Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 4: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Adriano (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Steam Early Access games}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Steam Early Access games}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GyazMail}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GyazMail}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 02:15, 4 November 2017

< 3 November 5 November >

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 no consensus. Neither side is budging on this, and the personal attacks don't help either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Adriano

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO as awards are niche or scene related. The article is sourced to online directories and industry PR materials; significant RS coverage not found. The article was kept at the 2013 AfD as meeting PORBIO at that time, i.e. multiple award nominations. However, PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then. The community consensus also appears to have evolved that articles on adult actors need to demonstrate that reliable, 3rd party sources indeed exist. So I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies two of the four criteria under WP:DIRECTOR:
  1. Adriano is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". John Stagliano: "He understands the erotic value of POV. Through his lighting, framing and choice of women he creates ass images of voluptuous perfection. And when he perfectly frames one girl sucking his cock while another sucks his balls and a third licks his asshole, we are seeing erotic art on the highest level. He is a true fetishist, exploring ass, tits and oral sex with intimate power." Bonnie Rotten: "Mike Adriano was one of the first people who made me want to direct." Candice Dare: "I like working for Mike Adriano. It's always a hard day, just because he has a big cock and there's lots of gaping. I think it’s cool when I go back and I see the gape. It's really weird because he always wants to see how big your gape can get. It's like oh my god, I didn't know my butthole could do that. I've worked for Adriano a lot."
  2. Adriano is "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". Peter Warren at AVN: "The signature style that won Adriano this year's AVN Award for Best POV Sex Scene reigns supreme in American Anal Sluts, which focuses on the director's main interest of anything to do with a girl's ass, including gaping, anal toys, A2M and butt-licking." AVN: "Mike's trademark POV style that helps viewers immerse themselves in the action ... Fans of Adriano’s work know him best for producing anal scenes; however, his work in blowjob and oral releases for Evil Angel has garnered him the most industry awards."
    Besides which, he has won four AVN Awards for his directing.— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Adriano. Minor porno actor, but more important as a porn director. In any event, article and coverage did not get worse in the meantime. Serial AFDs ought to have a good reason. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added sections on "Gonzo pornography" and "Influence", with academic references from Porn Studies (Maina and Zecca 2016) and from an anthology on paratext[!] (Saunders 2014), as well as some of the AVN material provided by Malik Shabazz above (thanks!). Adriano may not have originated gonzo pornography (his colleague and studio head John Stagliano did that) but he appears to have been influential in pushing it, and its performers, to extremes.
On AVN and XBIZ as sources: WikiProject Pornography has specifically addressed industry sources, and it characterizes AVN as a "reliable source for adult industry news and movie reviews", with some caveats. It characterizes XBIZ flatly as a "Reliable source for adult industry news", without any caveats. While community consensus on a wider scale could in theory override the local consensus of WikiProject Pornography per section WP:LOCALCONSENSUS within policy WP:CONSENSUS, I see no signs at RSN or elsewhere of any movement toward such a contrary wider consensus.
On changes in WP:PORNBIO: I checked the version of 1 August 2013, at the time of the first AfD nomination. The only substantive difference from the current version of that section is that the clause "or has been nominated for such an award several times" in the old version is omitted from the current one. It has not been "tightened" in any other way. And the relevant section for this article is WP:DIRECTOR anyway, not WP:PORNBIO.
On alleged evolution of a community consensus that "articles on adult actors need to demonstrate that reliable, 3rd party sources indeed exist": for all of the special notability guidelines, satisfying the condition of the guideline is supposed to be presumptive evidence of notability in and of itself. Any demand for additional evidence of notability, above and beyond that, would defeat the purpose of the special notability guidelines. It would render them superfluous. It would amount in effect to repealing the special notability guidelines altogether, and accepting only WP:GNG as evidence of notability. That approach is favored by a vocal faction, but it is explicitly rejected by WP:N, the guideline of which WP:GNG is merely one section. I don't see any consensus for repealing WP:PORNBIO, WP:DIRECTOR, or any other special notability guideline—nor any evolution of community consensus in that direction.
—Syrenka V (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
—Syrenka V (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also just now noticed, and reverted, your removal of the book reference I had added (Saunders 2014) based on the claim that IGI Global is an "academic vanity press". I see no evidence of that, and it is not on WP:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business.
—Syrenka V (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your assertions regarding the purported reliability of these sources. I reject them. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
WP:CONSENSUS describes the iterative processes of editing and discussion that generate consensus and legitimize its outcome as authoritative. The general picture is of a slow, extended process, highly visible to the community over a period of time, with participation available to all who are interested in the topic on which consensus is being built. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS places the consensus of policies and guidelines at the top of the hierarchy, since their effects are pervasive across a wide variety of topics, and mandates especially conservative procedures for modifying them.
So how do AfD discussions measure up on this scale? They just barely qualify as generating consensus at all. Even with multiple relistings, the fate of an article is decided, in a way that is not easy to reverse, over less than a month. They do not appear to attract a representative sample of those interested in the topic, nor is it easy to see how they could, given the short time frame—and that Wikipedians have lives.
This is why the admonitions of WP:CONSENSUS, that narrower levels of consensus should defer to wider ones, and that votes and pure opinion should count for little or nothing, apply especially strongly to AfDs. AfD consensus is about as narrow as Wikipedia consensus can get. AfDs are answerable to policies and guidelines, not the other way around. And the same is true even of broad consensus at a level lower than policy—such as that of longstanding, highly visible projects concerned with the relevant subject matter. What any one editor thinks of AVN and XBIZ as sources is less relevant than what WikiProject Pornography thinks. It's true that Wikipedia consensus cannot legislate matters of basic fact; we're still free to argue that WikiProject Pornography is simply wrong about this, but the burden of proof is very much on those who would make that claim, not on those who agree with the project. It's also possible to generate a level of consensus that would trump the project's consensus—for example, by writing specific caveats against sources from the adult film industry into the policies and guidelines. Yet another possibility is for those who want to see stricter rules on sources to enter WikiProject Pornography and change its consensus directly.
But these attempts should be made at the appropriate places, like policy, guideline and project talk pages, or RSN, or the Village Pump. AfDs are not the place to try to gain leverage against established wider consensus.
—Syrenka V (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "retouched PR copy" statement is baseless, the relevant special notability guideline (as noted repeatedly) is WP:DIRECTOR rather than WP:PORNBIO, and the mentions in Porn Studies are not "in passing". They are used to illustrate the central points that Maina and Zecca are making. They don't critique Adriano; they use his work to critique gonzo pornography—and to identify it as "the privileged choice of award-winning directors such as ... Mike Adriano".
—Syrenka V (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop lying, Syrenka V. It's not at all "baseless", as you so falsely declare, to say that AVN posts retouched and recycled PR copy. It's a simple fact. It's been demonstrated repeatedly. Before I posted here, I checked the specific article at issue. Here's just one example of the PR source [1]. Here's another [2]. Your "point" about BLP and RS not specifically citing AVN and XBIZ as unreliable sources is just plain crap. The pages don't warn us "explicitly" against using the Weekly World News, Vox Populi, or reaganwasright.com, either, because there are way, way, way, way too many unreliable sources out there to list. You've only been editing for about three months, and it's clear you don't understand the policies you attempt to invoke. It's time for you to pull back and pay attention to the established practices of the more experienced community here. And that distorted quote you provide from "Porn Studies" is just a passing mention, as is clear from the text without your curiously selective editing: "the first sequence with a 'tease' or 'interview'. the second sequence with sex. These materials represent the real industrial backbone of contemporary gonzo in terms of volume of production; moreover, this model is often the privileged choice of award-winning directors such as Mason, Mike Adriano,and Jules Jordan". The real text tells us that directors like Adriano and others adhere strictly to a conventional structure, which is hardly supportive of the claims you make about Adriano's distinctive style, to the very limited extent that the text says anything nontrivial about the article subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've presented your basis for the PR charge, I do see your point about the quotations from John Stagliano and Peter Warren. It would have been better to present that evidence at the time you made the charge. For all I knew, there was no more evidence for it than for the earlier attempt to marginalize Porn Studies, which I have refuted above by reference to SLR rankings. Note however that I had not used those quotations in the article—only the ones from Candice Dare and Bonnie Rotten. Even without evidence of PR recycling, Stagliano—Adriano's studio head—appeared to me to be too closely linked to Adriano. Are you also claiming that the sources quoting Candice Dare and Bonnie Rotten are recycled PR?
The policy WP:BLP actually does specifically condemn tabloid journalism, in the section WP:BLPSOURCE, though it does not enumerate specific tabloids by name. There is no reason why WP:RS or WP:BLP couldn't include "specific caveats against sources from the adult film industry", as I put it in an earlier part of this discussion; that would be explicit enough, without singling out AVN and XBIZ by name. Alternatively, as noted, the consensus at the project page for WikiProject Pornography, which does discuss numerous sources by name, could be changed to reject these sources, or to limit them to specific, narrow uses (such as listing the awards given out by the adult film industry).
The problem with policies and guidelines vs. "the established practices of the more experienced community here" is not that I don't understand the policies and guidelines—it's that "the established practices of the more experienced community here" frequently deviate seriously from the policies and guidelines. WP:CONSENSUS does not give any special authority to an insiders' club, nor to discussions in which outsiders are less likely to be inclined to participate. On the contrary, WP:CONSENSUS gives most authority to the documents with the highest visibility and widest participation. The rampant attempt to use the marginal consensus of AfD (and DRV) discussions to override the plain meaning of policies and guidelines, or even of their interpretation at high-visibility project pages, is in my opinion a form of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If AVN and XBIZ are as bad as deletion advocates here seem to think, it shouldn't be hard to make an overwhelming case at WikiProject Pornography and change the consensus there.
More about the Porn Studies article later.
—Syrenka V (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the passages from the Porn Studies article: there are actually three paragraphs in which Adriano's work is mentioned: two on page 341, and one on page 345. The one on page 345 is referenced in the article to show that "Adriano is recognized as a major director in the genre of gonzo pornography." Which it does. It emphasizes his role as definitive of the common conventions of gonzo. As the full context of the section "Monstrative attraction and feigned reality" (starting on page 343) makes clear, the relevant conventions are specific to, and characteristic of, gonzo. The quotation from page 345 was not supposed to illustrate the distinctive characteristics that set him apart from other gonzo directors; that was emphasized instead in the other two paragraphs, from page 341, which are referenced in the article to support that point.
—Syrenka V (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I don't see how the subject meets WP:DIRECTOR. The awards are scene related, and the requirement in CREATIVE is that they'd be widely cited by peers and successors. The praise is mostly interviews with adult actors. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true that this isn't the clearest case of WP:DIRECTOR in existence. But note that Bonnie Rotten is a director as well as an actor, and specifically credits Adriano as a mentor in her role as a director. Also, the Porn Studies article meets the "regarded as an important figure" clause of WP:DIRECTOR; Maina and Zecca include him in their example list of three "award-winning directors" in the gonzo pornography genre, in a scholarly article on the genre as a whole.
—Syrenka V (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete imo fails gng and the clained sng passes based on self serving industry noise areextbook arguments of why blps should default to the gng rather than sngs. Spartaz Humbug! 09:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except for the specific case of press releases for the Stagliano comments above—which are not used in the article, and are not needed for the WP:DIRECTOR argument (nor for a WP:GNG argument)—no case has been made for why adult film publications should be treated as "kayfabe" or "self serving industry noise", any more than Billboard or Variety. And if the adult film industry is as bad as professional wrestling in that respect (as the use of the term "kayfabe" implies), that case should be made at WikiProject Pornography. If it had been successfully made there, this AfD conversation would likely be going very differently. This is the third round (second relisting) of this AfD, and still no serious and general attempt has been made to refute Malik Shabazz's comments comparing adult film industry sources to the trade papers of other entertainment industries.
—Syrenka V (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV. There was a high school track star by this name in Kansas City in the 90s who gets lots more hits on a proquest news search - where this film director gets zero hits. Sourcing consists of several mentions in a single article in a minor academic journal called Porn Studies, two mentions in a magazine about adult videos, and winning a series of porn industry awards in categories such as "Most Outrageous Sex Scene." This is not enough to pass WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that Porn Studies is "minor" (or any similarly dismissive term, however vague) has already been refuted by reference to its SJR rankings (see above). How this topic passes WP:DIRECTOR (= WP:CREATIVE) has already been explained above. And search engine hits are a very crude measure at best, as I'm sure deletionists would be quick to point out if they were used to justify a keep for a topic that had a large number of hits.
—Syrenka V (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that I cannot locate any INDEPTH or SIGCOV in a mainstream or non-porn-industry, secondary source. Sourcing is mostly to AVN (magazine), the trade journal of the porn industry. Genuinely notable individuals - or the films, books, paintings they create - are expected to have at least some coverage outside the walled garden of the industry they work within. the fact taht Adriano lacks such coverage is a demonstration that it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Steam Early Access games

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

User:Jakevossen5 said this is a bad idea. Unsurprisingly nobody is maintaining this unmaintainable, ever-growing list of 3000+ games (according to the external link) for the past few years. Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Vaypertrail (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GyazMail

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

Fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Article seems to be only original research WP:OR. Also contains little if any encyclopedic content. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I prodded this article a few months ago for being a "non-notable application" but the article's creator claimed in the edit summary when removing the prod, "GyazMail is the only classical native-GUI alternative to Apple Mail that is still actively supportet and developed". That is not enough to prove that something is notable. A WP:BEFORE search only found the sources [1] and [2], but those sources are not enough to indicate WP:NOTABILITY as the second source mentioned only trivially mentions GyazMail. The first source is not significant coverage of the subject so the subject is not notable. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 16:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.macworld.com/article/1132663/gyazmail15.html
  2. ^ https://www.macworld.com/article/2058525/ditch-maverickss-mail-other-email-apps-you-can-try.html
  • Keep. I can't see the point why the article about GyazMail should be deleted. We have also an article about Trojitá and Mulberry (email client). Mulberry wasn't actively developed since 2007 and became nowadays completely unusable because of its outdated codebase. Most clients with an article have very likely less users than GyazMail and many of them aren't even actively developed anymore. Besides that, Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia, so there is no need to save paper. Actually I perceive these recurring requests for deletion as aggravating and pointless trolling. Liebeskind (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: another reference [3] Liebeskind (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And another two sources: [4], [5] Liebeskind (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The focus should be on the notability of the subject. The arguments used seem very similar to some of the ones listed here Subjective importance. Another essay which provides a good point as well: Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two thirds of the mail clients mentioned on Wikipedia are less notable than GyazMail. Do you really want to delete all of them? Liebeskind (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947( c ) (m) 01:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Big Brother 2 (disambiguation)

Celebrity Big Brother 2 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Celebrity Big Brother 3 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Celebrity Big Brother 4 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Celebrity Big Brother 5 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

None of the links except the top one are valid for each disambiguation page. The RM at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 2 (disambiguation)#Requested move 27 September 2017 did not have a consensus to move. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose, or make section on BB dabs: Personally, I think it's important to disambiguate the various seasons of a spin-off show of a gigantic franchise and series in its numerous countries. These articles have just as much right to exist as the Big Brother 2 (disambiguation), etc. pages. However, if they "don't have place" as articles, maybe there should be a section on the BB2, etc. disambiguation pages for the CBB editions. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Northern Region BBYO

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

WP:BRANCH -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per Branch, and clear COI for creator. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The End (comics). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four: The End

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

Unreferenced since creation consisting of solely WP:PLOT. WP:BEFORE finds fan-generated content, blogs, pricing, etc. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed to the Wikipedia article, FF: The End. The End is a well-done mini-series. However, it is just a hypothetical future tale & had little impact on FF lore or the Marvel Universe. Therefore, I have no objection to its deletion. AaronCBurkeAaronCBurke (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hereford#Media. (non-admin closure) J947( c ) (m) 05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stations in Hereford

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

Listicle that duplicates information already present in the main Hereford article or introduces new unsourced information counter to WP:LISTCOMPANY. Serves no encyclopedic purpose split from the main article. Seems like WP:LISTCRUFT for the purpose of having a list. Hamtechperson 00:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Fantastic Four: Ben Grimm and Logan

Before the Fantastic Four: Ben Grimm and Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced since creation, almost entirely WP:PLOT. No evidence in searches of passing WP:GNG - all search results are to fan-created content, pricing guides, eBay, etc. No evidence that this had any broader impact outside of the series named. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Fantastic Four: Reed Richards

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

Unreferenced since creation, almost entirely WP:PLOT. No evidence in searches of passing WP:GNG - all search results are to fan-created content, pricing guides, eBay, etc. No evidence that this had any broader impact outside of the series named. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Fantastic Four: The Storms

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

Unreferenced since creation, almost entirely WP:PLOT. No evidence in searches of passing WP:GNG - all search results are to fan-created content, pricing guides, eBay, etc. No evidence that this had any broader impact outside of the series named. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Same article creator for WP:Articles for deletion/Fantastic Four vs. the X-Men Atsme📞📧 22:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four vs. the X-Men

Fantastic Four vs. the X-Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced since creation, almost entirely WP:PLOT. No evidence in searches of passing WP:GNG - all search results are to fan-created content, pricing guides, eBay, etc. No evidence that this had any broader impact outside of the series named. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of a The Hollywood Reporter article speculating about a possible movie deal "reportedly in the works", those GNews results are blogs and other fan-generated content. None appear to be true RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 11:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indie Wire, Uproxx, Comic Book Resources, IGN, Collider (website), and Screen Rant are all non-RS? I find your above statement problematic. I know Google News content can vary slightly from place to place, but I'm seeing things that are entirely inconsistent with your statement. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Jclemens that reliable sources mention the series, but I haven't been able to find coverage beyond trivial mentions in articles speculating about a potential film featuring both teams. It's unlikely than any eventual film will have much in common with this miniseries aside from - maybe - a name. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: same article creator for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Before_the_Fantastic_Four:_The_Storms Atsme📞📧 22:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_November_4&oldid=808627894"