you So you're interested in fishing Bachelor Lake. As fishermen, we know there are times when our favorite spots are just not active so we built our Hot Spots feature to show you where the fish are biting in the area of Bachelor Lake. Now you'll know where catches are being recorded in the general area, and you can plan your day on the water. Check out our Fishing Times tab to determine when the fish will be most active. To find Bachelor Lake enter the 44.256905 latitude, and -94.651367 longitude coordinates into your GPS device or smart phone. If you need fishing tackle, or are looking for a fishing guide or fishing charter please visit Tackle, Guides, Charters IMO it is plain to see that WP:GEOLAND is met. Perhaps you should have done a thorough WP:BEFORE instead of attacking !voters who disagree with you. You have come at me like a snarly editor. Perhaps you should realize that I too am volunteering my time to address this frivolous nomination. Making snarly comments like this has no place in an AfD. Why not pad the article out with assertions about weather in the general area... Lightburst (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused what the point of this fishing website is...The data for nearby Zanders Lake is identical to that of Bachelor Lake. This is autogenerated based on this website's model for local weather, not information that could be included in the article or anything providing notability. The 1943 map shows that the lake existed and had been named by that point, not "notable throughout the history". Reywas92^Talk 04:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I guess that Lightburst perceived my comments as "snarly", but I perceive that quote differently: it is one of a few variations of boilerplate text used in all that fish-finder company's advertising pages, with nothing about the individual lake except its coordinates. Sorry, you might think that it is going to provide fishermen's actual comments about fishing in this lake, but it does not. Notice each of the comments is incoherent junk, not a real comment from a fisherman. Each indicates it is continued elsewhere, but if you click you just reach more ads, don't even get the complete (bogus) comment. And the comments are even labelled as being about not-this-lake, and they are repeated others of the series of ad pages. We should not provide links to those ad pages; they are a disservice to readers. --Doncram (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- (edit conflict, still posting duplicative response) I'm confused, what's a single fact in the fishing website that can be included in the article? It appears to be an autogenerated page merely establishing it is a lake that you need a fishing license to fish in. And that's not a map of the lake, it's a map of the township in which the lake is located: "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." Sure, in Minnesota it is in fact a lake, but that doesn't mean it's notable. Reywas92^Talk 02:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Fishing spot, not to confer notability. IMO a 92-97 acre lake is notable per WP:GEOLAND as a natural feature. It is a major feature of Brown County Minn. Historically named Bachelor lake - not numbered. I respect your opinion in many AfDs. My reading of Geoland differs from yours. Lightburst (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's only the seventh-largest lake even in this small county. If it were "a major feature" there would be something substantive written about it by a human, not just existence on an old map and an autogenerated fishing time table. Reywas92^Talk 04:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked into User:MB's suggestion that the lake be redirected to List of lakes of Minnesota. I acknowledge that now there are 3 pieces of info about this lake, arguably:

Location (coordinates)
An assertion of "explanation" for name of lake. Which I scoff at: I don't believe the source, frankly, which itself cites no sources, and is just making a probable-reasonable guess that it is named for a bachelor. It doesn't provide the name of a person or any other information, contributing to my believing the source manufactured a sentence as part of building a saleable book. We should not manufacture stuff ourselves, or accept manufactured stuff.
Size of lake, apparently 92 acres in 1968. From a 1968 state survey of lakes greater than 10 acres in size, which also reports an assertion of maximum depth and a measure of clarity of water in 1968, too, as can be seen in the table at List of lakes of Minnesota, which is sourced from there. Apparently this is one of the 11,842 lakes in Minnesota that justify the state's claim to be a land of 10,000 lakes. Previous wikipedia editors have sort of chosen to list all of these 11,842 lakes in the list-article, apparently, but [I think] the table there has way fewer than that number. [Because I looked at the 1968 study and saw that] Many or most of the 11,842 lakes were just numbered bodies of waters, without any name, in 1968, and I am guessing that is why listing them couldn't really be done. But there is a row for this Bachelor Lake there.

Okay, I just now inserted an anchor on the row for this Bachelor Lake into the List of lakes of Minnesota.

It would be acceptable to me for this article to be redirected to List of lakes of Minnesota#Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota). Note that this is actually better for readers, in providing more information to them, because it shows the lake in context: by sorting on the size column one can see its size relative to all the other lakes listed there. (On my computer screen, i can page down 65 times among lakes bigger than this one. [which would be 65 times 10 or 15 or 20 or so, hence 6,500 or 13,000 so comparable to the whole 11,842 size]) --Doncram (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC) [Added some refinements in square brackets just now. --Doncram (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Here are a few sources for you - how the lake got its name and other such historical information

Minnesota Place Names Book
Minnesota Geographic Names: Their Origin and Historic Significance. Book
Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society Book
History of Brown County, Minnesota: Its People, Industries and Institutions Book
Geology of Minnesota, Volume 1 Book from 1884 commissioned in 1872.
Stark Township mention
History of Brown County mention

I added a few sections to improve the readability, also additional intro regarding location and several references. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first four "books" are reprints of the same line "Bachelor lake in Stark was named for a lone homesteader there". So that is really one source. Collectively these add up to just a few trivial mentions that confirm it exists. As quoted above, Geoland#4 requires enough sources with verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. That has not been demonstrated. MB 04:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is more out there. But I believe I spent enough time on it. I improved the article; if it is kept I will improve it further. But for now it’s best to for me to move on. Lightburst (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to find sources, but in fact those sources provide nothing more. As MB notes, four of them are copies of the same 1920 "Places in Minnesota" type book, just available from different places, and with just the one lame-in-my-view assertion. Numbers 5 and 6 have passing mention of this lake, among other lakes in Brown County, with nothing to add. I brought up the 7th one, the "History of Brown County" one but could not find mention there. However Lightburst identified that one as merely a "mention", too. I do believe several people have spent enough time on this, already, so I am not pinging anyone to come back. And by the way IMHO there was no improvement of the article besides adding assertion of its size (which already appears in the List of Lakes of Minnesota article); other addition appears to be padding with no content. We don't want the same uninformative padding put into 10,000 separate articles that yes, the state conducted a study and this one was on its list, which tells us nothing about the lake. Rather, we have one list-article that does that for all at once, and gives info for each lake in relative context. That's my view, thanks. --Doncram (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say there has been improvement:

*Here is the article before I worked on it. 2 sources, 2 sentences a stub without sections or information about the lake size or exact location
Here is the article now 5 sources, navigation bars, three developed sections. My reading of GEOLAND says this lake is notable. but we will see if a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS agrees. Lightburst (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I look at that as having 3 sources. GNIS for location (counts zero towards notability). The one about size of lake being bogus, begging the question of what is the source for the webpage (needs to be deleted). And three pointing to Upham, which you might be thinking are independent, but are not at all. It is the same one sentence about naming, repackaged to be sold as a book again (and i think Upham's unsourced speculation is bogus to report in Wikipedia). Perhaps Upham and his naming stuff is worth one sentence to mention at the list-article, something like "For anyone interested in speculation about the reason for any lake's name, try this unreliable source: [link to one of Upham's books]." We have to agree to disagree about what amounts to an informative article. --Doncram (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed the article in this AfD. I have improved the article during the AfD ...I called out our guideline which guides us to keep lakes such as this. For your part you have targeted the article for deletion, and then you have been snarky and dismissive in your responses, ...you have doggedly pursued deletion despite any evidence presented or article improvements. You and I have created walls of texts to reiterate the same positions. You flatly reject the guideline in WP:GEOLAND#4. By now everyone knows your position and my position about the notability of this 97 acre lake. I do hope you do not diminish/fillet the article based on your determination to delete. You should realize we have other actual policies - (the following are not guidelines) WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. I am unwatching this now. Lightburst (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be an "inclusionist" generally, and I do accept GEOLAND, ATD, PRESERVE, NOTPAPER. For my part i have really considered others' points of view and discussed the actual content of the suggested sources. I acknowledged points and was not inflexible ("dogged") in favor of one outcome. It would help the discussion if Lighthouse would acknowledge some things, say that the advertising/fishing stuff is bogus, which they have not. I would acknowledge there is room for disagreement about the merit of Upham's assertions (and one possible outcome which could be discussed would be to add mention of Upham to the row in the list-table, would that meet Lighthouse's wish for coverage of that?). I took suggestions for alternatives seriously and took a step to making "redirect to list" work out better (set up anchor). --Doncram (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GEOLAND, or at least WP:PRESERVE all information in some other way. SpinningSpark 16:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am ambivalent about replying, but: All the info, such as it is, can appear in the List of lakes table row. --Doncram (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia serves as a gazetter-thank you-RFD (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, not about lakes, not about lots of things. --Doncram (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RFD: Well, it is true we have a policy on that; and since gazetteer is a synonym for "catalog" and "directory", please see WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I think we're probably—policy-wise—WP:NOTGAZETTEER also. ——SN 54129 21:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a well-attested geographic feature. The nominator makes speculative presumptions about the origin of the name. The name is cited to Warren Upham, whose work on Minnesota place names is cited over 3,000 times in Wikipedia. That source is undisputedly reliable. Kablammo (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reslist due to NAC by sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guy (help!) 13:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota. "It's named after some guy who once lived nearby, and it is in a geological database." is not a basis for an article. Diffusing minimal content over a multitude of dubious, unexpandable microstubs is the worst way to present it. Merge it into a table of other individually non-notable landforms. Reyk _YO! 13:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles for lakes are kept just like ones for small villages and other places as long as they are on a government database. If you want to change how things are done, then do so in one discussion and change the rules. No sense having the same arguments for thousands of articles like this all the time. Dream Focus 14:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of lakes in Minnesota per above. There just aren't enough sources to justify an article, and nothing substantive written by a human. b uidhe 14:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota, and per Reyk It's named after some guy who once lived nearby, and it is in a geological database" is not a basis for an article. ——SN 54129 14:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota. Obvious WP:ATD, and WP:GEOLAND very specifically does not make the same notability provisions for lakes as it does for villages: lakes/rivers etc are 'often notable provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist' and 'the number of known sources should be considered'. In other words, mere existence on a database is not sufficient. Hug^syrup 15:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Not paper WP:Preserve and WP:Before WP:GEOLAND#4. Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. Geological Survey (U.S.). Branch of Geographic Names. Minnesota Geographic Names Information System: Alphabetical List. p. 12. Upham, Warren (May 1, 2001). Minnesota Place Names: A Geographical Encyclopedia. p. 12. ISBN 9780873513968. Why is this purge worth anybody's time? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota for reasons explained by others above. Sad to see the ARS Block Voting Machine again. – Levivich 15:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most KEEP votes were done before this AFD was reopened and I and one other person from the ARS showed up on our own, there no posting there asking anyone to look at this situation. We both gave reasons for our votes. Two people who show up of a lot of AFDs showing up at a single one and agreeing something should be kept, is not a "block voting machine". Kindly assume good faith and focus on the discussion. Dream Focus 16:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those WP:AGF is not a suicide pact situations. Normally, yes, I'd WP:AGF that the block voting is coincidental, but a while back (for the VPR thread), I researched it for myself, and I no longer AGF about this. You, and three others, routinely !vote keep as a block, almost always with the same throwaway !vote rationals (like "Keep not paper, preserve, before"). There are other who participate in the blocks occasionally, but there are four core editors in this block. This is disruptive and it needs to stop. Every time I see it in an AfD I participate in, I will point it out, and hopefully you guys will eventually get the hint and change your approach to deletion discussions. – Levivich 17:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to avoid !voting to help the encyclopedia just because it displeases you. Collegial following is allowed, as I have told you on your talk page. Your accusations assume bad faith. And now I see everyone I ever had friction with turning up to sink the AfD. It is a maddening situation made worse by your aspersions. Lightburst (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota as per WP:GEOLAND. There simply is just not enough sourcing to support an article.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota. There's not enough information to support a stand-alone article. --Jayron 32 17:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota; not enough content for a standalone article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will be honest, I cannot be bothered to read every word above - (seems like a lot of words regarding the notability of a small lake in Minnesota). I think our WP:SNG is clear in regard to lakes. Per WP:GEOLAND. Named natural features are often notable...This includes...lakes, streams ...etc. We keep lakes. Wm335td (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but one of those "..." is provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist and another of those "..." is The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. I can't figure out why keep !voters citing GEOLAND aren't addressing these parts of GEOLAND. – Levivich 19:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many sources do you want? The article has sources: one source dating back more than 100 years. It is a fact that we have less stringent requirements for GEOLAND. For instance - streams are kept, yet there is rarely any secondary coverage of streams. And we keep small villages and other places as long as they are populated or on a government database. This AfD seems like too much hand wringing over a small lake. Wm335td (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the number of sources, it's their quality. These sources don't let us say anything about Bachelor Lake other than that it exists and its name is Bachelor Lake. As Reyk said, "'It's named after some guy who once lived nearby, and it is in a geological database' is not a basis for an article." In fact, the article has more information about another lake named Bachelor Lake, than about this Bachelor Lake. That's how little information we have about this Bachelor Lake. Populated areas, of course, are treated differently by GEOLAND than lakes and streams, and if there's other articles about non-notable streams, well, you know the rest. – Levivich 20:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that Warren Upham's book is cited in several hundred other Wikipedia articles for establishing the notability of other geographical locations. Furthermore, keeping this article would conform to our official set of rules on geographical features. This was noted by others to be covered in GEOLAND #4. Patiodweller (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And the virtually all of those were by the same user who has polluted Wikipedia with thousands of these micro-stubs, which still does not establish notability. This unilateral decision to mass-produce articles without meaningful content or substantive sources is not precedent that the lack thereof is perfectly fine. Reywas92^Talk 06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find it very strange that you consider adding thousands of geographic facts to an encyclopaedia to be pollution. Which is more helpful to building an encyclopaedia—adding facts, however minor, or deleting pages because they don't conform to the pedantic details of the guidelines? SpinningSpark 13:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deleting pages is definitely more encyclopedic than adding minor facts. Semi-automatically-generating thousands of stand-alone stubs about lakes is spam; it has no part in building an encyclopedia, because WP:NOTTRIVIA, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, etc. Deleting pages is curation, which is part of the encyclopedic process. – Levivich 16:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Named geographic features are not trivia. They are just the sort of information that should be in an encyclopaedia. They just don't compare with minor fictional characters or game items. This is pretty much what GEOLAND is all about. NOTTRIVIA is particularly not relevant here. It is about trivia sections in articles, not article subjects. SpinningSpark 18:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Semi-automatically-generating thousands of stand-alone stubs about lakes is spam; it has no part in building an encyclopedia. Named geographic features can be listed on a table. They don’t all need a stand alone page. There are millions of named geographic features in the world. They don’t each need their own page. And that’s what GEOLAND says. – Levivich 19:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Brown County, Minnesota (perhaps putting acreage, township, fish in a note - exclude "other" Bachelor Lake info)
and Strong keep as a row in the List of lakes of Minnesota. According to WP:GEOLAND, natural features maybe notable... it doesn't say that by being a natural feature it is notable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Delete if the current version remains of the article with failed verification, use of multiple versions of the same book (should use the most recent) and failed verification.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems at least as good as Augusta Lake (Dakota County, Minnesota), Augusta Lake (Cottonwood County, Minnesota), Ballantyne Lake, Balsam Lake (Itasca County, Minnesota), Badger Lake (Minnesota), Badger Lakes, Bass Lake (Mahnomen County, Minnesota), Bass Lake (Faribault County, Minnesota), Barsness Lake, Barnes Lake (Minnesota), etc, etc, etc... Station1 (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A unilateral decision to create lots of low-quality non-notable articles does not justify the existence of one because of the presence of the others. These likewise lack any substantive content or sources and should be next to go. Reywas92^Talk 06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added text and sources. Not the article it was when deletion was first proposed. Under WP:Before, the standard for proposing deletion includes what the article potentially can become. WP:Hey. Given the present state of the article and the sourcing, WP:Before was honored more in the breach, more than in the observance. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still baffled by which of these sources is substantive and provides notability. Goingoutside.com doesn't seem particularly reliable – how the hell does the presence of a campsite at a different lake 5 miles away provide notability for this one?? I've removed that irrelevance, and none of the remaining basic statistics goes beyond what is or can be listed in the main list or Stark Township, Brown County, Minnesota or Brown County, Minnesota. Reywas92^Talk 06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still baffled at your obdurate refusal to acknowledge policy and the present state of the article. WP:Preserve WP:GNG. However, I WP:AGF and your befuddlement (or deliberate blindness) is irrelevant. No matter how much you repeat it, it's not up to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you seem to be befuddled at what "significant coverage" means – which of these sources provides it? This is an utter failure of GNG and an unfortunate refbomb – you added six about the state having lots of lakes and another with the same name. I absolutely support PRESERVING content – all facts specific to this lake are already listed at List of lakes of Minnesota! Reywas92^Talk 18:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Reywas. None of these sources meet GNG or provides information that would satisfy GEOLAND. Rather than refbombing, I wish a keep !voter would just post the WP:THREE best sources for us to evaluate. – Levivich 16:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list. I'm unconvinced by "keep" !voters linking to GEOLAND without going any further. Reading GEOLAND, it says that populated (or formerly populated) geographic features are presumed to be notable, but un-populated features like lakes only if "there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article". Which is exactly the argument that was made by the proposer. ApLundell (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mostly due to Gilliam's arguments. Each of Minnesota's 10,000+ natural lakes is notable because they must meet a criteria. They must be at least ten acres, and I would argue that any article on a lake meeting this criteria should be kept. Eliteplus (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luckilly, the Criteria of the State of Minnesota don't cut a lot of ice against the Criteria of the State of Wikipedia... ——SN 54129 23:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Serial Number 54129. The Minnesota lakes are notable as a collection, and they are in fact covered in List of lakes of Minnesota. Yay! --Doncram (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~*Redirect~~. A big thing missed by those voting "Keep" is that readers are better served by linking to a row about this lake in a table which provides overall context. The table row has all substantial content that was in the article, and more in fact, and readers can see where this stands relative to other lakes of Minnesota. I nominated the lake for deletion, which would be appropriate due to lack of substantial content included or available, if there were not an alternative to deletion. I have developed content at Brown County, Minnesota and at List of lakes of Minnesota. The reader is better served by being directed to either. --Doncram (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)as an experienced editor you know you cannot vote twice. Your AfD nomination and many many comments make your position clear. In addition you placed this out of order. In any event we all only get one !vote. Lightburst (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the !vote is duplicated, strike it. But there's no need to strike the rationale, which is a stand alone comment. ——SN 54129 10:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand how the !vote was placed "out of order". At the time it was made, it was the lowest comment in the thread [17] Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am a strong advocate for keeping articles of geographical features that can be described meaningfully in more than a few sentences, and many articles of Minnesotan lakes aren't even at that level. No need to redirect or merge. Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is broad consensus, as documented in GEOLAND, that we should keep articles of geographical features that can be described meaningfully in more than a few sentences. The question is: can this lake be described meaningfully in more than a few sentences? I have yet to see more than a few sentences written about this lake anywhere. Have you seen more than a few sentences written about this lake anywhere? If so, can you post the link? Thank you. – Levivich 04:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: It can of the nominator will stop diminishing the article. I have asked the editor on talk pages, at ANI and here to stop filleting the article. Several editors are working on establishing notability. It is bad form for this nominator to continue to erase the article. Also bad form to !vote twice. I am putting a diff there in case the erasure extends to the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, the "pre-fillet" version is barely more than 100 words. I've literally not seen the article, or any source, exceed a few sentences, combined. Look, it is an indisputable fact that everything we have to say about this lake can be said in either the list of lakes, or in the county article. There is no WP:PAGESIZE concern here. So the only question is: do we have a stand-alone page about the lake, or just include the lake in the list of lakes or in the county article? I'm not seeing any reason for why we should have a stand-alone page about this lake, whereas I do see a good reason for including it on the list of lakes (the reason being that it gives the reader context for the information about this lake). – Levivich 05:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: you must see that we need to respect the AfD process and the good faith attempts of editors to build. The nominator should take a step back as I have tried to do. This seems to be a no-consensus AfD at the moment. And we are only here because the nominator refused to respect the result of the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: I am steadfastly opposed to commenting on AfD nominators' conduct in an AfD. This page should only be used for discussing the topic–not the state of the article, not the nominator, not the nomination statement, but only the topic and whether the topic should have a stand-alone page. There's a related ANI thread where editor conduct is being discussed, and editors who want to discuss that can do so over there. There is no need to make editors who want to discuss whether the topic should have a stand-alone page have to read extra text about irrelevant side-issues. I could go blank the article and replace it with "ha ha f u everybody" and it still wouldn't be relevant to whether or not the topic should have a stand-alone page. – Levivich 06:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added lakes to the Brown County template. Lightburst (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - passes WP:NFEAT: On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability. In addition to the cited sources in the article, see [18] - important enough for MEQB Minnesota Environmental Quality Board to monitor & stock its fish populations, and [19] - for its historic significance, the preservation of its description in "Minnesota geographic names; their origin and historic significance". ~~this paper: Decrepitation of sphalerite from Bachelor Lake. Progress Report - Temperature-Pressure Research of Hydrothermal Mineral Deposits 2(7): 132, 1950.~~ WP:V is established, and enough sources to establish notability (not fame or popularity) for inclusion as a geographical feature. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC) ^{Added 2 sources, struck one. 13:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)}[reply]
- The more research, the more sources I find - Minnesota DNR classifies it as "Natural Environment (NE)—This classification is intended for those waters needing a significant amount of protection because of their unique natural characteristics or their unsuitability for development and sustained recreational use." NE has the "most restrictive development standards." ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible I misread what came up in the search - human err - so until I find what I actually saw, (or think I saw), I have stricken the source. The rest remains because it still passes as a geograhic feature for inclusion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. No offense, Atsme, but the more manufactured arguments I see here, the more I lose respect for ... the process or something. I simply do not believe that report is about this Bachelor Lake, rather than the other Minnesota one, the one in Michigan, the one in Florida, the one in Quebec, or any of probably dozens elsewhere. Even if it were about decrepitation of sphalerite in this Bachelor Lake, I doubt there is substantial content about this Bachelor Lake relevant to adding to this article. Please do go ahead and pay $29.95 to get a copy of the report in PDF file, and share a copy to me, and I promise to be fair in commenting about its content. Or if you distrust me because I happen to be critical of other padding that has been added to the article in a biased fashion, then share to someone we could mutually agree is trustworthy in evaluating it. Otherwise, no dice. --Doncram (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sphalerite is found in multiple locations in Michigan per this source but, based on my searching, not in Minnesota. (There is a piece of sphalerite in a University of Minnesota collection, but that was collected in Colorado.) So I think the Bachelor Lake in Michigan is more likely. --Doncram (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to the article, but absent that I would guess it is Quebec. See Bachelor Lake and Geology for Investors Staff (August 18, 2014). "Metanor Resources Going Deeper at Bachelor Lake Mine". Geology for Investors. Retrieved January 3, 2020. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - it was past my bedtime, I was on the iPad (which can be hard on the eyes) and it appears I inadvertently conflated info. I struck that one source, and added 3 more that establish V and N. It's not a lake that is famous for recreation, etc. but it is an important one in the watershed; therefore it is being monitored and protected. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is too much peripheral information in this thread. The focus should just be assessing the status of the article in comparison to notability guidelines. I feel this does meet the guidelines for named geographical features. Behindthekeys (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD ethics and this discussion[edit]

A question of ethics and AFD

User: Doncram and User: CaroleHenson I write to STOP your conduct and make an accusation. I had hoped that we could work through this in WP:AGF. But your conduct requires a response.

We have a twice pending AFD. Some of the editors who want to delete or merge this article have removed a lot of text and references. For a lot of claimed reasons.

In a score of edits you have systematically gutted both the content and the cited sources of the article. While some of these could fairly be said to be arguable at the Talk:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) article talk page – where they can and should be discussed – and I will join the discussion there.

But the whole pattern and timing suggests you are going beyond that.

Here are some of the pertinent edits I am talking about. The reader needs to look at their content:

   High water mark

No. 1
No. 2
here No. 3 including this edit summary: “Please stop destroying the article so that it suits your desire to delete. Several editors are building and you are undoing their work. Wait until the AfD ends. Your opinion is one, and you are undoing the work of several.”

   Low water mark

here No. 4 and

   Present state

here No. 5~~here No. 5~~

You are creating a self fulfilling prophecy to assure a result at this AFD.

Removing the sources from the article does not make them cease to exist. To the extent that WP: Notability is involved in your claims at AFD, you are simply trying to obscure the facts. See WP:Before, which mandates looking at notability in the broadest sense.

All of these books cite to this Lake.

Fritsche, Louis Albert (December 31, 1916). History of Brown County, Minnesota: Its People, Industries and Institutions. Vol. I. Indianapolis, Indiana: B.F. Bowen & Co. p. 75.
United States Geological Survey. Branch of Geographic Names. Minnesota Geographic Names Information System: Alphabetical List. p. 12.
Upham, Warren (May 1, 2001). Minnesota Place Names: A Geographical Encyclopedia. St. Paul, Minnensota. p. 76. ISBN 9780873513968.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Upham, Warren (1920). Minnesota Geographic Names: Their Origin and Historic Significance. St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society. p. 72.
Winchel, N.H.; Upham, Warren (1884). Geology of Minnesota. Vol. 1. John Smith and Harrison State Printers, Pioneer Press Company, Printers. p. 560. Retrieved 9 December 2019.

I understand that WP:ANI has parallel matters. I have avoided going there.

The fate of the article should be fairly evaluated. And not based on the Bowdlerized version the deletionists now proffer.

The nominator’s opinion has been made clear by many comments, and the nomination. Now it is up to the community to evaluate and the nominator should take a step back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here this comment was removed. I want it here. It pertains to this AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but the entire long passage above was posted to Talk:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota), and I gave substantial reply there about AFD ethics in general and in this specific AFD. I would like for User:7&6=thirteen to reply back. At this point there are multiple forums open, including an unclosed wp:ANI section and the article's Talk page. Perhaps this section and replies about AFD behavior belong, instead, on the Talk page of this AFD (Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota)? If someone can step in to perform traffic control, perhaps this and my substantial reply should be moved to there. --Doncram (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, we do not remove another editor's comments. Your actions precipitated this section. Good that the participants and the XfD closer see. Perhaps it may be hatted. You are also free to discus it on the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The conduct of the AFD participants and their vandalization/Bowdlerization/destruction/rewrite (if we disregard the pattern and timing and WP:AGF) of the article (and what the article is and should be) are pertinent and fair game on this page. I am willing to discuss the merits of edits on the article talk page. But rigging the system needs to be called out here. Do not remove my comments. We all know better. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am gobsmacked that the thoughtful edits I made last night to made the article BETTER were reverted. If you look at the history of the edits, the edits corrected the following:

Unreliable sources, like a real estate marketing page with no indication of the source of the material
Using multiple editions, some 100 years old when one recent version works
Failed verification

If you looked, too, you would notice that I also added content. I stand by my edits. My intent was NOT to gut the article, it was put it in the best state of what a "keep" would look like. Unlike a lot of people here, I don't really care which way it turns out. But I believe that the content should follow WP guidelines.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No disrespect was intended. Sorry to add to your distress.

Your edit would be

Low water mark

here No. 4 and

My revert was this.

Present state

here No. 5~~here No. 5~~

This is not the

High water mark

No. 1

The readers can make their own comparison.

Getting rid of the books shows the lack of historical perspective.

Whether your "low water" or my "high water" or "present state" edits has nothing to do with whether there is (or could be – see WP:Before – enough to keep the article. This is not a zero sum game where we have to declare winners and losers. The article should be kept on its merits. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOLOLOL "Historical perspective"??? Just because they're old books doesn't mean this is a historical place, and there are not books rather duplicates of the same less-than-a-sentence on being named for a bachelor. The only difference between these versions is how much fluff there is, not what we know about the lake, or what the reader can gain beyond what can go in the main table (which is allowed to have info and linked sources beyond the data). Reywas92^Talk 01:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota, where all of the reliably sourced information we have about it will be quite at home. Saying WP is a gazetteer doesn't mean every named object needs its own article as per GEOLAND. In this case, it's not even necessary to get into whether or not it's notable (which is not to say I think it's notable) because per WP:NOPAGE if we don't have much information about it and there's another article that can host it, that's where it should be even if it's notable. People are scraping every possible detail from various databases and primary sources. That's a sign that there shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Also, I'm adding my comment at the bottom of the thread because this is an AfD. If this section is separate from the AfD, move it to the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think at this point everyone is focusing in on the question of whether information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist per GEOLAND. Here is all the information that I think we know to exist about Bachelor Lake in Brown County, Minnesota:
1. Its name
2. Its location
3. Its area
4. Its elevation
5. Its legal status (protected)

Is there any more? I'm sticking with my merge !vote barring evidence that this list can significantly expand, because those five bits of data would be better-placed for our readers on the list of lakes rather than in a stand-alone page. – Levivich 01:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Levivich - there is more that has been sourced, and more sources out there that are probably available from government libraries regarding its importance as an aquatic ecosystem. Here is another I just found: [20] - NPS Survey Results for Cottonwood River Watershed Lakes, and Bachelor Lake is one of 5 lakes listed as threatened. The study explains more. It was also one of four lakes involved in a reclamation project by the Minnesota DNR section of fisheries some years ago, and MEQB Minnesota Environmental Quality Board has monitored fish stocks. It satisfies V and N, and has important environmental significance. Also see the 3 different sources I added regarding the classification of the lake as NE - a protected lake. Granted, it is not some gigantic man-made recreational lake, but it doesn't need to be for inclusion per Geo feature. It is an aquatic ecosystem in a watershed, and it is significant enough to be protected. [21], [22]. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, satisfies V, yes, but I don't see N. Assuming arguendo the survey is a GNG source, it supports the notability of Cottonwood River, but not Bachelor Lake–not based on showing it on a map and listing it on one table, out of a 123-page report. Aside from GNG, as far as GEOLAND, I'm persuaded that if all the information can be listed in a row on the table, then it's not "information beyond statistics and coordinates" – that its status is "threatened" (which I think is literally the single fact that the NPS report can be used for) might add a #6 to my list above, but it's still in my eyes a "statistic". Agree to disagree on this one? PS. Did you hear about the wife who finally got fed up with her husband and told him to go jump in a lake? Guess which lake he picked. That's why there are so many lakes named "Bachelor Lake". :-D – Levivich 06:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Technical relist because Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 8 decided to undo the previous non-admin closure. This discussion can be immediately reclosed and does not need to run for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having looked at the matter in detail, here's my own view. Deletion is not appropriate as this is a named natural feature per WP:GEOLAND and we have more information than general statistics – details of its naming, its geology, its water quality, its protected status and so on. The alternate view that the topic should be merged into list of lakes of Minnesota does not seem sensible for a number of reasons:

Minnesota has over 11,000 lakes and so the list is correspondingly large and unwieldy. It is especially difficult to navigate and read in the mobile view or using the app; I've tried. But most of our readers use that mode to access Wikipedia. And now we increasingly have people using smart speakers or voice assistants and huge lists are quite impractical for those.
The page in question already has about as many references as the entire list. But lists are increasingly expected to have sources for each entry, especially if the entries are not supported by separate pages. Putting the sources, citations and ancillary details into footnotes will be impractical for a list of this size – the foot is too far from the head because the body is so long.
In due course, we can expect to add an image of the place. Again, this will work better on a separate page, where it can be displayed at a good size, rather then being one amongst thousands of thumbnails.
The list is formatted as a table but this is a Procrustean bed – forcing all the entries into a uniform format. This encourages improper synthesis and OR – extrapolating tenous references to try to fill the cells. And it forces interesting and idiosyncratic details to be suppressed when they do not conform. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its readers expect articles not spreadsheets. Wikidata is the place for large volumes of structured data and so we should leave that aspect to them.
The information currently exists in article format and there are several editors interested in polishing this. Changing the format would be additional work for no benefit. If it works, don't fix it.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sneaking in while I can before this gets closed again. A named natural feature with more information than just statistical listings, easily passes WP:GEOLAND thanks to the WP:HEY efforts. SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Jesus Christ, how can anyone think Andrew Davidson closing this AFD as "keep" was appropriate or think HEY applies in a case where the AFD is currently 10 times the length of the article, of which apparently around half the !votes are "keep" but none of them have managed to expand the article beyond six sentences (the seventh sentence was textbook OR that I have now removed). The lake's being a "protected water" doesn't prove notability because the cited source lists a whole bunch of similarly classified lakes that it dubs "Unnamed", nor does being the tenth-largest lake in an area that has only 19 km² of water. All of the information that is currently in this article -- and apparently all that could or ever will, given the amount of enthusiasm among the "keep" !voters here -- would be more readable and useful if included in a sortable table. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Rlendog (talk) 15:28, 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 merge to IBM Israel#Haifa Research Lab. The editors carrying out the merge need to be aware of the details in this discussion, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Haifa Research Laboratory[edit]

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

I prodded it with "No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Could redirect to IBM research, through it's dubious this sub-lab is a likely searchable term." Prod was declined, an anon redirected it later, that was reverted. Time for an AfD discussion. What makes this research institute separately notable from its parent company (IBM Research)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little independent coverage, could just be included on parent company's page. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - (Talk) - 12:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. But we need to see a serious merge proposal and discussion first. The previous so-called merge that I reverted was just a delete, with the merge target article getting smaller when 6 other articles were deleted. This was just wrong. If we don't have a sensible merge plan for the more minor sites, keep them. For the major sites like Almaden and Zurich, just keep. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your keep rationale outside 'previous merge had none', which is hardly a valid one...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the lead content into IBM_Israel#Haifa_Research_Lab, where the lab is discussed in a broader coontext. I wasn't able to find in depth independent sources sufficient for WP:GNG about this lab in particular, but basic facts about the lab--it exists and works in fields X, Y, and Z, etc., are verifable. The history of the lab is already discussed extensively in History of IBM research in Israel (also with deficient sourcing), so just the lead summary needs to be merged. For verifiable content, an alternative to deletion, such as a merge, is preferred per our policy WP:ATD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above editor analysis. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6CE7:D625:5B30:1B91 (talk) 08:55, 18 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 IBM Research. Sandstein 11:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Research – Australia[edit]

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

I prodded it with "No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Could redirect to IBM research, through it's dubious this sub-lab is a likely searchable term." Prod was declined, an anon redirected it later, that was reverted. Time for an AfD discussion. What makes this research institute separately notable from its parent company (IBM Research)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on here, User:Piotrus? You nominated this article for deletion like a week ago, I responded. No "prod was declined". Where did that page go? Please resurrect it so that others know that all that legitimately happened.

Now you are nominating it over all again like it is your first time and I never did. This isn't right. I am going to leave this same message at the other two pages where you are doing the identical thing. Yours, 11:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I checked that page, then the auto-generated notice that was left on my Talk page on December 30, 2019, which indicated an objection could be left in the form of an Edit Summary, which I did: "There is just a date and location for this lab at the IBM Research page. There is relevant cited content here. The page is not simply "clutter" to be deleted." Without consensus you then merged the article into IBM Research, which was reverted by another editor, not at all an anonymous user, it was, User:Dicklyon, who has been with the encyclopedia since 2006 and has over 100,000 edits. My original comment stands on its merits. Don't pretend none of this is happening. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little independent coverage, could just be included on parent company's page. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - (Talk) - 12:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IBM Research - I don't understand any of the blurb at the top, but this is an easy merge as an alternative to deletion. Some coverage but not enough for its own Australian page - there's plenty of room to put the current text on the main page. Bookscale (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or whatever the proper terminology is. There is valid content at the page. Editor time can be better spent cleaning up gop at "In popular culture" sections or other valuable tasks here than this. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IBM Research . Content is so brief. The third reference is broke. The fourth and only independant reference is from 2011. Teraplane (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. But we need to see a serious merge proposal and discussion first. The previous so-called merge that I reverted was just a delete, with the merge target article getting smaller when 6 other articles were deleted. This was just wrong. If we don't have a sensible merge plan for the more minor sites, keep them. For the major sites like Almaden and Zurich, just keep. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to IBM Research above. Could also merge or redirect to IBM Research#Australia. Doug Mehus T·C 03:46, 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) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Şehzade Mahmud (son of Suleiman I)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced. The subject doesn't seem to be notable, and the only source that has been used in this article does not mention him as a son of Mahidevran Sultan, thus it possibly contains original research. Keivan.f^Talk 08:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says more about the subjects mother than about him. Nothing even close to saying anything about him ever doing anything except dieing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Voicing Johnpacklambert also per nom there isn’t any real evidence of WP:GNG being satisfied.Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 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. RL0919 (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fistful[edit]

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

Fails WP:Disambiguation because these are all partial title matches. b uidhe 06:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 06:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One near full title match (a piped link to fist) and a pile of WP:PTM/{{intitle}} matches don't make a DAB page. See MOS:DABNOENTRY and WP:PTM. A Google search for musicians/songs/albums/films as possible full-title matches with no existing redirect turned up only a WP:NN group called Fistful with no presence in English WP. If formatted as a list, the article would fail WP:LISTN. Narky Blert (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, WP:IAR "fistful of [x]" is a notable idiom and it's useful to track what creative titles include them, many of which are derived from one another.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the entries are partial title matches (WP:PTM. Anyone wanting titles with "Fistful (of)" is better off using Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing a search like that brings up matches within articles as well so I'd disagree with your second point.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:16, 10 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 per WP:D Lightburst (talk) 22:34, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Larry[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:AUTHOR. The subject has written several books but has not received sustained critical coverage in independent sources. The bio appears to be sourced to the dust jacket of one of her books. No prizes or distinctions, no noteworthy body of work. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ran powerful searches on her name and the title of her apparantly only book, published back in 2007, but found nothing.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps a little WP:TOOSOON for the author. Missvain (talk) 02:28, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Vaglica[edit]

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

not yet notable. Relatively minor awards and recordings. Apparent written (and approved by AfC ) by paid editor ring. see WP:COIN#Fraudulent_AfCs DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently notable. Seems to be promoting himself in many places, which is perhaps putting folk off, resulting in sort of failure to launch scenario. Either that or it is very very early career, but certainly sufficiently notable to pass WP:MUSICBIO or even WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 21:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 09:00, 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) 04:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Sheikh Kamal International Club Cup squads[edit]

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

Not sure if this page satisfies WP:GNG. Anbans 585 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not be notable per WP:GNG (no coverage of the topic) or WP:NOTSTATS/WP:LISTCRUFT. We only keep squad lists for major international tournaments like the World Cup. Giant Snowman 16:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What GS said! Govvy (talk) 12:30, 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. No evidence of WP:LASTING coverage to achieve notability. Appears to be a briefly reported "water cooler" item per WP:EVENTCRIT point 4. RL0919 (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Yeti[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of lasting notability. Coverage consists solely of unverified reports from 2010 with no follow-up beyond a single news cycle. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a thing and we keep articles which meet out GNG. In regard to the nominator's rationale about continued coverage- notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor, Huff post, The Sunday Times, and New Indian Express Lightburst (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NTEMP is a bit of a red herring. Yes, notability is not temporary, but that only applies if the subject was once notable. The point the nominator was making is that this is effectively just a single news event with no lasting coverage or impact, and thus was never notable, making NTEMP irrelevant. I agree with them - this article might as well be 'alleged discovery of oriental yeti' and the criteria that most obviously apply are WP:EVENTCRIT. This clearly misses categories 1 and 2 and most neatly falls into category 4: "shock news", "water cooler story" or viral phenomenon lacking lasting value despite briefly receiving substantial coverage in reliable sources. Hug^syrup 16:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayyo[edit]

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

Not a notable piece of folklore; coverage includes a few sightings reported in local newspapers but there doesn't seem to be any lasting interest. Seems to be something someone made up on a slow news day. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable secondary sources. I'm generally an inclusionist, but there really needs to be notable coverage for us to build an article around. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems non-notable folklore. Nothing of significance found on current online news searches. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] TJMSmith (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of these links are WP:RS fails. Please keep WP:RS in mind when looking for sources—what we need are reliable secondary sources from academics, like we have for all of our quality folklore-related articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy WP:COPYVIO from here(2003 on Wayback) and last paragraph from here. See this article version.—eric 05:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! :bloodofox: (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EricR and Bloodofox: No worries, I've tagged it G12. ミラ P 15:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were versions of this article in its early history that don't violate copyright, so I have reverted back to one. Any copyright violation in later versions should be dealt with by revision deletion, not speedy deletion of the whole article. I have no opinion as yet on whether this should be kept or deleted, but there is no reason for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: I've tagged it for revdel. ミラ P 20:27, 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. Since no sources have been provided to prove that the page meets WP:GNG, I have to close this in favour of those arguing that it does not. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Competition of Piano Delia Steinberg[edit]

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

(Concurso Internacional de Piano Delia Steinberg: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability, notice how most if not all references are primary sources, there's a reason for that, the competition is virtually unknown in the Spanish-speaking world and is mostly related to the New Acropolis organization who has a interest in advertise its activities both for finantial reasons (as it profits from artistic courses) and proselytising (as is also a religious organization). Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I disagree with this opinion. Googling the names of the contestants is enough to show the quality of the competition. The New Acropolis is irrelevant to the validity of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs) 02:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that notability is not inherited. Neither New Acropolis or participants matter for notability here. I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG, since most sources seem to be routine coverage or non-independent. --MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears none of the winners are notable, at least by W{P standards. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per un-notability. --TV Guy (talk) 03:47, 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. Discussion of a move to a more appropriate name (since there's no clear favourite here) will need to take place on the article's talkpage, but there's obviously a consensus to retain the article under some title or another. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legal history in Honduras[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY; literally just a list of linkless constitutional referendums in Honduran history. Though such an article also exists on the Spanish Wikipedia, the articles it links to appear to just be on amendments added to the original constitution. ToThAc (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REname to List of legal codes of Honduras. I presume that these are in their time, all-encompassing legal codes relating to their subject. If so, many of the individual codes will be notable (if not all) and should accordingly be redlinked. If I am right, then the list of codes must also be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to List of legislation of Honduras or a similar title. Satisfies LISTN. See eg Schuster, Guide to the Law and Legal Literature of the Central American Republics, 1937, which contains further references to books in Spanish. James500 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as appropriate. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as per Peterkingiron and Bearian. Bookscale (talk) 12:01, 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Rita Awelle Asogwa[edit]

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

Fails GNG. A non-notable Nigerian businessperson who ran a Chinese food franchise? Only sources I found were a statement listing her among 13 PhD recipients, this interview, and a blog post styled as an interview. PK650 (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTLINKEDIN Wikipedia isn’t a platform to display your CV.Celestina007 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely a case of WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one reliable secondary source that qualifies from The Guardian, which is a reliable source from Nigeria, but, other than that, nothing else. Missvain (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources. The Guardian source cited in this AFD is actually a primary Q&A source that cannot be used to establish notability. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:08, 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) 04:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Odoi Lartey[edit]

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

Fails general notability guidelines, as well as WP:POLITICIAN Less Unless (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 00:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 00:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing of any significance found on news and newspaper searches. Fails general notability guidelines. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The districts of Ghana are a local level of office, not a "provincial or state" level — so the notability bar he has to clear is not "he is verifiable as holding the claimed office", the way it is for state, provincial or national legislators, but "he can be referenced to a significant depth and volume of press coverage, supporting a substantive article that contextualizes his political significance". And that's not what this article is doing. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL as a local-level politician with far little too sourcing to establish a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:17, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Rasmussen[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a policy advisor, not reliably sourced as the subject of any significant media coverage for the purposes of clearing GNG. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- but this makes no particularly strong notability claim beyond the fact that he exists, and is referenced entirely to his own bylined writing about other things, where the notability test is being the subject of coverage written by other people. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete he may have done good work, but there is not enough written about him to support the idea that he is notable.NotButtigieg (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No claim to notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there seem to be many citations on Google scholar. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, there's not a secondary source in the entire article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Bearian: claims that the subject has many citations on Google scholar, so I'll give another week to see if WP:PROF is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 00:11, 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.