Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 May	6 May >

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. A tremendous asshole, but not one who will be remembered by history. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pusey[edit]

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

I'm unconvinced that this (admittedly rather unsavoury) character is actually notable other than for his behaviour during the road accident that catapulted him into the headlines. Being an unpleasant human being isn't, as far as I'm aware, part of WP:BIO, and this veers towards WP:BLP1E. Your mileage may vary, obviously. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A biography of one outrageous, tragic but all-too-common event. The biographical depth is trivial and likely slanted as it comes through tabloid sources like the Daily Mail. As for WP:NCRIME, the subject's "criminal history" consists of traffic offenses, resisting arrest and other breaches of public order. The most serious pending charges from the incident are drug possession and failure to render aid. Coverage of the crash is still strictly news cycle material. In short, BLP1E back filled with sensationalist dirt. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. As is the article is just an abuse magnet and keeps attracting BLP violations. And even without those it is still a travesty on WP:UNDUE grounds and there is not even a hint of effort to fix that. WP is better without it. Wefa (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails the one incdient test, and comes off as a borderline attack article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Biography of an otherwise unremarkable stockbroker whom is now infamous due to his actions following a tragic incident. Entirely agree with Nomination. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:20, 12 May 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 Strand Bookstore and merge. I'll note that uncontroversial redirects can be done WP:BOLDly without listing at AFD though. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bass (businessman)[edit]

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

Exactly like Nancy Bass Wyden which was just closed as "Redirect", the subject of this article has no notability outside of the bookstore that he founded. Any pertinent material here not already in Strand Bookstore should be Merged and the article turned into a Redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 6 May 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 16:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spkilla[edit]

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

worked with a lot of notable people but still doesn't meet N:ARTIST or any relevant criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet any notability criteria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:16, 13 May 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 09:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MobiDev[edit]

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

WP:GNG, WP:MILL. No mentions in independent sources. The awards are not notable and have not gotten any coverage elsewhere. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: ~~Keep~~: isbn: "M-Health: Emerging Mobile Health Systems" (Editors: Robert Istepanian, Swamy Laxminarayan, Constantinos S. Pattichis) Pg 167 isbn 9780387265582 on the books seems to contradict the nom. statement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC). Changed to Neutral as Psiĥedelisto's comment below seems correct. Apologies and thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Djm-leighpark's statement is irrelevant. The book they cited is © 2006 yet the article claims this company started in 2009. Closer inspection shows that the book has a section about something completely different, a defunct project of the European Commission known as "Mobi-Dev" (note the hyphen). Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thankyou for spotting this. I am withdrawing from the discussion. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:41, 12 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Heasley[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Needs a rewrite, but his work is notable enough to be written about in AllMusic, Exclaim!, JazzTimes, others. Caro7200 (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Caro7200, would you be able to provide some links? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - HickoryOughtShirt?4, here are a few links, thanks: AllMusic, Exclaim!, Exclaim!, JazzTimes, Star Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Perfect Sound Forever.
    - Caro7200, Some of the sources are okay but many are unusable for establishing GNG. For example, The Star Tribune article simply states "Examples of the latter stretch back at least as far as 2002's shockingly voluptuous "On the Sensation of Tone" by ambient tuba master Tom Heasley". As well, interviews (like the one in Perfect Sound Forever) generally count as primary sources. Both of the Exclaim! articles are simply a paragraph talking about his music, not really in-depth. I cannot access the LA Times article so AGF there.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - HickoryOughtShirt?4, I'll concede that the Star Tribune ref, while positive and from a reliable source, is minor. I disagree with your assessments of Exclaim! and Perfect Sound Forever. The Exclaim! refs are reviews of albums, both positive, and not that much shorter than what would be found in the reviews sections of many other music magazines. Perfect Sound Forever is a reliable source--we have to assume that, even in an interview, some basic fact-checking is occurring. Not only that, but the interviewer has to have done his or her homework. Caro7200 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs improvement but the subject does have reliable sources coverage such as Exclaim, AllMusic, The LA Times and others identified in this discussion earlier so deletion is not necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes MUSICBIO MistyGraceWhite (talk) 21:48, 12 May 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) 04:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtis Lee Thomas[edit]

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

completely and utterly non notable author. There is no coverage anywhere of this person that would meet a single N criteria here. Despite it only being three sentences, it reads like a PR puff piece Praxidicae (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, another run-of-the-mill advertisement barely disguised as an article. Caro7200 (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR. The book was almost certainly not a "#1 best seller" as the article purports. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:13, 12 May 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Xulu[edit]

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

I think this fails GNG. Tried a before search and couldn’t find one single result. The only things I’m getting from a current search is articles discussing his death. – ².O.^Boxing 20:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Found nothing.2600:1004:B01E:280B:DD23:6623:E67B:B523 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC) (user blocked - "checkuserblock-wide") Nfitz (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: covered in many news sources. 7 examples, more to find: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Won a 2019 PSL Awards - SportsOlympic (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, has a stadium named after him! Giant Snowman 10:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Prominent sportsman in South Africa. Clearly passes WP:GNG with the references. The Sugar Ray Xulu Stadium in Durban is named after him. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - massive before failure. 4,920 Google News hits. Nfitz (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Like above, massive before search fail, many sources show clear nobility. Not everything needs American sourcing. GuzzyG (talk) 05:06, 12 May 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. Article (and many other Tokelau islands) redirected by Staszek Lem. AFD not needed anymore. (non-admin closure) Kori (@) 23:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Te Puka e Mua[edit]

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

This Tokelauan islet is absolutely not notable and has had no references since 2010. I did some WP:BEFORE, but nothing appeared besides a book that doesn't even explain the islet, and a whole lot of websites that were entirely unhelpful. Kori (@) 19:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Nukunonu. The nom could have done this themselves with this one-liner per WP:NGEO (the part about minor features) without bothering the community. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close It turns out there were quite a few of such onliners. I've redirected them all to Nukunonu#Islands, copying the coord data there. Staszek Lem (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matina La Ana He Du[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NFILM. The one ref is a spam ref. There aren't any sources online that I can find. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sourcing at all, only one source in the article. Also, we don't even have an article on the person who wrote the film. Kori (@) 19:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. ~SS49~ {talk} 06:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subham ku Naik[edit]

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

This biography of a living person is very poorly sourced, and the tag looking for improved sources has been there for nearly 4 years. The references listed on the page generally do not reflect the content of the page. This makes notability highly questionable, and many of the details of the article cannot be verified. Edit history appears to be almost entirely anonymous and very possibly self-promotional. Not encyclopedic style, and not neutral point of view. In my view keeping it would require a full rewrite, extensive sourcing, and a better argument for notability. Kronhjorten (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He’s only acted in two films so far! If someone can make the case that the awards he’s won can make him notable, I’ll reconsider my !vote. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for me as well, I agree with User:Mccapra that this article does not meet notability requirements. ExemplaryScholar (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 15:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge Place, California[edit]

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

I've listed this one separately because, unliek the other "place" articles being considered at the moment, there is more than the bare GNIS details. The problem is that the text, completely uncited, doesn't really make any claim that the farmstead (for that is what is described) is in any way notable. I've come across several works which are basically short biographies of as many early settlers as they could manage to document, and one of those is likely to be the source of this text. It's generally difficult, when reading one of these, to ascertain the locations where the people actually lived, and most topo map appearances of this sort of place name don't show up until the 1950s or '60s, or even later, so at this point I have my doubts that the original work was talking about people who lived at this spot. But even then, this is, when all is said and done, just a scrap of family history. There's no sign that anyone took notice of this. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted the article to give more information about the existing citation of the Dodge Place which was likely just included in Wikipedia because it was noted on a USGS map. I agree that there is nothing especially "remarkable" about the location or history and that it is basically just a farmstead. 173.8.67.93 (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC) transferred from talk by Mangoe[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to be notable on its own. If there's anything worth keeping (and I don't think there is), it can go on Forest Ranch, California which meets notability as a CDP. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a homestead. Perhaps some can be merged into one of the eco-reserve articles, but I'm not sure. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable ranch; unsourced March 2020 expansion was written by a likely COI account. The "nature preserve" appears to be the family's own private project and doesn't merit inclusion in a larger article unless it's received coverage as part of an overall conservation scheme for the area, which it hasn't. –dlthewave ☎ 15:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with dlthewave: The bulk of the article is unsources and probably from a COI account. I had no luck searching newspapers.com. I did not find anything about the nature preserve, though I did not look very hard. Cxbrx (talk) 15:12, 11 May 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lav Agarwal[edit]

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

The article is more about COVID and his criticism than the person in question. Person is not covered significantly in multiple sources. Many are just passing mentions or repitition of the same information. Notability not inherited. DTM (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit: I removed the criticism from the article. DTM (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This is an attack article and should be removed. The general article on Covid-19 in India might benefit from some mention of him, but there is no reason for a stand alone article, especially not an attack one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:GNG. Listing two more sources here: 1, 2. Criticism can be kept to a single section on the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - subject plays major role in unfolding developments for covid19 in india - a country with perhaps the largest population in the world. if this was an American politician there would not be a nomination. with regards to it being an attack article, there is nothing there to suggest that. At least not anymore. Grmike (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't notable independently --WikiGamee (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable article. --Blue Ring 09:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Agree that the coverage is a bit repetitive, but he meets WP:GNG, barely but nonetheless, IMO. As someone playing a major role in a major historical event involving a country of 1.3 billion people, I think this person should have an article for the sake of completeness of the encyclopedia (remembering that footnote in NPOL; I know this is a bureaucrat, but the point applies), and there's just enough coverage to justify it without having to consult the CRYSTALLBALL. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale provided by Johnpacklambert no real reason for a stand alone article. Celestina007 (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article was reworked to address the very point. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Lebanese Fourth Division[edit]

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

Season article of a non-notable football league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment did it receive any secondary press at all? SportingFlyer T·C 19:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: it's pretty much impossible to find news about Lebanese football below the second tier. Maybe one might find the occasional article about the third tier, but surely not about the fourth or fifth tier. Especially from five years ago. The only thing I can find about this specific season is the Goalzz league table. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I searched the Arabic name and some websites came up, but I really struggle with Arabic sources, so thought I'd ask as to why this would be considered non-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @SportingFlyer: Searching for Arabic: الدوري اللبناني الدرجة الرابعة (literally: Lebanese Fourth Division) on Google, I found the Kooora/Goalzz (same website) tables I noted above, some Facebook posts, this article about a scandal in 2019, and various miscellaneous articles. Nothing really of note. Italy's ninth tier (Terza Categoria) has way more news and coverage than Lebanon's fourth tier. Also, there is general consensus among WP:FOOTY that leagues are notable if clubs in it can participate in the domestic cup. In Lebanon, all first and second tier clubs compete in the Lebanese FA Cup, as well as only a handful of third tier clubs. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries, appreciate the discussion. I didn't think this would get over the line but I didn't want to assume anything. SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Rosser[edit]

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

lawyer, non notable. Article piggybacks on trivial mentions. no indepth RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. 19:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hex Hectic[edit]

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

non notable music guy. Usual name dropping and PR sources. Not a single indepth independant source. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half of these are unreliable sources such as small time blogs or "pay to play" type services such as Hype Magazine (see this [1] on how to get coverage.) The reliable sources cited are not about this person, rather, they are references to things mentioned in this article (such as Kayne West's Donda House) but are not coverage about this person. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable? You clearly know nothing about hip hop. This artist is associated with Kanye West. It's time for this unfair bias against hip hop artists to stop. I can't understand why Wikipedia censors hip hop topics so much. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep First of all, read the article. The nominator has a history of targeting notable hip hop artists. Hex Hectic has worked with Rhymefest and DLow and graduated from a selective program closely associated with Kanye West's mother. Do you even know who Kanye West is? No hip hop enthusiast would want to delete articles like this. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You missed WP:NOTINHERITED: Having some relationship with a notable subject doesn't cause another notable subject. The very first example of what doesn't make someone notable by themselves is "once worked with someone famous". An even better example of stretching it would be "graduated from a selective program closely associated with Kanye West's mother. Do you even know who Kanye West is?" --Closeapple (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Look at the sources. The Chicago Tribune, Respect magazine, and People magazine aren't good enough? You aren't even following the policies listed on WP:RS. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MaghrebiFalafel, before you start judging other editors and Wikipedia at large, why don't you familiarize yourself with the guidelines first? You've been here less than a month and you got a total of 41 edits to your name. This is not helping your case. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I spent countless hours reading the guidelines and hitting the preview button who knows how many times. The coding was hard to master and I spent hours looking at different examples of hip hop artists trying to make this work. Please don't make assumptions. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because "You clearly know nothing about hip hop" is not an assumption? If you did read the guidelines, maybe go over them again, because you are very WP:UNCIVIL towards others, in other deletion discussions as well. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS by itself isn't the standard for notability; it's WP:SIGCOV: The reliable sources have to provide significant (not just passing mentions, short pieces, or routine schedule) coverage that is independent of the subject (not subject-controlled stories). --Closeapple (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's WP:REFBOMBed to look like something, but there are barely any sources on the subject. The Chicago Tribune certainly is notable, but the articles "Donda’s House — named after Kanye’s mom — changes name after Kardashian-Rhymefest beef" and "El comentario que hizo el DJ Julián 'Jumpin’ Pérez en el Festival Cubano que le costó su participación en My House Music Festival" don't mention Hex at all. Neither does People's "Kanye West's Nonprofit Donda's House Gives Chicago's Young People Access to the Arts". Comic Vine is just a listing. There's barely anything about the musical artists Hex Hectic at all. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the best sources seem to have no relevant content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:59, 10 May 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. And apparently retracted. Sandstein 19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mech people[edit]

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

Mech is name imposed on Boro people. Boro is proper designation. No mech call themself Mech. There is no difference between Boro and Mech. Only for linguistic purpose , sometimes scholars differentiate Mech and Kachari (Boro) language. Both mech and kachari are names given by others. They have their proper name. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There exists a Mech denomination of people who may or may not self-identify with the Boro people. We need some more information before we can merge this with the Boro people article or delete it. (http://wbnorthbengaldev.gov.in/HtmlPage/mech.aspx). Chaipau (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:In the 2011 census for Assam, given in Dimasa_people#cite_note-1, the Boro (as Boro, Borokachari) and Mech (as Mech) are listed separately. This is the evidence that the Mech did not self-identify as Boro. Chaipau (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau has presented government ST-list and presented his theory that "This is the evidence that the Mech did not self-identify as Boro". It's clearly self-making. Government can issue any number of certificates. That ST-List don't give any scholarly explanation. In fact, In same ST-list , there are different certificate for Hojai & Dimasa but they call themselves Dimasa and they belong to same community. Using government ST-cetificate , I can't create a page for myself. Chaipau's claim is illogical and Chaipau's behaviour toward Boro people is very much suspicious.

That website is very poor. They don't even know who are mech people. That website copy-pasted from wikipedia. Even the picture shown in that page belong to Rabha community which they took from wikipedia. There is nothing called mech people. Same website state that Today, a section of Mech people in West Bengal prefer to refer themselves as Bodo instead of Mech. Actually, No mech call themself mech. When mech themselves don't like that name imposed on them. For more information Standard journal - http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ebhr/pdf/EBHR_32_02.pdf. There are many more examples where same people are known by different names and government issue many certicates with different names but they all belong to same community , for example Dimasa people. When a community themselves don't want to be called by name given to them , I don't understand why editor Chaipau want to keep the name given to Boro people. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution of Bârâ people, as reported in the Language Survey of India 1903

Today, Most Place inhabited by Mech or Boro are called Boroland because mech was never proper name. Just for the sake of politics, Somebody can use name give to Boro people and create a community. Assam don't lack such example - For example , Historically there was nothing called Kachari muslim but Government of Assam started to designate new group of people called Kachari muslim. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/assam-govt-for-economic-survey-of-kachari-muslims/article30926943.ece . Chaipau claim looks like politically motivated to misuse barbarian name given to Boro people Logical Man 2000 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I prefer to go by what reliable sources say rather than by what a Wikipedia editor claims. It may be a failure to understand the connotations of the word in English, but the repeated use of the word "barbarian" is hardly going to endear anyone to this cause. There is clearly a substantial body of opinion in reliable sources, including the government of Assam, that this is a separate (but related) group. If there is sufficient weight in reliable sources saying that they are the same as the Boro people then the controversy should be covered in the article, but it certainly shouldn't be deleted.
One other thing that I must mention is that we shouldn't regard Raj-era sources such as the one used for the map on this page and the one I removed from the article as reliable - see User:Sitush/CasteSources for the reasons why. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That government page is very old. They simply copied content from wikipeida in past. That's why image given in that page is also wrong which belong to Rabha tribe. You can check this version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mech_people&diff=877089866&oldid=877089188 . Mech name originated from mleccha. This is the reason it was never proper designation. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: Sir, Let's assume Mech is ambiguous name and It was imposed on wide range people where some people called themselves Boro and some people did't call themselves Boro. Historically, Mechs of Undivided Goalpara (Shown in the image of Grierson's book) called themselves Boro. This the reason, Today that region is known as Boroland. If somebody from different region also call themselves Mech or Mleccha then we should divide our Mech or Mleccha based on region. Mleccha is ambiguous name. This is my opinion to handle the situation. This matter is sensitive. Government pages are copying from Wikipedia. A community can have many St-certificate, for example : Dimasa people have more than two certificates - Hojai , Dimasa , Barman , Kachari etc. This ST certificate don't give any scholarly explanation. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to Keep it for now .

Resolved

Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 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. There has been substantial discussion but no consensus has been reached. Perhaps a rename or move as suggested by some keep participants will help find consensus about how to deal with this content area. If not, this can always be renominated at some point in the future to see if consensus can be found then. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of destroyed heritage of the United States[edit]

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

Unsourced and subjective list: fails WP:LISTVERIFY and no explanation is given as to what "heritage" means or how we could list it in a NPOV way without original research. b uidhe 22:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion added. If you think the topic does not belong in Wikipedia, why haven't you proposed List of destroyed heritage for deletion? As for verification, the articles for the buildings provide referenced information on the details, but I will change this if that is the consensus. I'm also perplexed as to why this couldn't all be handled with some suggestions, as I believe the review process is supposed to work? Instead of just throwing the article to deletion (which the reviewer above first tried to do without discussion, even). Keepcalmandchill (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a list of buildings of some cultural significance that were demolished. Buildings get torn down all the time, a too-common fate that is too broad a criterion for a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of lists in Wikipedia that are impossible to ever be fully inclusive. I don't see how this is any worse than any other of the lists of buildings and structures. Should we also delete list of bridges? Or list of walls? Nevertheless, I've added Template:Dynamic list on top of the page, and also notability in the inclusion criteria.Keepcalmandchill (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then it fails WP:LISTN. Find a source or two that lists demolished American buildings. Being demolished is not a listworthy criterion. "heritage" is rather hazy too. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty such sources. A narrow definition of destroyed U.S. heritage could be, say, places listed as National Historic Landmarks (a high level of historic designation) that have been destroyed and hence delisted. For example, it is a bummer that the Edwin H. Armstrong House was destroyed in 1983. Seems like some should be interested in participating in Talk page discussion about intentions for this list. Not for AFD, though. --Doncram (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is the term "destroyed heritage", which can mean so many things, e.g. paintings, sculptures, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being someone who lives in Detroit an sees the crime and fear caused by abaondoned buildings used as bases for crime and hide outs to rape school girls on their way to or from school, the inclusion of a building that sat as an abaondoned eyesore for over 15 years on this list is a set of situations showing some people care more about outward historical appeal than the safety of school girls, at least when those school girls are African-Americans. Lists like this are one sided and advance a narrative that causes real hurt and pain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What???? Is there some specific incident being alluded to here, about bias or racism or whatever? Of one or more Wikipedia editors??? Whatever this comment is about might possibly be relevant for addressing elsewhere, like if there are BLP attacks or other gross conduct going on somewhere, but I see no relevance to this AFD. --Doncram (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion nomination apparently has concerns which might be relevant for editing, or tagging; they should probably participate at the article's Talk page. I see no valid reason for deletion; clearly, destroyed heritage, like endangered heritage and like preserved heritage, is a huge, valid topic, is covered hugely, and there can be a list of examples. --Doncram (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious way that this list is important is in reminding readers/America/the world of what has been lost, with precautionary implications about what else may be lost due to war, religious strife (Buddhas of Bamyan come to mind, carelessness with respect to fire safety, unhindered commercial development, etc. This idea is obvious and has been pointed out repeatedly to the world, and IMHO doesn't require very specific sourcing to justify having this as a list. However there surely do exist published lists of this type, which would usefully be referenced. For example there have existed numerous published lists of Seven Wonders of the Ancient World type, which are directly relevant on the world-level scale (published widely in the 1800s?), and I rather imagine there must be a similar history of United States-specific lists (though even if not, it is still obviously fine to have a U.S. section split out of the world-wide list-article). --Doncram (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Offhand, I think the list should be developed with explanation of the _importance_ of listed items. However it does appropriately include some very important items, including Pennsylvania Station (1910–1963). That was an important building, and its destruction was controversial and arguably spawned the historic preservation movement in the United States. It contributed to the formalization and great growth of the National Historic Landmarks designation program in 1960 and following years, growth of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the 1966 passage of the National Historic Preservation Act, and arguably directly led to the creation of the National Register of Historic Places in 1968.

I've sort of now tried to open some discussion at the Talk page of the AFD subject list-article about list criteria. This AFD should never have been opened, IMHO, without discussion there, which no one attempted. Further discussion about list criteria and other matters of development should go on there. --Doncram (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame de Paris, ablaze
Pennsylvania Station, c.1910s

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of destroyed heritage. It's a useful list, but I fail to see why this WP:REDUNDANTFORK is required at this point. That article is not too long that some more entries cannot be added to it successfully, which is where the current content of this article should go. Also need to be mindful of the WP:BIAS that WP focuses too much on the United States as it is. StonyBrook (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:LISTPURPS and WP:LISTCRIT. "Cultural heritage" has a specific meaning and an internationally-agreed definition and "destroyed" is fairly self-evident. The problem with merging to List of destroyed heritage is that the latter is already too long and it would need be split out again. Buildings are, indeed, lost all the time but the buildings that are eligible for inclusion is much less. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Destroyed heritage" is a made-up designation that nobody uses for lists, because it is so vague and wide-ranging, so this fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR. Heritage sites, yes. Buildings, yes. Sculptures, I suppose. More tightly focused lists are fine, but this (and the other destroyed heritage lists) are poorly thought out and indiscriminate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every list is a "made-up designation". That's how language works and pointing it out is not a valid argument against LISTPURPS, LISTCRIT, or LISTN. How is this list any less "made up" than List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1985? (a featured list, BTW). As said previously, UNESCO has an internationally-agreed-to definition:

What is meant by "cultural heritage"?
The term cultural heritage encompasses several main categories of heritage:
Cultural heritage

Tangible cultural heritage:

movable cultural heritage (paintings, sculptures, coins, manuscripts)

immovable cultural heritage (monuments, archaeological sites, and so on)

underwater cultural heritage (shipwrecks, underwater ruins and cities)

I have left out intangible heritage because determining when or how that is destroyed is impossible. We have no trouble with determining if tangible international cultural heritage, say, the Buddhas of Bamyan, were destroyed (March, 2001, for clarity's sake). Applying that to heritage in the United States should be no harder than international heritage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia lists in general don't use "made-up designations"; that goes against LISTN. There are numerous lists of films considered the best, for example. I have been unable to find any lists of "destroyed heritage" or even "destroyed cultural heritage". Are you seriously saying we should have one gigantic list of all those things you listed above? How many culturally significant buildings alone were lost in say the Great Chicago Fire or the 1906 San Francisco earthquake? Multiply that by a couple of centuries of natural (and unnatural) disasters in all the cities, towns, villages, plantations, etc., and it is clear that the scope of this list is unmanageable. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See below but again, pure red herring. There is no need to pretend that every building anyone liked is "cultural heritage." We use RS. If RS describe a destroyed building as significant, there's no reason we can't have a list that includes them. And BTW, we do have a "gigantic list of all the things [I] listed". The project doesn't seem to have collapsed under its burden. As even WP:OTHER recognizes: ...the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. There is no way to honestly frame a consistent rationale why a list of international cultural heritage that has been destroyed is acceptable but one for such things in the United States is not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about your red herrings. I specified "culturally significant buildings", not "every building anyone liked". Dozens, if not hundreds, must have been lost in the two disasters I cited. I also said that IMO those other "destroyed heritage" lists deserve to go too. Besides, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Finally, as I have repeatedly asked, when has anyone on the "outside" grouped "destroyed heritage"? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what exactly fits these definitions? Very much a matter of opinion and OR, especially when it comes to many buildings that are just buildings to some people but important heritage to others. b uidhe 16:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a really easy way (actually, ways) to tell "what fits": National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmark, National Trust Historic Sites, etc. The research has already been done and is not "original". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there were such a list as List of destroyed National Register of Historic Places sites, that would be a different story, but this isn't that list and it doesn't have any objective criteria in its current form. Just to pick a random example, who says Hudson Terminal is cultural heritage? This list would have to be completely deleted and rewritten to comply with NOR. b uidhe 17:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is being made out to be much harder and more controversial than it really is. We should do with this list what we are supposed do with everything: follow the sources. To imply that there are no independent, reliable sources describing tangible cultural heritage is just silly. Pennsylvania Station, for just one example, is reliably and indisputably described in terms that fulfill the definition of tangible cultural heritage: "...the original Pennsylvania Station...elevated the mere activity of entering and leaving the city into a momentous occasion." "...the original Pennsylvania Station was one of New York City's grandest landmarks, a palace in the middle of Manhattan." Its destruction created the modern historic preservation movement: "Its demolition is the stuff of New York legend, an act of architectural vandalism so unspeakable that it gave rise to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, saved Grand Central Terminal and upended the city’s development priorities." The Singer Building is another indisputable cultural landmark that has been removed: "The lobby had the quality of "celestial radiance" seen in world's-fair and exposition architecture of the period, as the author Mardges Bacon described it...In his 1963 inventory "New York Landmarks" (Wesleyan University Press), the preservationist Alan Burnham classed the Singer Building with the Woolworth, Metropolitan Life and other buildings now considered very important." The only grounds for deletion is the stoic insistence that this kind of research is somehow impossible and we are therefore doomed to accept every passing editor's version of importance. This is a red herring. The above trivially-sourced citations are not, I once again emphasize, OR. This is what we do on a regular basis to build the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like some editors in this AfD are most concerned with the word "heritage" in the title. If it was called List of destroyed historical sites of the United States or List of destroyed cultural landmarks of the United States, would that clear up the issue with the list? Sites, buildings, landmarks — any of these words can be added to clarify what the list is about, since it's mainly about historic buildings. The meaning of the word "heritage" is a bit less recognizable in comparison. I personally think the content of the article and subject is notable enough for a separate list, no matter what it is called. And I don't think the name being up for debate should be the reason for the deletion of an article. But it seems like the word "heritage" in the title is what people are most bothered by, so I thought I would point this out as a potential solution. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Perfectly valid list article, plenty of blue links, clear definition for inclusion. Dream Focus 04:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How the hell are you supposed to define "heritage?" It's a subjective definition and as such this fails WP:LISTVERIFY. In terms of moving this to a different title, how do you define "historical sites" or "cultural landmarks?" Even these open up a WP:NOTEVERYTHING problem, as they are also subjective (history happens everywhere, one person's cultural landmark is another person's Veterans Stadium. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be partially merged to List of destroyed heritage which has the same problems but I agree with buidhe and SportingFlyer that there are no inclusion criteria here. It seems to merely be a list of old buildings that no longer exist, without anything establishing them as "heritage". They were early skyscrapers? They had subjectively interesting architecture? Per Clarityfiend, stuff not lasting forever is just how things work, and what makes this department store any more "heritage" than the malls being abandoned today? A president lived at Ulysses S. Grant Cottage; is the original of Lincoln's reconstructed log cabin destroyed heritage? I'd think Hotel Seattle would fit here but what about the Kingdome? "Having blue links" is not and never has been criteria for keeping an article. Reywas92^Talk 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A perfectly valid navigational list of blue links. The critera are simply that a building satisfies WP:NBUILD and has an article, and that it has been destroyed. The "heritage" word in the title can easily be removed or changed to reflect the specifics of NBUILD. The critera could alternately also be tightened to include only those buildings that third-party sources refer to as e.g. demolished landmarks. Whichever way the article is developed, there are no grounds for deletion. ----Pontificalibus 13:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly valid list as long as it only features blue links. Rename to List of destroyed heritage sites of the United States or something similar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to destroyed heritage sites/buildings etc. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 21:47, 12 May 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. Speedy deleted and SALTed. Alexf^(talk) 18:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan meena[edit]

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

Non notable politician, Most of the references are not related about the subject. I found only two references [1 2] where i found subject's name, but these are not enough to justify subject's notability. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG Jai49 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I've already tagged it as it's an attempt to re-create a heavily SALTed article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPL93, is there an AfD that deleted him at some point or has everything been A7? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 I am actually unsure, I tagged it because it is likely an attempt to game the system. If the CSD is declined then I will change my vote to delete and SALT given its previous history of repeated recreation. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with salt. Nothing stated here satisfies WP:NPOL, the quality of the sourcing is not getting him over WP:GNG in lieu, and as noted there is a long history of attempted recreation at multiple different titles to evade salt. I don't think it's immediately speediable as a recreation of deleted content, because even the one prior AFD discussion I can find (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhagwan singh meena) was also just graduated directly to speedy instead of engaging traditional AFD process, but that still doesn't make it keepable. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Koring[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for journalists. The only notability claim being attempted here is that he once won a journalism award -- but that's being referenced to the award's own self-published website about itself rather than any evidence of media coverage about it, which means it isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over WP:GNG on his sourceability. (When it comes to "notable because award", we care about awards that get media coverage, not just every award that exists.) But the only other reference here is a news article about something completely different than the award, misplaced in the external links section instead of being used as a footnote, which briefly mentions Paul Koring's name without being about him to any non-trivial degree, so it's not helping to get him over GNG either. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and stronger sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well reasoned nomination. A non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 8 May 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 19:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons deities[edit]

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

WP:GAMEGUIDE material; sourced entirely to primary sources and fails notability criteria for fictional subjects. Wikia cruft that lacks real-world context or relevance. Most of the blue links in this list go to non D&D related articles or are just redirects back to here. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. There are in fact several non-primary sources cited (as opposed to "entirely"), namely Dicing with Dragons, Heroic Worlds, and Religions in Play. BOZ (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GAMEGUIDE does not in any way apply to this material, which is discussed in independent, reliable sources. Overreach by Nom. Newimpartial (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons for what the deities were inspired by, which is the only thing that could be said to be sourced here. By the title, the clear purpose of this list is simply to list deities, which means the purpose is a guide to the game's characters._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you think Dungeons & Dragons characters consult Wikipedia about their deities, then you have must very interesting and unorthodox ideas about the activities involved in the game. Ahem. As far as I can tell, the list exists to provide an exhaustive account of which deities have been recognized in various versions and publications of the game; secondary sources are not confined to the influences on D & D, but also on D & D's cultural impact and its influence on subsequent fictional creation, and this most certainly includes the impact of the deities and pantheons created for or incorporated into the game. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Those few secondary sources are only being used to support very little of the information here, and almost entirely are just on the information on deities in Dungeons and Dragons in general. The vast majority of the actual list component of this "List of" article are not supported by anything aside from primary sources, and are comprised entirely of in-universe WP:PLOT. If the argument to keep is being based on what's present in reliable, secondary sources, this entire article basically needs to be almost entirely pruned, and probably renamed, to only include the information on the concept of Deities in Dungeons and Dragons in general, with the vast amounts of primary sourced cruft removed. Basically, those sources could be used to develop an article on the concept of deities in the game in general, but certainly do not support a list of this magnitude. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, why are there so many entries here for beings that are specifically not deities on a list for beings that specifically are deities? Regardless of the fate of the article, I assume nobody would disagree that the huge sections on demons/paragons/etc. should be removed, at the very least. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Demons, etc, are functionally deities in D&D. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Light Merge to Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons - I apologize for the triple post, but I just saw Zxcvbnm's comment above, and that is the perfect article to merge the actual sourced information from this list to. As I mentioned in my comment above, the secondary sources being cited in the "Keep" arguments do not support this massive list of deities, but instead are primarily on the concept and development of deities in D&D in general. Using them, and the very few sentences of information they are actually being used to support from this article, to improve the Sources and Influences article would be a far better use for them than this crufty mess. Rorshacma (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the topic of religion in Dungeons & Dragons is notable, and this list of deities is so far the major way it has been covered on Wikipedia. According to WP:LISTN, the topic of a list has to be notable, not all individual entries. I also think that WP:GAMEGUIDE does not apply, because, while it's true that many entries in this list only exist within D&D, there are also many that come from mythology or literature. They are in themselves noteable and have their own articles, and this list reflects the adaption of these figures in this game. (I don't say that their presentation cannot be improved, but that's no reason for deletion.) The article also gives general information on the topic, if so far only shortly.
There are a number of entities covered here, which are in the game variously called quasi-deities or near-deities. So they would not fall into deities in the strictest sense, but are closer to deities than to other characters in the game. They also would fall under the topic of religion, as some are worshiped, other grant powers akin to divine patrons. So I would keep them in the list. But that's a minor point, not directly related to deletion.

I was not aware of the Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons, so thanks for alerting me to that. If this topic should be merged - which I am against, but would obviously prefer to deletion - that sounds like a reasonable place for part of the information here. Despite the mere mention of mythology as an inspiration, there is nothing there about the many deities and religions actually used, so there would definitely be something to merge. Daranios (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - D&D is very notable and this is a significant part of it --Jtle515 (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- D&D is definitely notable, I don't dispute that. I also don't dispute that this is a significant part of it. Is it significant enough to be standalone notable on its own? No. See WP:NOTINHERITED._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are references, this showing how an obviously notable series got made, its influences for this notable aspect of itself. Not sure how many of the blue links are redirects back to this page, maybe all of them, but doesn't matter, since its a valid article on its own right even if it didn't have the "list of" in its name. Dream Focus 23:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. There is enough content out there on D&D deities as a whole and individual deities to justify a central list like this. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTN. There are several independent sources used in the article — Ian Livingstone's Dicing with Dragons, Philippe Bornet's Religions in play: games, rituals and virtual worlds, and Lawrence Schick's Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games — that are not acknowledged in the nomination. Some of the Keep voters above have not made specific reference to policy or sources, but I think they help to establish the common-sense judgment that the use of gods and demigods in Dungeons & Dragons is a worthwhile subject for analysis and study.
That being said, I can see the nominator's point that this article is overwhelmingly a list of names and titles, and doesn't have enough human-readable content. But one reason why the article is so spare is because a lot of content about the various deities has been nominated for deletion in the last six months, and ended with a bare redirect to this article. (For example, Yondalla and Gruumsh, among many, many others.) I think that the pattern of "redirect all the individual pages to a list, then nominate the list for deletion" does not give me confidence in other potential redirects and merges suggested in this discussion. If we merge this with Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons, then Zxcvbnm can nominate that article, and so on. WP:ARTN says that the current state of an article does not diminish the notability of the topic, and it's clear that the use of deities in D&D is a notable topic. We should halt the bulldozer here. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are definitly more secondary sources about the subject and individual entries in this list: Several sources specific to Lolth came up in this discussion; Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy has more on the general than the small part I have already added, and short mentions of a few specific deities; Of Dice and Men has something on the way deities were treated at their first introduction into the game (including example deities) on p. 109-110, and more. Daranios (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Religion, cosmology, etc. in Dungeons & Dragons are now covered in many, many sources. So clearly, WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second Toughpigs's concern with the "pattern of redirect all the individual pages to a list, then nominate the list for deletion". I think parts of the article are well sourced (enough for the article as a whole to meet notability) and other sections need a bit of clean up to make it a more readable article (and additional sources could be added to make it stronger). In terms of a clean up example, a specific concern of ZXCVBNM's is that "most of the blue links in this list go to non D&D related articles or are just redirects back to here" so dead links from articles that were AfD & closed with merge to this article should be removed. The article should be tagged for clean up and not deleted. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I have overlooked that on first reading: There seems to be a contradiction in the nomination, which both critizises that the article lacks real-world context, and also critizises that it contains many non-D&D related = real-world related links. Or did I misunderstand something? Daranios (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Context =/= a pure link to something from mythology. Saying that a cockatrice in the game is the same as a mythlogical cockatrice, for example, does not provide context into why that is actually notable and necessary to say there._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, I never really vouched for any of these list entries to be redirected. I have always opposed redirecting to locations that are non-notable on their face._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - But why are links to non D&D related articles a bad thing/an argument for deletion? Which ones are you referring to? Daranios (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I mostly highlighted the example from the nomination because the nominator could have tagged the article for clean up & started a conversation in the article's talk page about which sections need clean up if they didn't have the time to do the clean up themselves. AfD shouldn't be used to highlight cleanup issues. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not enough of it is reliably sourced in secondary sources. Bermicourt (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of secondary sources and I see no reason to question the notability. There is no reason to delete it just because it's about a game. Iamnotabunny (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "merge" opinions must be given less weight, as two out of three are pure votes and don't address the lack of secondary sources. Sandstein 19:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of human deities in Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

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

WP:GAMEGUIDE material; sourced entirely to primary sources and fails notability criteria for fictional subjects. Wikia cruft that lacks real-world context or relevance. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is entirely in-universe plot information, without a single secondary source being used as a reference. In addition, there are really no sources that discuss this grouping as specifically being referred to as "human deities" the way that other racial pantheons in D&D are. Most of this list seems to just be comprised of some random examples taken from the core pantheon of the Forgotten Realms, rather than any grouping that is specifically referred to as "human deities". Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BD2412 T 00:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a list of useless fancruft that fails WP:LISTN and WP:PLOT. Article is not a useful redirect, and contains nothing of relevance to Merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of third party secondary sources. Even at best, you have something that should be scaled down, in proportion to their lack of coverage, and merged into a larger character article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities, where the parent topic is discussed at the moment. I did find a minor mention of one of the deities in a secondary source. Daranios (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources and not encyclopaedic. Bermicourt (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Iamnotabunny (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it does have another secondary source now.Iamnotabunny (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It now has a single secondary source, providing one sentence of information on one of the individual entries, that still doesn't describe this grouping of characters as "Human Deities". Rorshacma (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, two. The one added by Darianos is as you say, the other one uses the goddess Tymora as a small case study. In any case for merging it does not matter whether "Human deities" is notable as a group, as long as the larger group of deities of Dungeons and Dragons are notable (which they are). And sure, the article does go into more detail than is really necessary. But that's no reason to delete. Iamnotabunny (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Kid vs. Kat episodes#ep32. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhymes with Coop[edit]

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

Non-notable TV show episodes with no sources. 118.148.103.13 (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from WT:AFD. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:V and WP:N. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable episode of a series which didn't really get much public attention; not needed here. Nate • (chatter) 08:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kid vs. Kat episodes#ep32 where it's already included in a list as a WP:ATD. Episode redirects are WP:CHEAP and not uncommon. It certainly doesn't need to be an article. -2pou (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kid vs. Kat episodes#ep32, as far as I can tell this episode has not been the subject of any coverage at all that would help it pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack in the House[edit]

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

Non-notable TV show episodes with no sources. 118.148.103.13 (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from WT:AFD. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:V and WP:N. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only are there no sources, but some of the text makes no sense. "During August 2009, 'Jack in the House' was rumored to be filmed on its premiere date, 30 November 2009, for an early January 2010 release ..." So according to unsourced rumors, the plan was to film the episode on the day it was going to premiere, and also not show it until more than a month later? As a second choice, redirect to the TV series this episode is from, Dani's House. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no sources. lots of unsourced information with nothing referenced. not well known enough to give subject benefit of the doubt. The tv series is notable but for each episode notability is not inherited.Grmike (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Ring of Honor. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ROH Women's World Championship[edit]

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

nothing notable, no coverage in RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete ROH is one of the biggest promotions in USA. Recently, they dropped their Women's title and created a new one. If COVID didn't hit, it would be a champion and the title would have several sources. Any case, I'm pretty surce in a few month, the champion will be crowned and the article would be back. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the promotion's article until such time as there is more to say than "a new title was announced but then put on hold"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect At this point its hard to know if this will ever materialize. I would say right now redirect it to Ring of Honor or List of current champions in Ring of Honor, as everything about it is incorporated there already. This would obviously be without any restrictions on re-creating one more is known, should it actually materialize. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC) KEEPER[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ACW Combat Championship[edit]

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

PR piece. Nothing noteworthy at all. Based on the usual culprits, press releases and PR pieces. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PWCHAMP. Non-notable title for a non-notable promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell or High Water (2017 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Guardian Life and NoStrings are two websites that have published press release articles about the film. Pulse Nigeria wrote a solid review of the film but this isn't enough to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:NFO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ACW Women's Championship[edit]

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

PR piece. Nothing noteworthy at all. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PWCHAMP. Non-notable title for a non-notable promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bulandshahr Sadhu murder[edit]

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

A sad event, but does not pass GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started the article and within 3 minutes this user has posted the delete message. Uddhav Thackeray, UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath Opposition leaders including ex-Chief Minister of UP Akhilesh Yadav, politicians Priyanka Gandhi and Sanjay Raut have all talked about the murder and this is no longer a small case. Police had to disclose the religion of the accused to prevent the issue from being politicized on the religion grounds. Please do not delete the article. See the sources --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

https://www.freepressjournal.in/viral/bulandshahr-sadhu-murders-twitterati-fume-trend-hindu-virodhi-bjp-and-yogi-should-resign-2

मिश्र, समीरात्मज (28 April 2020). "बुलंदशहर में मंदिर के भीतर दो पुजारियों की नृशंस हत्या, एक गिरफ़्तार". BBC News हिंदी (in Hindi).

"Uddhav Thackeray Calls Yogi Adityanath Over Murders Of 2 Sadhus In UP". NDTV.com. Retrieved 28 April 2020.

Service, Tribune News. "BJP silence over killing of sadhus in Bulandshahr comes under attack". Tribuneindia News Service. Retrieved 3 May 2020.

"Bulandshahr sadhu killing: Uddhav Thackeray asks Yogi Adityanath to take strict action against culprits". Deccan Herald. 28 April 2020. Retrieved 28 April 2020.

~~Bul, Mukul Sharma. "2 sadhus killed inside Bulandshahr temple in UP, accused arrested". India Today. Retrieved 28 April 2020. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, this a very recent event, and there is no indication that coverage of it will be lasting, as sadly both murders and politicians grandstanding for a brief surge of support following a tragic event are both common. If coverage does turn out to be maintained beyond one news cycle, the article can always be recreated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep - there may be many murders in India but ones involving sadhus are flashpoints. [2] The same month 2020 Palghar mob lynching happened. The story isn't going away anytime soon. Grmike (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Delete I checked about the subject and see that the subject attracted significant coverage only on 28 April. It is far from meeting WP:LASTING. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' WesSirius (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have attempted to simplify the sock version but I don't see any justification for keeping the article since it fails notability. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Placement[edit]

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

This organization would appear to fail the WP:CORPDEPTH test for notability. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Securities Investor Protection Corporation registration does not assist an assertion of notability: as far as I can see, registration with those authorities is no more than a mandatory requirement in the field on investment banking in the US.
WP:BEFORE done and the {{Find sources AFD}} template that will be included with this WP:AfD will yield only the company's website, press releases, and routine mentions on LinkedIn (that could be for any company, no matter of size or importance) and similar websites. Again, none of these assist an assertion of notability.
As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Previous article instances have been deleted via WP:PROD so WP:SOFTDELETE probably isn't appropriate this time. As it stands the article describes the company's operating field and sponsorship of a start-up contest, neither inherently notable. Searches are finding mention of the firm relative to project fundraising, confirming it as a company going about its business, but I am not seeing the level of specific coverage needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Blarney Pilgrims[edit]

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

run of the mill podcast MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Podcast is one of the foremost resources for discussion about the current state of Irish traditional music and features some of its most renowned exponents as guests SalvatoreBass (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (GMT+10)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find the podcast a very good source for information and learning about Irish Traditional Music. There`s interviews with well-known Irish Music musicians or with their sons and daughters who followed their parents footsteps, so there is really a connection to Irish Music history. You get to hear and know Irish Trad songs. I am from Germany and I believe quite a few German people would love to know about this podcast, as they love Irish music over here. There is no entry in the german Wikipedia version yet. So at least people can find it here. --80.139.74.65 (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. Claims like "foremost resources" are requires to be supported by references to reliable sources in order to demonstrate notability. No matter how liked a podcast is, it has to be the subject of "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" in order to be notable. There is no evidence that this podcast qualifies as such in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott E. Langum[edit]

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

Not seeing what makes him notable. Fails WP:SOLDIER and the rest is pretty standard Gbawden (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't find any SIGCOV. --MrClog (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. No press coverage to speak of and no sufficiently distinguished accomplishments. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 8 May 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. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rimba Racer[edit]

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

Previously deleted at AfD in 2016. Recreated but still sourced mostly to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Remaining sources aren’t sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing nomination with thanks to Ricky250 for their work on improving the article. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom unless anyone can find any better reliable sources for this. Having had a look, all I can see is a fair few cursory mentions but nothing else whatsoever. It may well be that there are better sources available in Malay that I can't find obviously here, but I can't find them, and unless anyone else can who understands the language enough to appropriately cite them, the article isn't suited for the wiki. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Naypta, I have added some sources from Malay articles, and one from India (in English). Hopefully it can help a bit. -Ricky250 (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per lack of reliable sources. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Greetings, i'm apologize for the lack of reliable sources for Rimba Racer, it's due to my negligence that this motion happen. I will try to find more sources to ensure Rimba Racer disqualified from the AfD. If I'm fail to find the adequate sources for the article, do delete it or keep it under incubation. Do also help me to spot the mistakes in the article. Thanks. -Ricky250 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article's sources have severally improved. Fixes in official release and others also done. Hope the Administrators can reconsider the deletion. -Ricky250 (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTV, which says, "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." Rimba Racer aired on Nickelodeon in India, and TV3 in Malaysia, both national networks. It is currently streaming on Netflix in the US, an international TV distributor. In addition to that strong claim for notability, Ricky250 is adding some helpful sources.
- "Malaysian Jungle-lympics" from the New Straits Times (2014) is a fairly lengthy article specifically about Rimba Racer.
- "The art of animation" from R.Age (2015) is mostly about young people breaking into animation, but confirms that Rimba Racer is an "award-winning local animated show."
- There's also a positive review on Anime Superhero from 2018.

I think that shows produced outside of US/Europe are at a disadvantage in notability discussions, because there are a lot more recognized reliable sources in English than there are in Malay. There isn't a lot of English-language coverage, and I don't know Malaysian media well enough to know what kind of RS coverage to expect. But this is clearly a show that was successful enough in Malaysia to get two seasons, and then get picked up by Netflix for international distribution. English speakers who see the show pop up on Netflix will naturally want more information about the show, and Wikipedia should offer it. I think the NTV pass is strong enough to establish notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above keep comments, this show is really not very notable in US or Western peers even though it keep pick up by many television networks and even Netflix US allowed to streaming the first season. Even if not very notable around Western or Europe side, that's not mean it can't be not notable at all. This WP:NTV should be considerate even more for local media that in outside Western countries even if not pickup by any national networks in Western. With enough sources to cover that media that is. SNN95 (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful if @Ricky250: could remove all the content that is sourced only to twitter, YouTube and Facebook and add any other decent sources he wants, and we’ll see what we have then. The issue here isn’t that the show ‘isn’t notable in the USA.’ The issue is that the article relies mostly on unreliable sources. Sources don’t need to be in English, but they do need to be reliable. Mccapra (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply. Hello Mccapra, I have cleaned up the Youtube, Facebook and Twitter sources and replaced them with the more on-the-web one. I hope this can be the definite end to the motion for deletion. If there's anything wrong again, let me know. -Ricky250 (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ricky250: that’s great thank you. Pinging @Naypta: and @Jcoolbro: as previous delete voters: with unacceptable sources removed and new ones added, I’m inclined to withdraw this nomination unless anyone wants to stick firmly to the case for deletion. What are your views? Mccapra (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - I think there's still stylistic issues with the article, but the additional sourcing has convinced me of notability. Well done Ricky250! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm still learning (especially in creating infobox and also wording on each paragraph correctly, I will study more into other articles in regards to animation on that part). I will do better next time. :) -Ricky250 (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ricky250: Looks good to me! Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 20:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply Thank you. With this, do I have the permission to remove the deletion message on the article Mccapra? -Ricky250 (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No leave it and the admin who closes this discussion in a day or two will take it off. All the best. Mccapra (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply Alright, thank you. -Ricky250 (talk) 10:40, 8 May 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk (t 愛 c) 06:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hennadiy Butkevych[edit]

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

Unremarkable businessman. Apparently rich, so the usual PR stuff is there. nothing indepth. First name Gennadiy is also used by some outlets, and last name Butkevich, the Instagrammer Buttkevich is not this guy though. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 7 May 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Luna[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 09:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 6 May 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Octavio Montero[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 09:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:42, 5 May 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk (t 愛 c) 06:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Óscar Cortés (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 09:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:39, 5 May 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Mariano Martínez[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 09:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 6 May 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Cardona[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 09:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 8 May 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Antonio López[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 09:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 8 May 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

José Nabor[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 09:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 09:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 6 May 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. Now sockpuppets have been identified, there is a clear consensus that this player is not notable. Fenix down (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jhai Dhillon[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources (such as Soccerbase) showing he played a first-team competitive game for Stevenage, so fails NFOOTBALL. Also fails GNG. Giant Snowman 11:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even meet our overly broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep + (Comments) He was on the books for Stevenage and was in the Youth academy, he played in some friendly first team games, but as far as I can see, he didn't make any first team apps. However he could pass WP:GNG, I am not sure a true WP:BEFORE has been done, football.london article dailystar(tabloid know) thenonleaguefootball paper, asainimage (RS?) Dunstable Today (local Dunstable newspaper) a passing mention from a BBC article. I can't be bothered to go on, but there are a fair number of articles on him, non-league football games he played in, a fair number of sites have mentioned him, profile articles are out there. Again the delete votes above are kinda pathetic and I am pretty sure that Johnpacklambert keeps popping up either delete or keep here and there without doing any research into an article! Govvy (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- He does not meet the notability guidelines for footballers. The passing references are not enough to constitute passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not looking at just a footballer, one looks for everything about a person, if it was just about football, he fail hands down, tell me, did you even bother doing one google search? Govvy (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Someone opening a restaurant and being named checked in the local rag doesn't exactly meet WP:GNG. Otherwise there'd be articles left, right and centre about semi-pro athletes who've gone on to open small businesses. --Jimbo^[online] 12:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable footballer as only played non-league, not a notable business person, the articles above are either not quite independent or are hyper-local, and the article is written promotionally. SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + (Comments) I appreciate all the comments above, but agree with Govvy, after a quick google search I was able to find an article confirming he received a pro contract with Stevenage [3]. I do believe he could pass WP:GNG, if time is taken to look into it, there are numerous sites mentioning him and quite a few articles focusing on him in particular. Small mentions: BBC article and Independent Article - only small mentions I know. Other articles more focused on him include: football.london article dailystar thenonleaguefootball National paper [4]. By no means is this a clear and cut case, but I feel the above would warrant keeping the entry live. Not speaking just in this case, but should we not all be trying to make recommendations for amendment first, in order to keep articles alive, with deletion the last possible outcome...In any case, stay safe all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukfootballfan (talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck comment as this account is a confirmed sock of Wikipagecreator101. Number 5 7 22:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking online at media articles & sites, can confirm he was a professional footballer with Stevenage [5] & also represented Panjab FA at the Paddy Power Conifa World Cup in 2020. Feel he would agree with WP:GNG. Agree on small mentions in bigger news outlets (BBC & The Guardian & The Independent). Stories on football.london football.london article dailystar dailystar are very interesting, but doesn't mean this is a clear case. If pushed for an answer, I would say this edit should be kept. Riddles89 —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]
- Struck comment as this account is a confirmed sock of Wikipagecreator101. Number 5 7 22:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Says the account created today, basically copypasting what Ukfootballfan said. You're not fooling anyone. For what it's worth, signing a contact means nothing, he had to actually play.--BlameRuiner (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - never actually made a professional appearance for Stevenage thus failing WP:GNG. Panjab aren't affliated with FIFA which again, isn't enough to fulfil the GNG or WP:NFOOTY criteria. A couple of name checks on websites doesn't meet notability criteria by any stretch of the imagination. --Jimbo^[online] 12:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Strongly suspect this is an autobiography too. Number 5 7 20:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a moment is taken to look into the requirements for WP:GNG, the article meets the several of the criteria including "Significant coverage", "Reliable" & "Sources". A lot of arguments for both keep & delete above are quite petty if I'm honest, but the criteria is there in black & white for WP:GNG. By doing a quick google search, you're able to see many articles online ("significant coverage"), from varied media outlets ("sources") and the fact they are covered by different media outlets suggests it proves ("reliable"). Wikiepagecreator101 08:46, 06 May 2020
- Comment: Thanks to the reply above (check user edit history), it's now obvious that the page under discussion was already AFD'd in March under a slightly different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhai Singh Dhillon --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think an SPI may be required here. If it's not sockpuppetry, it's blatant meatpuppetry. Number 57 09:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - With the old AfD, are we in WP:G4 territory here? Or are these different enough drafts? SportingFlyer T·C 14:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Large parts of the text are identical, but it has some new material, so not sure it's quite a G4. However, I'd be amazed if this wasn't closed as delete now, given that three of the four keep !votes are from sock or meatpuppets. Number 5 7 22:31, 8 May 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, with the provision that we should only include festschrifts that are themselves noteworthy, as demonstrated by discussion of the festschrift in multiple reliable and independent sources. BD2412 T 04:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of festschrifts[edit]

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

I have come across this article through New Page Review. There is no reasonable boundary to this topic, and the list could be expanded to hundreds of thousands of entries. I presume that most people who merited a festschrift would be notable in their field, but what the value is of starting a gigantic list of them, I don’ t know. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about List of autobiographies? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it isn’t a valid list either. Mccapra (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indiscriminate. Huge numbers of academics are the recipients of festschrifts. Even if we limited it to festschrifts that are themselves independently notable (not merely, as half of the listed ones are, redirects to a contributor or subject) it would still be too indiscriminate to make a good list. It could plausibly be a subcategory of one of the book categories, since I think it is a defining characteristic of a book. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nominator seems unfamiliar with article lists and their utility generally, as it is a commonplace consensus to limit certain lists to notable examples only rather than the "hundreds of thousands" that might otherwise be included. And if it's a d"efining characteristic" of a book as the above delete !voter states, then it's certainly not an indiscriminate basis for indexing them, and means that the same indexing scheme then passes WP:OCAT as a category Category:Festschrifts. This would then necessarily statisfy WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP. postdlf (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have Category:Festschrifts, and I'm not sure that this list adds any navigational value beyond that. In addition, it seems indiscriminately thrown together, mixing nonfiction with fiction and poetry. (Personally, I've only ever heard "festschrift" used to mean academic writing.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDUP answers why we have both lists and categories on the same subject, but regardless this list also has four other columns giving each entry more information than the category can. postdlf (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, in general, lists can bring "added value". This one doesn't. It just has more words, with less organization; it is even harder to tell from the list than from the category which items are mere redirects and which are actual articles. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I removed the link to redirects. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list shows more information than the category so is far more useful. It only list entries that have their own articles, so is not indiscriminate. Useful for navigation so meets the requirement of a list article. Dream Focus 01:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not only list books that already have articles. 7 don't; 6 do. If kept, we'd have to decide whether the inclusion should be based on the person being notable or the book. XOR'easter (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those that don't have an article for the book have an article for the editor who created it. Dream Focus 02:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but who edits a festschrift is not nearly as significant as who the person being honored is. (Consider one festschrift from 1949 that is still cited today. Who's the greater influence in the history of science, Paul Arthur Schilpp or Albert Einstein?) Putting editors first, mixing fiction and poetry in with nonfiction ... The list as it stands is so half-heartedly executed that it's hard for me to want to keep it around, even if the basic concept is legitimate. I'd rather see Festschrift built up with examples and a separate list spun off in the event that those examples become too numerous to manage there. XOR'easter (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - You see that all the people being honored have their own article. As far as the mixing is concerned, yes the list should be classified like the list of autobiographies. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge the notable (bluelinked) items to Festschrift and discard the rest. I suspect I am more inclined than David Eppstein to regard this as a potentially legitimate topic for a list, but the current implementation of that idea is too underwhelming for me to support it as a stand-alone page. A list of four items does not need its own page, and there are only four bluelinked academic books here. Even if we broaden the definition to include fiction anthologies (implausibly, to me), we only have six examples. That's enough for an "Examples" section at Festschrift, but nothing more. If we want to supplement Category:Festschrifts with additional information, then we can do it in the article Festschrift. If the "Examples" section of that article becomes excessively large, it could be split off, but I doubt that will happen. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list can be expanded and classified. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - slippery slope arguments don't persuade me. The list is readable in a few minutes. I've known lots of academics, but even Ralph Alpher didn't get a festschrift. Bearian (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article may not comply with WP:LISTCRUFT, which states a list is not accepted if "the topic is "unmaintainable". Kori (@) 20:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree that a merge into the main article is the way to go here for the notable entries. If non-notable entries are allowed, this could quickly become unmanageable. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If we allow List of autobiographies, why not this list? It will certainly remain shorter than the list of autobiographies. If we didn't allow lists like autobiographies, I would say delete, but it seems we do. Ikjbagl (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The majority of the festschrifts on this list don't have Wikipedia articles of their own. Nor is it clear what makes these particular festschrifts notable enough to be listed here. List of autobiographies is itself a bad idea, but this article needs to stand or fall on its own regardless of how it compares to that one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and limit to those notable enough for Wikipedia articles (I think most of the others here might qualify)>Lists and caegories are of course complementary, and this gives greatly more information than a list. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: Were you aware that, just among the published book reviews listed by JSTOR, over 25,000 of them use the word "festschrift"? My guess is that most of these are indeed reviews of festschrifts and that many of the festschrifts they review have enough other reviews to be notable. And that's not even counting the reviews that are of festschrifts but happen not to use the actual word "festschrift". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, we do not write articles about every book that has 2 reviews; in many fields in the humanities, there are always 2 reviews for any academic press book. Some of the books have special significance beyond what would be in the bio of the author, and in practice those get articles. We have so far managed to use reason in this area. .Similarly here. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - We're very capable of making appropriate sublists for any topic that proves too large to maintain in a single list page. postdlf (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like DGG's idea. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a million of those, this list is unmanageable both in practice and in scope. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the requirement that ~~the honored individual is already notable or~~ the Festschrift is demonstrably notable on its own merits ~~(which will almost always, in practice, amount to the same thing)~~ per DGG's suggestion. Some of the already-listed examples, e.g., Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think or Foundation's Friends are certainly notable ([6], [7], [8],[9]). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what I meant to say..(for example): Every really notable person in some of the the humanities is honored with a festschrift at their retirement. That does not mean the festscrift by itself is going to be notable-most for the time its just another line in their list of honors. Sometimes, not often, it will be itself notable and then appropriate foro an article here. DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the misreading. I was confused by which "those" were refered to but I think we agree that there are notable festschrifts and the presence of a list article linking to those is useful. I've struck out the misinterpreted portion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 09:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matran family of Shamizdin[edit]

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

Unsourced for over a decade. I've tried to find some info online but keywords like 'Aboona' or 'Shamizdin' do not yield any info on this topic. This is either a case of OR or all of the info is found in non-english literature. Semsûrî (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Semsûrî (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shemsdin (East Syriac ecclesiastical province). The issue here is the transliteration of Syriac to English, whereby words such as Abuna (Aboona) and Shemsdin (Shamizdin) are found in a variety of forms and are a nuisance to find on the internet. A quick skim read of David Wilmshurst's The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East, 1318–1913 (2000) does show this information can be provided with reliable references, but as the Matran family of Shamizdin article only refers to the bishops of that diocese, it doesn't necessarily need to be its own separate page. Mugsalot (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can support a merge. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another article about a family that has one or two notable members, but the family itself is not notable. Bearian (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable family without supporting RS. --Kbabej (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability under the GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asticlian Gambit[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has been entirely empty since creation in 2011 and has had no sources for as long. Googling turned up only links to buy it, no substantial reviews (except for on a few blogs/forums). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge per nom. Java Hurricane 08:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Updated to merge on 27 per discussion below. Java Hurricane 03:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A huge variety of products related to D&D have been created over the years and the vast bulk have little to no notability. This is a great example. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was at least one review in White Wolf Magazine that I will try to get a copy of; if so, having at least one review I will argue for at minimum a merge to a Dark Sun-related article. BOZ (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either a merge per BOZ or a redirect to List_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons_modules#D is appropriate here. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the White Wolf article, there is also a review in the British games magazine The Last Province (Issue #3, p. 10). I am searching for a copy in order to quote directly from it. Guinness323 (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete based on a review of the sources, fails WP:GNG. Fine with a merge/redirect, just not a standalone. SportingFlyer T·C 00:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question to User:CaptainEek, User:JavaHurricane, and User:CoffeeWithMarkets, now that a WP:RS review has been found and added to the article with at least a hint at more sources per User:Guinness323, would a "merge" be an acceptable result here? BOZ (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still prefer outright deletion, but a merger result would be one that I wouldn't object to. It's fine as long as the content is properly sourced, as you've mentioned, which is logical enough. Thanks for asking. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What content would be merged? The list article is very barebones in nature, with just a list of the module, and whether it ranked as one of the greatest. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you re-read the article since your nomination? A bit more has been added. Guinness323 (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness323, Ye I took a look. My point was that merging to the List of Dungeons & Dragons modules seemed no different than redirecting the page there, as the target page was barebones. But yes I would be fine with a merge as the outcome, that's a reasonable WP:ATD. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, sources currently in the article fail WP:GNG, but there is enough to warrant a merge instead of a redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Bermicourt (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reception in two secondary source has been discovered, the miniumum suggested by WP:GNG. As far as I can see, several deletion votes have not said why these secondary sources should not be preserved. That said, I would obviously prefer a merge over deletion. At least the reception section would be there to preserve. Daranios (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guinness323's addition of two reviews. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a delete after the addition of the reviews, as I'm not convinced the sources are reliable (one is from a website which tries to catalogue every RPG campaign and welcomes user contributions, the other is from a site which is trying to sell you the game directly.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Outside of the White Wolf "capsule review", the other added references are questionable as reliable sources, at best. One, as noted above, is simply an online store trying to sell the product, and the other only contains a summary of the plot and contents of the book, with no actual review or analysis of the product. The book is already present in the main list of modules, though, and merging in the information on its reception in White Wolf would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JLab Audio[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Best I could find were product reviews. Article sourcing is dismal. Kleuske (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with possible move to JLab Audio's products or List of JLab Audio products (though I am also fine with not renaming the article) per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. So, Adrienne (2019-01-27). "Review: JBuds Air True Wireless: JLab's wire-free budget earbuds sound fantastic and cost less than $50". Wired. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
2. Hall, Parker (2020-04-23). "Review: JLab Audio Go Air". Wired. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
3. So, Adrienne (2018-11-19). "Review: JLab Audio Flex Sport". Wired. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
4. Tambini, Olivia (2019-11-20). "JLab JBuds Air Executive True Wireless earbuds review". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
5. Tambini, Olivia (2019-02-19). "JLab's latest true wireless headphones can go 38 hours between charges". Techradar. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
6. Steele, Billy (2020-02-10). "JLab Go Air review: These $29 wireless earbuds are surprisingly decent". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
7. Fingas, Jon (2019-06-11). "JLab's true wireless earbuds offer 70 hours of total listening time". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
8. Fingas, Jon (2020-01-02). "JLab's latest true wireless earbuds are only $29". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
9. Hall, Parker (2019-07-29). "JLab Epic Air Sport review". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
10. Kritsonis, Ted (2018-11-08). "JLab Epic Air Elite review". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
11. Kritsonis, Ted (2018-03-16). "JLab Epic Air review". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
12. Cohen, Simon (2019-06-11). "Move over, PowerBeats Pro. JLab's $149 Epic Air Sport have 70 hours of playtime". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
13. Denison, Caleb (2011-10-13). "JLAB JBuds J4M Review". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
14. Waniata, Ryan (2012-12-16). "JLAB Diego Review". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
15. Hall, Parker (2018-10-16). "JLab's sweatproof wireless headphones are perfect for earbud-hating gym rats". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
16. Hall, Parker (2017-05-24). "JLab Block Party wireless speaker review". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
17. Waniata, Ryan (2012-12-27). "JLAB Bombora TEKST Edition Review". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
18. Hall, Parker (2017-05-24). "JLab House Party wireless speaker review". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
19. Denison, Caleb (2013-11-12). "JLab's Epic earbuds bring epic bass without the epic pricetag". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
20. Gideon, Tim (2020-04-23). "JLab Go Air Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
21. Gideon, Tim (2019-10-11). "JLab JBuds Air Icon Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
22. Gideon, Tim (2019-07-09). "JLab JBuds Air Sport Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
23. Gideon, Tim (2019-07-09). "JLab JBuds Air Executive Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
24. Gideon, Tim (2018-12-10). "JLab Flex Sport Wireless Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
25. Gideon, Tim (2018-11-28). "JLab JBuddies Studio Bluetooth Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
26. Gideon, Tim (2018-10-05). "JLab Epic Air Elite Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
27. Gideon, Tim (2018-10-01). "JLab JBuds Air Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
28. Gideon, Tim (2018-04-01). "JLab Rewind Wireless Retro Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
29. Gideon, Tim (2018-03-06). "JLab Epic Executive Wireless Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
30. Gideon, Tim (2018-01-08). "JLab Epic Sport Wireless Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
31. Gideon, Tim (2017-09-13). "JLab Epic Air Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
32. Gideon, Tim (2017-07-06). "JLab Gravity Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
33. Gideon, Tim (2017-02-27). "JLab Block Party Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
34. Gideon, Tim (2017-02-27). "JLab House Party Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
35. Gideon, Tim (2017-01-05). "JLab Flex Bluetooth Active Noise Canceling Headphones Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
36. Gideon, Tim (2016-11-04). "JLab Crasher XL Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
37. Gideon, Tim (2016-07-08). "JLab Epic2 Bluetooth Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
38. Gideon, Tim (2016-03-04). "JLab Crasher Mini Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
39. Gideon, Tim (2016-03-02). "JLab Crasher Slim Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
40. Gideon, Tim (2016-02-02). "JLab Fit 2.0 Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
41. Gideon, Tim (2016-02-02). "JLab JBuds2 Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
42. Gideon, Tim (2015-11-06). "JLab Flex Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
43. Gideon, Tim (2015-03-16). "JLab Epic Bluetooth Earbuds Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
44. Gideon, Tim (2015-02-06). "JLab Omni Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
45. Gideon, Tim (2013-12-19). "JLab Epic Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
46. Carnoy, David (2014-02-06). "JLab Epic in-ear headphones review: Not quite epic, but quite decent". CNET. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
47. France, Jasmine (2006-08-11). "JLab MiniBlaster review: JLab MiniBlaster". CNET. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
48. France, Jasmine (2006-08-28). "JLab JBuds Earphone review: JLab JBuds Earphone". CNET. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
49. Ackerman, Dan (2006-11-08). "JLab B-Flex review: JLab B-Flex". CNET. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
50. France, Jasmine (2009-01-14). "JBuds J2 review: JBuds J2". CNET. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
51. Ackerman, Dan (2006-11-08). "JLab B-Flex review: JLab B-Flex". CNET. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
52. Singleton, Micah (2018-02-25). "JLab's Epic Sport earbuds are excellent workout headphones". The Verge. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
53. Gartenberg, Chaim (2018-04-11). "JLab's Rewind wireless headphones have retro style, but dated sound". The Verge. Archived from the original on 2018-04-24. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
54. Turner, Amy-Mae (2018-06-18). "These JLab Audio Epic Air earbuds show 'true wireless' and 'sporty' aren't incompatible". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
55. Perry, Alex (2019-08-12). "JLab's Air Executive earbuds are a cheaper, respectable AirPods alternative". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
56. Katz, Lily (2020-04-22). "JLab JBuds Air review". SoundGuys. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow JLab Audio products to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I found about the company were primarily product reviews. The company's products have received substantial coverage in reliable sources, so I oppose deletion of this company from Wikipedia. I support renaming the article to JLab Audio's products or List of JLab Audio products since the sources primarily are about the products. I am also fine with keeping the article's title as is.
Cunard (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Nikthestunned (talk · contribs) and VoxLuna (talk · contribs) who commented at Talk:JLab Audio about the company's notability. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 5 May 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) Sulfurboy (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Spears[edit]

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

No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources can be found to substantiate nor prove article’s subject is notable hence fails WP:GNG. Indeed the lack of sources in this case is more than obvious. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was rated by Instinct (magazine) as one of the 10 greatest gay porn stars ever. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I don't think that being into such a list makes you notable, there are thousands of lists like that which basically are the author's favorite porn actor (infact there is not a page for each of them on wikipedia). Never the less you should add it to the article because at the moment there is hardly anything at all in the sourcing.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian and the awards the subject has won. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: you know that since we have deprecated pornbio those prizes don't count anything anymore, don't you? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The deprecation of pornbio means that the consideration of such awards is no longer codified, but not that they are completely irrelevant. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: well, we decided that they do not prove any notability anymore. anyway, do we have any source that he actually won those prizes at least? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey:Wait, my understanding is that it was decided that awards do not prove any _additional_ notability; per current WP:N there is nothing saying that porn performers are punished compared to the other performers - therefore, usual WP:GNG / WP:BIO / WP:ENT should apply (and satisfying ANY of them is good enough to establish notability). Now, if there is a (non-porn) actor with a dozen awards in their field, would we consider these awards for notability? I think yes, and then, based on the logic above, we should consider these awards when speaking about notability of a porn performer. Ipsign (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems notable in his field.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, likely interviews and articles exist but many publications of his time would be off-line. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both WP:GNG (multiple awards do indicate multiple sources), and per WP:ENT ("has made... prolific... contributions"). Ipsign (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: "likely interviews and articles exist" is not an argument here @Ipsign: as far as I know, awards and being prolific since pornbio has been deprecated do not count toward notability anymore, which is the only important thing when we decide to keep a bio. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian - Meets PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:02, 11 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Naçi[edit]

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

Fails WP:RELPEOPLE and seems non notable for now. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as the creator of the article) - if you search on google, 4,700,000 results will appear.I'm working on finding other resources and completing the article.Needs time – Tiimiii (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiimiii, the number of Google hits is irrelevant, as is the raw number of social media followers. What counts for notability is the coverage in independent reliable sources, so it would be best if you could concentrate on explaining how the available sources meet the general notability guideline. Using Google translate I can see that some of the sources you provided in the article have significant coverage, but I'm not familiar enough with Albanian publications to know whether they are reliable sources. I have cited one source in English that I could find. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see some good sources here.Vitalpantaryan (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is very notable. Many newspapers have articles on him. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is extremely well-known in Albania and the Albanian diaspora. His organization is one of the biggest charity orgs in Albania Side comment Naçi is a Muslim cleric, but he is best known for his charity work which isn't done in a religious framework, but a national one. Firdeus and the Shqiptarët për Shqiptarët are his main projects.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wide social media following and reporting thereof alone makes him notable. --Calthinus (talk) 19:52, 8 May 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 07:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bryants, California[edit]

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

Non-notable names on the map in El Dorado County, California that fail WP:GEOLAND. Looks like they appeared on some old map(s) (probably as individual household names - common on very old maps of the Sierra) and thus got entered into GNIS. I did extensive research and found absolutely no evidence that these are or ever were communities. The only google results were the usual auto-generated crud. Extensive searches through a number of archives and regional histories turned up nothing either. CJK09 (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is apparently a cemetery in Morrison. Not sure if that's enough for GNG though. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's nowhere near the Morrison that's listed on GNIS. They're 50 miles apart. It appears to be unrelated. CJK09 (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick delete all Not communities, but spam negligently mass-created in utter disregard of WP:V and WP:N. Reywas92^Talk 19:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all no evidence any of these places were ever communities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 20:28, 11 May 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 07:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastport, California[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be either a former railway station or a former tunnel entrance along a railway. Google search turns up only a few quick mentions in discussing the railroad as a whole, along with pages and pages of the usual auto-generated crud that exists for every name that's ever been on a map. It's not a community nowadays, and I can find no evidence that it ever was. CJK09 (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a community. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything that indicates this was more than a minor stop on the Sacramento Northern Railway, with perhaps a few houses nearby. Unlike mainline railway stations, interurban stops were often just a painted telegraph pole and almost never meet notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:26, 5 May 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 under criteria G4 and G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dremo (musician)[edit]

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dremo (2nd nomination), but not sure if it meets G4 criteria DannyS712 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: page was tagged for speedy deletion under G4 and G11 by @Praxidicae --DannyS712 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you don't need to note this as it's clear in the history should it be declined (and I definitely don't need the ping.) Praxidicae (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 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) 08:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Football Officials[edit]

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

It doesn't seem to be a notable article. Only Lebanon has this kind of article (X Football Officials). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 16:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only three members with articles and no other country has such lists. Ajf773 (talk) 02:49, 6 May 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. There is no consensus to delete the article. The discussion about renaming, restoring or splitting should continue on the talk page of the article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of brain mapping[edit]

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

This does not function as an outline. Instead, it's like an almanac or random listing of some associated topics, so I think this article violates WP:NOT. I think that some elements should be stripped, and the rest should be merged into Brain mapping. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated this article long ago. The original title was List of topics related to brain mapping, and the article was considerably more comprehensive. For an early version see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjlabs/List_of_topics_related_to_brain_mapping At the time the article was created major funding commitments were being made to brain mapping in the USA and Europe. The article was to show almost all topical areas that might possibly be illuminated by new, productive research efforts in that area. Much was lost in the subsequent edits including virtually all of the original cohesiveness. It was never intended to be an almanac or random listing of topics, as careful study of the outline form of the earlier version will reveal. I don't have time to invest in Wikipedia editing at this point but I commend those who do to look back at the original form and perhaps you will find that structure helpful in covering the broader picture of brain mapping. Rick (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much of a junk drawer to be a useful aid to navigation, and it seems like it's pretty much always been that way. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename back to "List of topics related to brain mapping" and restore old version of the page. This page can be viewed either as a list or a list of lists. After looking at this, I think this page does help to navigate through the subject area for a reader poorly familiar with the subject, and therefore this page is helpful. An alternative might be to split current version of the page to several pages:

"The neuron doctrine". That might be merged to neuron doctrine, but all this content is already there.
"Scientists, academics and researchers". This should be merged to page List of neuroscientists.
"Map, atlas, and database projects". Make this a List of human brain projects
"Imaging and recording systems". Make this a List of neuroimaging and recording systems and place it to "See also" of Neuroimaging. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd also support this solution - preserves content in a more logical way. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I have no strong opinion towards one solution or another. My very best wishes (talk) 23:32, 10 May 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waiuku AFC[edit]

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

Not sure how this passed an AfD ten years ago, maybe there was confusion about the team or maybe this team has been relegated. The link to the club's website is dead. Not seeing any sig coverage of this fully amateur club and no indication it would meet league notability guidelines and nothing to show GNG. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at last AFD and the fact this club has completed in the Chatham Cup, New Zealand's national cup, which has traditionally conferred notability on football clubs. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above has played in the Chatham Cup.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep competed in the main rounds of 2015 Chatham Cup and the 2018 Chatham Cup in addition to the preliminary round in the 2017 Chatham Cup easily meeting the general requirements for notability of a club, by playing in a national cup level. Given how this team has advanced since the previous AFD, I'm puzzled why it's being nominated again. Nfitz (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bowman Place, California[edit]

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

Set of non-notable ranch stubs mass-created from GNIS data and mislabeled as "unincorporated communities". Fails GNG; coverage, where it exists, does not go beyond routine announcements and passing mentions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlap Place, California[edit]

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

Ranch or homestead mislabeled as a "populated place", one of many mass-created from GNIS database. Newspaper search returned a number of "Dunlap Places" in Northern California and it's hard to discern which ones refer to this one, but none of them cover the topic in sufficient depth to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. GNIS data is too unreliable. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:47, 12 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja (singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. He also falls short of WP:SINGER & WP:NACTOR. A “before” I conducted shows him mentioned in unreliable sources which even merely discuss him in passing. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still not a notable singer. I have to wonder how some of these articles with multiple sources get renominated but we have articles with only the non-reliable IMDb which have languished in that state for over a decade. It seems like a big problem is that those who pay most attention to actor, actress and film articles accept the status quo of sourcing to only a non-reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert Please Check the article again. He is notable Singer and Actor. You Can Check Multiple News articles on google. He has acted in 4 notable movies and also received 3 Noted Awards for his acting and singing.

Virenderthind2019 (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has leading roles in two notable films, one of which earned him a Filmfare Award which is one of the most notable film awards in India. He has also won two more notable awards for his singing and has coverage in multiple national newspapers such as MidDay and others, already in the article. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, creator has added significant information on the page since nom and he has won some nationally renowned awards as well as scoring himself roles in major bollywood films. Not sure if it's mentioned in the article but he is also signed to a major label White Hill Music Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 01:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)(Sockstrike perWP:Sockpuppet investigations/TwinTurbo)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have struck the sock !vote; I personally do not see how the available coverage meets either WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. SERIAL ^# 16:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should check the Article again. He passes WP:NACTOR as he has acted in 4 noted film of which 2 movies has wikipedia articles. He passes WP:NSINGER as he has received 2 noted awards for his singing. Don't vote if you don't have time for Check the article properly.

Virenderthind2019 (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Dear admin, whenever you take a decision, before please check the article yourself. Virenderthind2019 (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Going by the article, and the discussion so far. I checked the sources as Virenderthind2019 has asked of everyone above, and I am with Atlantic306 than anyone else here. Most of the coverage, which is significant, is from TOI, but I understand it's still counted. I am not familiar with other sources but assuming at least some of them are reliable (Atlantic names MidDay above), it passes the "multiple", and therefore GNG. Then there's the fact that he's worked in a few notable projects. I understand the Filmfare win is presented a bit deceptively as it's apparently Filmfare (Punjab), not Filmfare India/Bollywood, but it's not like Punjab is a minor world community. I would require the delete !voters to present detailed analysis of the sourcing/coverage here; sweeping assertions don't seem very helpful at this juncture. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool Dear Sir, Filmfare Punjab means it belongs to Punjabi Cinema. But Filmfare is same as Filmfare Punjab is presented by Filmfare. The reference I have given for the award is publish on the official website of the Filmfare. He also received PTC Punjabi Music Awards twice for his singing, which is very notable award of punjabi music industry. He has acted in 5 movies as lead. 2 movies are notable movies and has wikipedia articles.

I think it is enough for notebility. What you say? Virenderthind2019 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 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. czar 04:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GrayStillPlays[edit]

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

No signficant coverage in reliable sources. The articles tend to be about a video that he made, and not about the person. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable YouTuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the creator of this article, I am obviously biased here, but I believe this YouTube channel passes GNG. He has received a paragraph, and thus significant coverage, in The Washington Post here:[10], and while the following articles are primarily focused on his videos, they still do provide enough coverage of him specifically to count towards a GNG pass, as can be seen here:[11], and here:[12] when translated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to pass GNG. Trivial coverage. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I added another source to the article, which can be accessed here:[13]. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give !voters the more opportunity to evaluate Devonian Wombat's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, hardly covered in media. WesSirius (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are passing mentions and some of them don't even mention the YouTuber. Kori (@) 06:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per not notable youtuber. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 13:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article focuses too much on newer videos and the subject is not of importance, all articles are very vague DCook (talk) 10:20, 11 May 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Torres[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG ².O.^Boxing 21:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hex Combat[edit]

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

Not finding reviews or coverage in reliable sources for this game. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found reliable third party coverage. There are references now. CombustibleTaco (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Struck vote of blocked sockThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source placed in the article has zero relevance to this article. The source is a non-English translation of the fiction novel Robinson Crusoe, the translation dates to 1878, and this is a game based on the Lord of the Rings, which was written in the 1950s. Did you insert the wrong references into the article? Hog Farm (talk) 14:36, 6 May 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. There appears to be a meta discussion to be had about marginally notable (or not depending on your pov) linux distros that needs to be had before a reliable consensus can be found for this content. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artix Linux[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Its references does not show notability, it is a yet another Arch-based distro. Editor-1 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several sources mention it, not only in English, but also in German: https://www.pro-linux.de/news/1/25248/artix-linux-stellt-neue-installationsmedien-vor.html https://www.linux-community.de/ausgaben/linuxuser/2018/03/provisorium/2/ 77.13.216.180 (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources cited in the article and by 77.13.216.180 to not appear to be WP:RELIABLE. I was unable to find anything better in my own search. ~Kvng (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
pro-linux.de not reliable? Was this planned as an insult? 77.13.21.155 (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my !vote. It seems I don't have enough familiarity with sources in this topic area to make a good assessment. ~Kvng (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I showed notability when I cited the distrowatch review 3 weeks ago. It's significantly different from Arch because of the available init systems. Getting a running system without systemd on a distro with systemd as default is not trivial. --ThatLinuxGuy (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — ThatLinuxGuy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DistroWatch is a Linux-focused website and has reviewed a ton of different Linux distros/releases, it can not be considered as a reliable and independent source.--Editor-1 (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Distrowatch may review "a ton of of distros" but Artix is in the top 100 of several hundreds and currently at #40 in the list of ratings. This is a Linux distro and regarding Linux distros, Distrowatch is as good a source as any; we can't expect an article from the NYT. Softpedia, which covers a much broader spectrum of software, including Windows and Android, hosts a review on Artix. Also Artix is not just "another Arch derivative" with a modified logo, it uses fundamentally different init systems and doens't just rebrand Arch. Ckom26 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here are two blog posts in Spanish that discuss how Artix Linux works and how it is completely different from Arch Linux https://lamiradadelreplicante.com/2017/07/30/manjaro-openrc-da-paso-a-artix-linux and https://maslinux.es/artix-una-distribucion-de-arch-sin-systemd/ Glats (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Softpedia is notable and reliable and covers more than just Linux — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C58:7200:60F0:0:0:0:128 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On Slant, Artix is listed as the top distro without systemd. Devuan is listed as #2 and also has a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devuan | Antergos is a discontinued Arch-based distro which has a Wikipedia page. The Antergos page's external links are to the (now defunct) Antergos website, DistroWatch, and Open Source Feed (which is of a lower level of notability than Artix's references) | BlackArch is another Arch-based distro with extra cybersecurity tools added on top. The external links on the BlackArch page are only to the BlackArch website itself. Gloggy (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloggy: You can only vote once per discussion, you have voted multiple times here. You can comment all you like, but please strike all but one of your votes. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 10:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~duplicate vote - Continuing the aforementioned Softpedia and Slant references: Softpedia ranks quite high at #2205 in Alexa, while Slant also gets a good ranking at #8044. Distrowatch is lower at at #28645, but still it's referenced in virtually every linux distro Wikipedia article and is the industry standard in linux distributions. Having a 5/5 review in Softpedia and the high ground (pardon my awful pun) in Slant should be enough notability for everyone. Ckom26 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arch Linux. Its Pacman based, and not that different from Arch. I think it would go well as a single sentence/section mention on Arch Linux in the "Derivatives" section, such as "Artix Linux is closely based off of Arch Linux that uses OpenRC, runit or s6 init instead of systemd." The existing sources on the article are bad. The sources found here, not much better. Couple of blogs? A community website? That's not reliable. The arguments for keeping based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are poor, and if anything point out the fact that we are covering waaaayy too many obscure Linux distributions. Sidenote: I'm seeing shenanigans in this AfD, with a lot of SPA comments and Linux defenders who have come out of the proverbial woodwork, closer please look at this one real careful. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 10:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a really valid argument, unless Wikipedia decides to merge all derivative Linux distros back to their 7-8 parents. If you look into the list, you'll see dozens of distros with standing Wikipedia pages whose external links are only pointing to their official websites. The Softpedia source is at least a full review and way better than the one-line FSF endorsement presented at the AfD talk of Parabola, which went undecided.

So, the question is, how many notable sources does an article have to present in order to prevent deletion? At least one apparently, but while Artix meets the criterion, other, longer standing Linux distribution articles seem to get away with just their official websites.

Furthermore, I can discern an unnecessary of tone of mockery and quipping in your comment which is neither neutral nor helpful, while Editor-1, who opened this discussion and is also in favour of deletion, keeps his arguments to the point. Ckom26 (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with minimal mention to Arch Linux. Closer should take note that all keep votes are new editors with ~10 edits who seem to have magically found this AFD within their first 10 edits. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss the point here: it's not the number of votes that counts, it's the arguments they present. AFAIK, the best argument (the Softpedia review) was presented by an unsigned user. Ckom26 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (short term - in WP thats a long term): Ultimately there is a case for a subpage of Arch linux: Arch linux derived distributions which could cover distributions such as this which have significant unique point(s) but would best practive not in their own article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Djm-leighpark: I am agree with having an article for "Arch Linux derived distributions" because this is not my last nomination! there are a bunch of similar articles in Category:Arch-based Linux distributions which most of them are non-notable and should be deleted, so it is better as soon as possible to create the proposed article.
I have an idea! move this article to "Arch Linux-based Linux distributions" or "Arch Linux derivatives", there are also similar articles:
* Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives
* List of Gentoo Linux derivatives
By this move there will be no need to merge this to another page, and it makes the way to merge other similar articles. Who are agree?!--Editor-1 (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor-1: This is a discussion to be had at WikiProject level prior to nominating the first of a bunch of articles at WP:AfD. It doesn't mean every Arch derived distro loses its own article, Manjaro being the article that comes to mind. In the interim this is a keep. I love to drop RL and commitments to clean/improve other articles in my stewardship to do this but I'm not sure I should be rushed to do so (see my talk page). I don't like list of as I the distros may have more that can be covered in a list. In terms of move that may be controversial so it should go through a proposal following a keep. It may be better to create a new article, perhaps asking someone at WikiProject Computing for someone without a negative interest. (Having nom'd this for deletion apparently not going via WikiProject Computing for alternatives and this likely heading for Keep I feel I have some concerns Editor-1 may now hot have the subjects best interests; though quite frankly I think I am broadly in agreement with Editor-1's direction, though I'm a little hesitant to commit to it currently) Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arch-based Linux distributions is just an indexing article (same applies to List of Gentoo Linux derivatives and Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives). As you have already noted, most of distributions listed there also have a dedicated Wikipedia article but most don't contain notable sources. However, merging all separate articles in the derivatives lists would reduce the lists into a chaotic reference and lose valuable information contained in the stand-alone articles. Taking a quick glance at a few distro articles, I find some of them to be well-written and concise while others just advertise their merchandise. My suggestion is not to be overly aggressive and start deleting individual articles, but do a quality control: ring the bell to articles lacking sources, being overly promotive or just being badly-written. Ckom26 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that Softpedia is generally a reliable source, but I don't think it provides significant coverage of the subject such as to help with notability. They provide routine news-like coverage of many software packages like this one and of other types. The German and Spanish language sources did not convince me; they were blog posts on Linux blogs that didn't provide significant coverage and were basically installation instructions or bare bones reviews/support pieces. I maintain that Listicles do not confer notability, and I think I'm starting to believe that comparing one page to another may be wrong (because maybe the other page should be deleted, too; or the comparison is inapt). In sum, I'm not convinced by the sources so far, and the subject doesn't seem notable enough for its own page. Ikjbagl (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more consensus for how sources presented follow Wikipedia guidelines for establishing notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikjbagl: Pro-linux.de in an online internet portal what has been around since 1999 (in contrast, WP since 2001), providing news, articles, workshops tutorials and forums. It's really derogatory and misleading to call it a "blog", unless you were referring only to the spanish-language sources, in which case you should rephrase. Linux-community.de is one of the largest german online magazines with news, articles, IT job market classifieds and more and is operated by COMPUTEC MEDIA GmbH, which also publishes LinuxUser (since at least 2000) and Linux Magazin in Germany. Softpedia needs no introductions, but the Artix review is signed and far from "routine" or templated (after all, it's a review - not news material). Now, the very first 2 WP-approved notable sources in the AfD template are "news" and "newspapers" which is precisely what the 3 aforementioned sources are, unless we've started using newspeak here and sophistry.

Keep - Artix Linux is growing quickly and has become the number one non-systemd distro. Even if it uses Arch as its base, it has become its own thing. The init system and process supervision are vital parts of a GNU/Linux or UNIX system that are way more important than the package manager. From this point of view, even Manjaro is closer to Arch. If Manjaro deserves its own article then Artix deserves it at least as much. Liebeskind (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe Artix Linux is notable because it has existed for several years and is ongoing, and generates independent and current discussion on various platforms e.g.: https://unix.stackexchange.com/search?q=%22Artix+Linux%22 https://www.reddit.com/r/artixlinux/ (and if you search on Twitter for "Artix Linux" there is a lot of discussion too but the link was blacklisted when I put it here so I had to delete it.) I expanded the stub and was careful to stick to verifiable factual and historical details, and I'm happy to see the page has continued to grow. Artix Linux is a fully working actively maintained and updated operating system that can be used for home or business purposes, and the Wikipedia article provides a helpful service to readers by informing them about this free software. Artix isn't Arch, the projects are quite distinct, it might be unwise to have them on the same page as occasionally you may see some friendly rivalry. (I added Artix Linux to the list of Arch Linux derivatives on 11th September 2019 to the Arch Linux page and it was deleted 6 days later.) --Ghaatk (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just your entry that was removed a list with the title "Current derivatives with own articles include " was removed. Your edits on the List of derivatives are still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejose1 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The only independent sources privided in the references are softpedia and Distrowatch. Just two independent sources are quite low for a wikipedia artcile. Out of the two Distrowatch even though less popular than Softpedia provides better and more comprehensive coverage of the topic that it deals with ie Linux distributions. Softpedia is like the 'Daily Mail of softwares'. It's comment on Atrix is neither complete nor comprehensive. The DistroWatch review however provides more coverage. The article in german site pro-linux.de is more of a news story than a significant mention. linux-community.de provides it significant coverage and it is very critical of the version it reviewed. Distrowatch gives it a favourable review. The two spanish websites not referenced in the article but referenced in this discussion, similarly only give it a news story like treatment. One of them is a blog as well. The linked articles are the only significant mention of the OS on the respective websites. These references are old as well. In the software world, where things are in constant flux, the references being old and there being no further mentions shows a lack of notability. The article is not neutral as it selectively includes the overtly positive insignificant mention from softpedia and only the positive part from Distrowatch. As it stands Artix linux is a niche operating system that does not use systemd. It does have a good community behind it. It's not insignificant but not sigificant enough for lack of reliable sources for a Wikipedia article.That said, it could gain popularity in the future and thus significant coverage.It can have a dedicated article then. I agree with @CaptainEek: that it is better to be merged into Arch with proper mention of its differences, mainly the absence of systemd which technically is notable but nit unique. Joejose1 (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per Joe above, only two sources seem like reliable reviews. Still, I think two is enough to satisfy GNG. It's borderline, but probably notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arch Linux per WP:ATDM; insufficent persistent in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. serial ^# 18:10, 13 May 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 07:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Projection People[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Pretty much all of the refs are either dead or don't support notability (the Isthmus is a free weekly alternative newspaper, and I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source). --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not enough RS. Caro7200 (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the Isthmus looks like a reliable source with prizes for its journalism and notable ex -journalists, the AV club is another reliable source if the link can be fixed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails every point of WP:MUSIC - only award is a small local award, no indication of a national tour (looks like they rarely perform), no charting singles/album, etc. Royal broil 12:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persiana[edit]

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

Not notable. It was deleted in Persian Wikipedia: AfD in Persian Wikipedia. Telluride (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Telluride (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TomStar81 (Talk) 13:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although there is a concurring delete, TomStar81 provided no justification for his vote. Pinging user and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A note for nom, whether or not an article was deleted on another Wiki has little to no bearing on this wiki. Two separate projects. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy: It is not a notable Persian network and is not supported by Reliable sources. Telluride (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gondor#Fictional geography. No objection to bold changing of the target as there is no clear consensus where it should point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor[edit]

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

This is an essay that has never been published in it's entirety if the article is believed, and may not have actually been finished. The only source I can find that really discusses this work is [14]. That source isn't a review, but it does talk about the essay and how it reflected Tolkien's changing ideas of his fictional phonologies, which I concede is a slight indication of importance. You may respond with WP:NBOOK #5. I personally read NBOOK #5 as being common-sense enough to exclude unfinished and unpublished essays that don't seem to garner much scholarly attention, but I don't know if that view is widely held by the community or not. Hog Farm (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Most of Tolkien works have been studied to death, but right now I am also not seeing enough to make this essay notable. No, not everything penned by a notable author is notable, WP:NBOOK requires 2+ reviews, or other indications of impact, and this is not shown currently (Tolkien Encyclopedia discusses it in a single paragraph: [15]; I don't think that qualifies as in-depth treatment). The source cited by Hog Farm ([16]) would pass in-depth, but how reliable is Tengwestië The online journal of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship? See also [17]/Elvish Linguistic Fellowship. I am afraid this may be not scholarly but just scholarly-like fan analysis. PS. Still, all things considered, I am leaning towards that source being in-depth and reliable. If anyone can show another source of similar or higher quality that is in-depth I'd be willing to change my vote to keep. But right now I am not seeing it, and one passable source is not enough in light of our policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, the worst case here would be merger into another page such as J. R. R. Tolkien bibliography or Gondor#Fictional_geography. But WP:NBOOK is indeed applicable: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a never fully published essay.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK #5, which says nothing about whether a work needs to be finished or published. It says that "the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study," which for Tolkien it obviously is. You can nitpick any individual source to death if you want to, but the deletion rationale is basically "there aren't any secondary sources discussing this work, except for..." and then that's followed by a list of all the secondary sources that discuss the work. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Tolkien's shopping list notable then? How about his college term papers? Also, the sentence immediately after NBOOK number 5 states that yet-to-be published works are outside of the scope of NBOOK. This would have to be judged by GNG, which it doesn't seem to meet because the analyzed sources don't seem meet GNG per Piotrus' analysis. Hog Farm (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to J.R.R. Tolkien bibliography ~~as I believe this just barely passes GNG. Of course,~~ as this book was never published, it does not pass WP:NBOOK #5. However, I believe the paragraph of coverage it received in the Tolkien Encyclopedia counts as significant coverage, and therefore towards a pass of GNG. Per Piotrus’ comments above, the other sources identified are probably reliable, and therefore also count towards GNG, meaning this article satisfies it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Changing my vote, as I no longer consider the coverage in the Tolkien encyclopaedia to be significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a suitable merge or redirect target? b uidhe 01:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Light Merge/Redirect to J. R. R. Tolkien bibliography. Piotrus' analysis seems pretty spot-on to me. However, given that while the sources do not push it past the WP:GNG, they do warrant it being mentioned on Tolkien's bibliography page, with a note indicating that it was unpublished. Rorshacma (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Answering Hog Farm's question about shopping lists and college term papers: Yes, if Tolkien's completed shopping lists were notable, then his unfinished shopping list could be notable as well. Juvenilia for well-studied authors are sometimes notable; if any of Tolkien's college term papers were preserved in the archives then they would probably be reprinted and studied. Piotrus' analysis is nitpicking sources and blowing smoke. "I am afraid this may be not scholarly but just scholarly-like fan analysis" is a weak argument; any published literary criticism could be termed "just scholarly-like fan analysis" if IDONTLIKEIT. Hog Farm is advocating a "common sense" reading of NBOOK. It is common sense to say that a well-studied author's unfinished essay can be notable, and sliding it down the slippery slope doesn't turn it into a shopping list. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to an article about the world from LOTR, since the essay is the author's attempt to clarify an in-universe issue. I don't see the need to add it to a bibliography as anything more than a letter, but I wouldn't object to it if the bibliography is set up for these kinds of letters. Jontesta (talk) 23:28, 9 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Care Hospitals[edit]

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

No credible citations. Out of 4, 2 references are originating from self-published sources. - Hatchens (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 of the references on the article confirms that the subject passes WP:GNG. Also check [18][19]. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly for a hospital, it has a nearly non-existing presence in the news or any scholarly journals - fails to pass WP:GNG without any doubt. On top of that, 50% of references are self-published. The subject of the article is trying to masquerade as a Wikipedia entry. Simply Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens, how can you say "Delete per nom" when you are the nom? And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that this topic doesn't pass GNG "without any doubt"? As the native languages of the headquarters of this company are Telugu and Urdu, are you a fluent reader in both and you've completed an extensive WP:BEFORE search in both of them? Oakshade (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, I am justifying my nomination. I guess, its not a crime. - Hatchens (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a Wiki crime. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this."Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so mortified. Thank you for the enlightenment. - Hatchens (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, If the subject is well known in its native language such as Telugu and Urdu. Then, why there are no articles about it in those language wikis? Anyway, I cannot understand your aggressive defense for the subject. Let other's decide. Peace!- Hatchens (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you've not researched in either of the native languages of the headquarters of this company. It's quite common for topics in non-English speaking countries to have articles in English WP but not in that country's language WP. And we are letting others decide. It's when you make dubious claims of a topic not passing GNG "without any doubt" you are going to be called on it. That's not stopping others from deciding. Oakshade (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of doing nonsensical argument over here. Why don't you edit the subject's English Wikipedia page by using proper notability driven sources and justify your stand with regards to WP:GNG. Seriously, dude... you need to chill. - Hatchens (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, notability is not based on sources in the article but the existence of sources - see WP:NEXIST. You really should become familiar with the fundamental basics of notability standards and WP:AFD before starting AfDs.Oakshade (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of suitable source(s). Not just a source or couple of sources! Anyway, can you find a few relevant ones and add them to the article contextually? And, let far more competent authority decide the further course of action. Relax! - Hatchens (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Even the nom admits two of four references in the article are independent of the subject and both of those appear to demonstrate passing of GNG. That there are two primary references is simply a red herring. In addition to the coverage found by Aman Kumar Goel, Health Affairs published a report with extensive coverage of this hospital.[20]Oakshade (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade In Health Affairs article, the subject barely gets couple of passing mentions. First one, Para 4, Page: 1264 and second one is at endnote section, No:8, Page: 1269. I simply don't understand how this reference qualifies the subject to pass WP:GNG and in what context. On top of that, why this reference was never been used in the article before. You are going in all directions which I cannot comprehend. Let far more competent authority decide the further course of action. Peace! - Hatchens (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? The ENTIRE FIRST SIX PAGES is about Care. A source doesn't have to continuously print the name when there's a story about them. It can "mention" the name just one time and still go into detail of the topic. But even so, I counted 25 times "Care" (capital "C") is printed.Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ENTIRE FIRST SIX PAGES of only one article source doesn't justify the notability of the subject. Even if you keep counting it 25 times or more. Period! - Hatchens (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Circling back to the original !vote, the entire first six pages of that source dedicated to this topic which you now are admitting (thanks for putting it in all-caps) is in addition to the two sources you admitted in the nom statement that are independent of the topic. Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oakshade, your circling back is actually called the manipulation of AfD discussion for whatever reason may be. This is what I do ADMIT at this particular hour (thank me again if you want to for putting it in all-caps). Again, I am requesting you... if you have any relevant sources to add to the article, then do it contextually. And, let far more competent authority decide the further course of action. Why so serious? - Hatchens (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even after the vigorous resistance shown by a certain user, the article page is not updated with any relevant contextual references (as requested). Besides that, when I studied the edit history of this article - Avinashmatta (12:45, 16 August 2017‎) and IP address:183.82.122.186 (10:43, 3 August 2017‎) made two similar kinds of edits in 2017 and both have clearly stated in the edit summary, "I received the information directly from the CARE Hospitals communication department." This is now beyond doubt, this page has been created by certain individuals as per the directives provided by the entity mentioned in the article. However, I am hoping for getting sufficient participation before this AfD gets relisted. Everyone, kindly cooperate and let's derive an apt conclusion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to become familiar with WP:NOTABLITY, WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST which only requires the existence of sources, not that they be already placed in the article, context or not. Oakshade (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Oakshade. Your point has been duly noted! - Hatchens (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete promo article on a company that fails WP:ORGCRIT due to lack of coverage. --Cedix (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is very in-depth coverage by Health Affairs plus two of the four independent coverages already in the article lack of coverage? Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources has been demonstrated by the links already included above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fifth largest healthcare provider in India. [[21]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Vernacotola[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. No article exists on this subject in Italian Wikipedia. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although I haven't found any big media talking about the subject, there are plenty of refs in the article to make it pass the WP:GNG. The article definitely needs clean up. Less Unless (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:41, 5 May 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. Possibly this could be looked again if the promised sources don't pan out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Paull[edit]

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

Non notable actor. IMDb is the only external link in the article. WP:BEFORE shows no significant coverage against any of her main roles. Many roles seem to be minor or uncredited. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant roles in Return to Eden, Cluedo and Boulevard of Broken Dreams is good for WP:NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- duffbeerforme do you know of any reliable sources that could confirm this? WP:NACTOR is useless without any substantial independent coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiffbear88, there are sources at newspapers.com. I'm applying for a couple of articles to be clipped now. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I agree with Duffbeerforme's thoughts regarding WP:NACTOR, and there is also some coverage in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, which makes for a weak WP:GNG case: here and here. There are some more sources, too, where the subject goes by the name "Nicola Paull", which I am happy to request be clipped if anyone wants to see more coverage. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this Dflaw4 - has any of the coverage you’ve seen covered her roles in Cluedo and Boulevard of Broken Dreams (mentioned above)? I’ve found nothing significant for these. I feel that even with the sources you’ve found, we don’t have anything to form more than a very short stub biography. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiffbear88, I recall seeing some coverage regarding her role in Cluedo, under the name "Nicola". I don't know how in-depth it is, but I'll apply to have some articles clipped. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiffbear88, as regards the two roles that you mentioned, I haven't come across anything more than mere mentions. If the page is kept, I will add sources to at least verify that she had those roles, but they wouldn't, on their own, go towards GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as does have prominent roles for WP:NACTOR and some reliable sources coverage, more would be helpful, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:33, 5 May 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 Shaniko, Oregon. There is no.clear consensus on target so no.objection to someone changing it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaniko Junction, Oregon[edit]

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

This is a highway junction which has been mislabeled as a "populated place" by GNIS. No evidence of a settlement here, much less a notable one. –dlthewave ☎ 23:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shaniko, Oregon. This is the name for the road junction between US 197 and US 97. SportingFlyer T·C 00:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dlthewave, I'd appreciate seeing any evidence you have that this is an erroneous listing in GNIS. Here are some images from Google earth that would seem to verify GNIS got it right, that Shaniko Junction actually is inhabited:

In addition, I've clipped news articless from newpapers.com. The initial search returned 37 articles, with many only listing Shaniko Junction on a long list of raid conditions on snowy Oregon highways. I left those for roads scholoars, and clipped the following:

Shaniko Junction is "the southern terminus of the Sherman highway", "on U. S. No. 97 as 97W".
Probe cost of resurfacing Bend Highway
Route No. 97

Strategic military highway system

It has its uses

Stop sign appears on Dalles-California highway

Changed highway nsumber

Another highway number change

Several major state roads now receiving new numbers

More highway bonds

Portland woman accident victim

Accidents kill 12 in Oregon

Highway 197 contract is awarded

Biggs bus trips to be cut

Chers! – Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a newspapers.com search and didn't find anything which wasn't directly related to it being a highway junction, with no evidence it's a populated place apart from being a highway junction landmark. That's why I think a redirect is proper here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shaniko, Oregon, because it seems to be an intersection within the town. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless nom provides evidence that it has been mislabeled as a "populated place" by GNIS. GNIS is a reliable source. Shaniko Junction is NOT an intersection within the town of Shaniko, Oregon, which is about 11 miles notheastof the intersection. It's actually much closer to Willowdale, Oregon, and the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. See the USGS deatil page. Please also view the Google earth street view images in the links I provided in my comment above before you conclude GNIS miscategorized this populated place. Under WP:NGEO, Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS is notorious for mislabeling things as "populated places" and isn't considered a reliable source for that description. As confirmed by recent AfDs [22] [23] [24], the label seems to be applied to anything that doesn't fit into a predefined category such as "hill" or "lake" or "river"; this includes everything from industrial rail spurs to the headquarters of a park. But that's a moot point in this case because GNIS describes Shaniko Junction as a "locale". Somewhere along the line, someone changed the article to include "unincorporated community" which is entirely unsourced. Pointing to buildings on Google Streetview doesn't meet our verifiability requirements, and none of the newspaper articles give anything more than a passing mention. There's no sign what this is a "legally recognized populated place" so per WP:GEOLAND and WP:GEOFEAT, a named highway junction would need to meet GNG which I don't believe this one does. –dlthewave ☎ 15:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: In [25] you said, Venturing a bit into OR territory, Google Maps shows that the rest are also located on railroad spurs or junctions. You thus used Google maps to verify no buildings at the sites of railroad junctions in that previous AfD. But for Shaniko Junction you reject the visible evidence that there are multiple buildings and at least one mailbox and a satellite dish viewable on Google earth? I'm not offering the Google earth images as evidence of notability, but rather as a common sense verification that the GNIS information is valid, not erroneous, and that it is in fact a "populated place", meeting WP:NGEO. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually classified as a "locale" by GNIS, which defines locale as Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places, mines, and dams (battlefield, crossroad, camp, farm, ghost town, landing, railroad siding, ranch, ruins, site, station, windmill). (emphasis mine). My Google Street View research shows there's nothing in the vicinity which says you are entering Shaniko Junction, just a road junction, a house, and a pile of something that's been mined. We've also been going through and culling a lot of mass-created GNIS stubs of late, since the GNIS is just a database of anything that's ever appeared on a topography map, and because the United States treats towns different from other countries where land use occurs at the state or country/federal level. SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I appreciae efforts to delete mass-produced GNIS-inspired stubs. But I think that's not what we are dealing with here. The article was created in 2010, and the original text identified it as "an unincorporated locale". This diff erroneously replaced locale with community in 2014.

The GNIS definitions were migrated from the old FIPS, the database used prior to the 2010 census which does list FIPS 41/66710 Shaniko Junction as "locale".

The MAF/TIGER (Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing) database replaced FIPS after the 2010 census, and the term changed to "C3081 Locality point", defined as "A point that identifies the location and name of a locality (e.g., crossroad, community, populated place or locale) that usually does not have a formally established boundary". Shaniko junction is shown with class code U6 "A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name."(emphasis mine) I was initially confused by the pileup of modifiers in that description, but then I compared it to the next class code, "U8 A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place that does not have an official federally recognized name". Clearly, the intent is to differentiate whether or not a populated place has a federally recognized name.

I think this locality point falls under WP:GEOLAND which says, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wasco County, Oregon. The sources provided by Grand'mere Eugene only provide evidence of WP:ITEXISTS, not that there is any independent notability as anything other than a convenient reference point in the middle of lots of nowhere. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd appreciate comments of others on the questions of

the reliability of the FIPS class codes and GNIS class codes, and
whether Shanika Junction is "A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name", as it was designated in the FIPS, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication, Volume 55, Issue 3, Part 3, p36.

Are FIPS and GNIS both wrong?

If so, perhaps a redirect to U.S. Route 197 (for which Shaniko Junction is the southern terminus), would be appropriate.

If not, it meets WP:GEOLAND.

Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand'mere Eugene: Sorry I'm the one who keeps coming up with comments here, but as I've noted above GNIS has been held to not meet the requirements of WP:GEOLAND - see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centennial, Arizona, where we had a GNIS populated place stub about a wash where no one has ever lived (got a little bit into the WP:OR weeds with that one, but it first appeared on a topo map after the highway was built. No structures were ever at that site using historic imagery.) There's lots of other similar examples where railway sidings are classified as communities because the GNIS is really a database of topographic map labeling and not a legally binding document. The only references I've seen to Shaniko Junction don't talk about it as a community but rather as the end point of US 187, unlike say Interlachen where there's plenty of sources showing that it's known as a community and is distinctly referred to by the county even though it's not incorporated. Hopefully someone other than me will come along and agree! SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to U.S. Route 197#Oregon, it's also the name of a 7.5 min. quadrangle, plausible search term. It's the name of a highway junction, the highway article which actually mentions is a better target than the town or county. fiveby(zero) 16:15, 13 May 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.