Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
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/List of countries by number of public holidays}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolaos Mikroulis}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolaos Mikroulis}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Nagpal}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Nagpal}}

Revision as of 13:26, 3 December 2019

< 2 December 4 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Tone 15:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by number of public holidays

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

I don't think there is no need to have a separate list article for this. This list may not be needed as we have List of holidays by country. I also Afded List of apologies to China which is another list article that may not be needed. Abishe (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2019 (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) 16:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaos Mikroulis

Nikolaos Mikroulis (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)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:54, 3 December 2019 (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) 16:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Nagpal

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

Non-notable story-teller and brand coach. Ref's are mix of press releases and syndicate feeds. No effective coverage per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw these, they are not the best. One is blog. Three of these are syndicated feeds (him talking), one is twitter feed, one is a single sentence, one is him as resident complaining about the noise of construction, One is the The Dubai Health Awards which is not him and one is a LinkedIn article by him, that is syndicated as a feed. The first ref is a real secondary ref, but the rank are not the best nor highest quality refs. scope_creepTalk 23:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 6 December 2019 (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 Marvel Family. Redirects are cheap. Unlikely search terms but the history is preserved. Tone 22:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Family enemies (A–G)

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

This list is composed entirely of in-universe description of trivial plot details, sourced only to the work of fiction itself. It gives very obscure fictional characters undue weight and also contains quite a bit of original research, given the sparse and primary nature of the sourcing. I am also nominating the following for the same reasons:

and also this container list, which will be useless when the child articles are deleted

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abhi Nahi Toh Kabhi Nahi

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

No sign that this "upcoming" film ever started principal photography which is the requirement for a standalone article about a film per WP:NFF. The existing sources only mention early casting choices and some of them say that the film was due to be released in February 2016, but that does not appear to have been the case. (Especially since the article was created in March, 2016, and it was still "upcoming" then.) There is no significant coverage in independent sources, so WP:GNG is also not met. Most of the search hits are news blurbs from 2015 stating that one of the actors would not appear in this film,* which is not exactly encyclopedia material.bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Not to be confused with Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Film.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

undefined*::::Bonadea, they’re given in article. Harshil want to talk? 22:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Harshil169: WP:NFILM, and WP:GNG are different from each-other. A film doesnt have to pass both the guidelines. GNG can be applied to everything including, but not limited to persons, schools, and films; whereas NFILM is a subject specific guideline - only for films. But this film doesnt pass GNG. It is not necessary for a film to have begun photography or released iff it passes GNG. We always have many article for unreleased films (category:2021 films). We also have articles on "dream projects" that are not even going to be proposed, or about failed proposals, or about failed projects. Nothing else matters if the topic passes GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Dragonriders of Pern as a likely search term to its primary topic. A dab page can and should be created separately. – sgeureka t•c 14:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pern

Pern (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)

What makes this fictional planet notable? The article is all based on PRIMARY sources, and fails GNG/NFICTION. BEFORE finds some discussions of AMC's books, but not of her worldbuilding (or this planet in particular). This content belongs on https://pern.fandom.com/wiki/Pern , not here (someone may want to copy the map there, I don't see it on wikia); the rest of the content is already copied there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The major setting of the most significant works of a major writer. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable, as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2019 (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. I appreciate people may have been busy roasting turkeys and peeling sprouts, but I think the discussion has run out of steam. (Like the sprouts). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spindal

Spindal (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)

To quote an earlier edit by Shhhnotsoloud, "this disambiguation page disambiguates no titles". Everything on the page would normally go under 'See also' as possible misspellings. A search for articles containing 'Spindal' brings up a couple of minor, partial-title mentions. Leschnei (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is one of those rare cases where it actually does makes sense to have a dab page for a misspelling. "Spindal" is a very plausible misspeling for Spindel, Spindle and Spindale. The search engine isn't able to auto-correct in this case, and the standard solution – creating the respective misspelt redirects for each of the three articles – will not work: we can create something like Spindal (surname) and Spindal, North Carolina, but we can't create anything suitable for Spindle as it's a dab page (we can't have Spindal (disambiguation) redirect to it as that page does not disambiguate "Spindal"). There is one article, Biomega (manga), which has a paragraph about a fictional character named "Kahdal Spindal" and that may be added to the dab page (though in my opinion that does not constitute substantial content worth including); the only other mention of "Spindal" is at Azad Zal, and that's almost certainly a typo for "spindle". – Uanfala (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIf it was a plausible misspelling for one word, no-one would query a redirect. Because it's a plausible misspelling for three words, a dab page is appropriate. PamD 12:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This disambiguation page disambiguates no articles that could be called "Spindal". (My previous speedy delete nomination was reverted). Wikipedia is not a dictionary: we need not accommodate every possible misspelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still warranting some discussion for this fairly edge case, given the near-balance (as Uanfala's reads as a Keep !vote)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see how people who might get to this topic and having a good redirect is helpful. Keep in mind that we have WP:NOTPAPER, so there's no need to delete a useful disambiguation page just because we don't have other useful disambiguation pages. Michepman (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise redirect to Spindle (a dab page) with {{R from typo}}. If its purpose is as a typo, direct to the existing dab page. If some of Spindal's contents should be merged there, go for it. czar 01:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two of the three entries can easily be merge there, but probably not Spindale – it's not very similar to "Spindle" and so it's likely someone will remove it from there sooner or later. Also, Spindle is not a small dab page (it's got about 20 entries), so a reader who makes the typo when looking for either Spindale or Spindel will not be served well. I think deletion is better than redirecting (though of course, I still believe keeping is best). – Uanfala (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an unusual and edge case - as pointed out redirecting from a misspelling is completely uncontroversial but our disambiguation policy does not cover what to do in cases where there are multiple plausible misspellings. Given that the current level of participation can only justify a no consensus close I think it meets the necessary standard for a third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Machinima Island

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

non-notable project with no refs or sources; article and related articles appear to be authored by creator. Dr42 (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2019 (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. No agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vlogger (film)

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

non-notable film with no refs or sources; article and related articles appear to be authored by creator Dr42 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 14:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Activa

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

Non-notable company. Fails to meet WP:N and WP:GNG. Dr42 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2019 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OneWorldTV

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Fails notability in its own right. Merge anything appropriate to Peter William Armstrong and Delete this article. HighKing++ 15:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Probably a worthy initiative in its time, but the two given references are effectively start-up coverage from 2002. There are also several sources from that decade mentioning the service, but I am not seeing better than listings, and I don't think the two 2002 items are really enough to demonstrate attained notability. Had the Oneworld.net article not been deleted in a 2008 AfD, it could have served as a redirect target, but without that the brief mention in the Peter William Armstrong article is probably sufficient. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2019 (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 Future plc. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Windows: The Official Magazine

Windows: The Official Magazine (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)

There's no evidence that this magazine meets WP:N. Coolak (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. I have searched for sources in news websites, Google Books, Google Scholars and JSTOR. The only independent source of significant coverage I found was this. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WMF or somewhere else suitable It strikes me as odd to nominate a WMF project on here for some reason; nevertheless, that is not itself a reason to keep unlike what some said in the 1st AfD, and I didn't see anything non-WMF related in the first page of a GSearch. The sources given for its notability the first time around are this twice and this, the latter which seems like a blog. I don't think this passes muster for notability, but should be kept as a redirect. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was surprised to find that there are so few good sources for this project. I ran a search on LexisNexis and the best thing I could find was a brief paragraph about Wikiquote in a German article about the WMF hiring a new CEO (the title is misleading): Ferenc Reinke (8 May 2014). Hier finden Sie die besten Zitate von Promis; Auf Wikiquote gibt's zu jedem Thema etwas. Berliner Kurier. There is coverage in some instructional books on the Internet Archive: How Wikipedia Works (p. 454) Wikipedia Reader's Guide (p. 22) - the coverage in How Wikipedia Works is fairly substantial, but the book was written by people affiliated with the WMF, so is it really an independent source? It is difficult to search for sources because so many articles simply cite Wikiquote or refer to it in passing among other projects, so maybe other people will be able to find more... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are some sources about an incident in which fake quotes posted on the website lost Rush Limbaugh a business deal, e.g. The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason (p. 11), (23 Nov 2009) Rush Limbaugh lost his bid to be part-owner of the St. Louis Rams. National Review, David Warren (17 Oct 2009) The Wisdom of Crowds. Ottawa Citizen, but these sources don't discuss the actual website in any depth. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: When google "Wikiquote" gives me 7.5 million hits and scholar 5,400 exc patents/citations WP:COMMONSENSE tells me deletion is likely not a good choice and its hard to all those for being useless. [8] covers is for me and can anyone tell me if [9] is any good? + those above.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikiquote" only has ~43 hits on Google Search and ~6 hits on Google Patents. The first link you shared only says Kizu Naoko: ..."I’m a sysop on several WMF projects, including the Japanese Wikiquote, the English Wikiquote.". The second link, by my count, only has about 2 or 3 usable claims directly about the website but does not describe the website at anything more than a cursory level. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You will have to WP:AGF I am getting "About 8,870,000 results (0.52 seconds)" for a search for "Wikiquote" ... Obviously if you have a paginate predicate of 100 and don't declare openly you have applied a paginate number and take as unreliable mutterings on the web that Google num= limit parameter may return less than the of results it is set to per such non authoritative sources [10] and [11] one have a depreciation. Does anyone have a good up to date Karma Sutra for the Google API?Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My "paginate predicate" does not affect results; it makes them more accurate. The number of results at the top Google searches is notoriously wrong. This is a know fact in Wikipedia discussion. Try this: search "Wikiquote" and then go to page four. You will see I am right. There are only ~ 40 results for the term. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay ... I can see the Google Brain has determined many results are similar ... possibly some intelligent caching .. all showing all results gives 8m. I may have missed the 4 pages having too many pages or not looking at the bottom too carefully or it may have taken a while to filter the results. Not changing my keep vote though ... (I'd like to take longer but I'm flipping down the computing AfD list.13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep, although I readily admit a localized bias. However, after some searching, I was at least able to find a conference paper analyzing Wikiquote (the conference is identified here as the 5th Joint International Semantic Technology Conference (JIST 2015), at Yichang, China). BD2412 T 14:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This source has already been flagged above. It only gives "dictionary" definition of what the website is and perhaps two more encyclopedic claims. There is no independent significant coverage of this website, only passing mentions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Has anyone looked at the previous AfD? [12] & [13] likely reasonable content, ...[14] only passing. I have a bias against Wikiquote since an admin knocked off "It that beautiful or what!" and would reply to me .... and they mostly seem to blabber out loads of soap and song scripts on there but to be fair I have a French one that seems to be sticking.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[5] and [6] are the same article and UB Reporter is a student paper, which aren't usually considered to be great sources... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
? About the future: [15] best to skip first 5m. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[8] is from Wikimania and therefore not independent. The only reason to keep this page is navel-gazing. Not every WMF project is notable, especially this one. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This is an informative article about Wikiquote. I dont understand why we even discussed for the article to be deleted? Many readers know what Wikipedia is but most readers (except us the sleepless and Wiki addicts) do not know what Wikiquote is. It helps if we work together to improve the article but to delete it, is unthinkable! Wikiquote is one of Wiki branches, what is the real reason why it doesn't deserve an article in here? Perhaps what we should do is to work together to improve the article instead of typing in lengthy to consider keeping or deleting it. My vote applies to all Wiki sister projects below:-
Wikiversity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikinews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikimedia Commons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikisource (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikijunior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikibooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wiktionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I decided to list them all because they were also being nominated for deletion in the first round by the nominator - Jay (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not all or nothing and this AfD has nothing to do with the other wikis, most of which are independently notable. Notability is not inherited and what is the real reason why it doesn't deserve an article in here? because it does not meet our criteria for inclusion. The same reason we delete any article about any subject that does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, Wikiquote is not really known out there, that is why we don't see much being written about it outside Wiki. But if we delete it, would it help? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or a collection of useful articles about something like this. I'm not talking about promotional articles (which I strongly object) but information about what is "the subject" such as in this case "Wikiquote" is important for readers to understand it's purpose. I used articles like this to educate most of friends who are not familiar about Wiki family. To me this article should be kept since it has the purpose and value to people who want to know more about Wiki and its "family". It may not be useful to some of us here because we know what it is but think of its value to others? It lacks of independent sources/ external reference because many out there don't really know the function of it thus made it less notable than its sister projects but by deleting it will make it more and more unknown. To me, Wikiquote is important therefore this article deserves to be kept and further improved -Jay (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more guideline-based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still the same issue as before - "it's part of Wikimedia" is not a notability criterium and many keep arguments do not address WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG points.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does the "it's part of wikipedia" count as a valid WP:COMMONSENSE argument though? I don't really have any strong arguments either way, but WP:COMMONSENSE does exist for a reason, no? I believe that @Djm-leighpark: made this argument earlier: "Keep: When google "Wikiquote" gives me 7.5 million hits and scholar 5,400 exc patents/citations WP:COMMONSENSE tells me deletion is likely not a good choice and its hard to all those for being useless. [1] covers is for me and can anyone tell me if [2] is any good? + those above" Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Already keep voting above but responding to relisters comments). When nominating per WP:BEFORE there is onus on the nom. to try to improve the article first and if that fails, if the article has noteability issues, to tag the article for improvement per WP:BEFORE C#3 or otherwise notify parties for improvement and this does not seem to have been done. This is necessary to give goodly time for improvement and helps prevent hasty and rushed comments by at least one idiot. The nom in the nomination rightly and correctly identified one suitable source, now articled, (Buscaldi et al, 2007) Some Experiments in Humour Recognition Using the Italian Wikiquote Collection at the International Workshop on Fuzzy Logic and Applications conference. (DeVinney, 2007) was a dead link and not recovery at nom. time in the article, I have recovered same and it seems most suitable for the keep. The fact it was used in Italian curriculum ( Ministero dell'istruzione, dell'università e della ricerca, 2018) seems persuasive, the ZIP download reference is a tad of an issue and I have personally not opened it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I have voted for Keep before, this explanation is to respond to relisting). Todate, there are 8 independent sources in the article. I believe it is sufficient enough for Wikiquote to pass WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG without having to rely on Wiki family references. The references are:-
  1. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikiquote.org
  2. https://web.archive.org/web/20120716195919/http://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/archives/vol38/vol38n19/columns/eh.html
  3. https://web.archive.org/web/20120504164927/http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/science/archive/070127/science15.htm
  4. Wikis for Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. p. 58.
  5. Protocollo MIUR-Wikimedia" (in Italian). Ministero dell'istruzione, dell'università e della ricerca.
  6. Buscaldi, D.; Rosso, P. (2007). Masulli F., Mitra S., Pasi G. (eds.). Some Experiments in Humour Recognition Using the Italian Wikiquote Collection.
  7. Chorowski, Jan; Łancucki, Adrian; Malik, Szymon; Pawlikowski, Maciej; Rychlikowski, Paweł; Zykowski, Paweł (21 May 2018). A Talker Ensemble: the University of Wrocław
  8. Rickson, Sharon (22 November 2013). "How to Research a Quotation". New York Pubic Library.

- Jay (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Apples&Manzanas that the Admin should also read up WP:COMMONSENSE and keep the article instead of relist this nomination again and again; and insisted on WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT only. Not only the Admin should use common sense, the Admin must also look at the values and benefits of the article for readers. I have written in lengthy about the values and benefits for readers before, and dont plan to repeat that again. We already have 6 "Keep" vote, I believe the nomination should be closed by keeping the article. - Jay (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also see above discussions where I point out none of the other sources flag have anything significant to pass WP:GNG. WP:WEBCRIT #1 is basically the same as WP:GNG. There has been no sources shown that Wikiquote passes WP:WEBCRIT #2, which is for websites that have received a significant award. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously disagree with Coffeeandcrumbs's assessment here. (Woods & Theony, 2011) in Wiki for Dummies is sufficient to pass WP:RS and is not a trivial passing mention and their work is far from a collection of wiki websites. Obviously in both (Buscaldi et al, 2007) (paywalled) and (Chorowski et al,2008) on a topic other than WikiQuote and they both giving a far more than passing mention to the WikiQuote and explaining why they chose to use it. To go on to the WP:WEBCRIT ... if I quote from the sufficient Criteria#1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. ... Well what are (Buscaldi et al, 2007) and (Chorowski et al,2008) if not using content from Wikiquote. And One can also look a the citations from the article (Rentoul 2013) and (Robinson 2019) who are using content from WikiQuote for their work. So the notability stands. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 14:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zvents

Zvents (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)

Promotional, defunct, not very notable and lacking decent references Rathfelder (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2019 (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 Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons)#Dragonets. Editors are welcome to merge any details that seem relevant to the target page. RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faerie dragon

AfDs for this article:
Faerie dragon (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)

Fictional creature, no evidence of passing WP:NFICTION/GNG, PRIMARY sources only, pure WP:PLOT, BEFORE does not show better sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - No sources to establish notability. “Primary not bad” simply expresses that one shouldn’t assume a primary source is a bad source, likely in the case of using a primary source in the place of a secondary source because it makes sense. It doesn’t encourage all primary sourcing. It doesn’t encourage ignoring WP:WAF and WP:PLOT. Many of the D&D articles are well put together, especially compared to a lot of other non-notable articles, but only in the sense of something that belongs on a fan wiki. These are not made for the general reader, so they should be in a place specialty users would looks. TTN (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The text of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is more robust than you represent. As for WP:GNG, it states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Paizo, Kobold Press, Necromancer Games, and others are reputable third-party publishers of D&D product.[1] WP:IS uses the actual term "third party" to describe an independent source. Finally, the goal of Wikipedia is: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That’s our commitment." Editors making a subjective judgement that a topic belongs on a fan wikia rather than here is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's simply dancing around the issue. We have very specific ways of dealing with fiction. Rather than try to work within that, you're trying every single possible avenue to skip around for only your specific area of interest. If you support an article or at least coverage of literally everything, you're opening Wikipedia up to literally millions upon millions of trivial articles and lists. TTN (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom King (martial artist)

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

Subject is a martial artist. Fails WP:MMABIO and WP:GNG for not having significant achievements in martial arts. Having a black belt or trained under linage of great grant grant grant master does not pass martial arts notability (there are thousands of black belt BJJ practitioners in the world just like there are thousands of black belt karateka or judoka). In addition the subject does not have any top tier promotion fight. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geneviève Dieudonné

Geneviève Dieudonné (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)

What makes this character notable? I can't find sources that discuss her in-depth outside PRIMARY (and few mentions in passing in WP:INTERVIEWs with the creator). Fails WP:NFICTION/GNG, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (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 Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Dwarf. Tone 15:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf (Warhammer)

Dwarf (Warhammer) (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)

Another reasonably famous fictional race (gaming faction, etc.) that utterly fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. I can't find any analysis of this race that isn't PRIMARY or a fan WP:PLOT summary. WP is not a gaming guide, either, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major race of a major group of games and literary works. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable, as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gods of the Old World

Gods of the Old World (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)

Another fictional pantheon that is effectively WP:LISTCRUFT. Fails WP:NFICTION, pure WP:PLOT, no coverage of this outside WP:PRIMARY works and fansites. And on the subject of fanstites, https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Old_World_Pantheon does a much better job than our article, so keeping this sad list here is also a disservice to the Internet and we should apologize to anyone who clicks on our link instead on the wikia one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (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#Government. Tone 15:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards of Gondor

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

List of fictional individuals holding a fictional position, referenced as usual to WP:PRIMARY sources. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION, pure WP:PLOT. The concept of this position (or a related list) is not encyclopedic and BEFORE doesn't show anything but few mentions in passing. And of course this will survive in the form of wikia/fandom https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Stewards_of_Gondor so nothing will be lost from the Internet following our deletion (just people searching for this will benefit from not having to chose between us and the fan sites). I do not that the wikia doesn't have the generalogy tree which I'd recommend to transwiki there, if any Tolkien fan feels it is useful. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article on a post which was central to the works of one of the most important writers in history. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable, as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "We delete rubbish and very minority interest material." Well, this is "very minority interest material" and not "material that is central to major literary works". No scholar of fan of Tolkien can credibly argue that the office of the one of the main themes of the Middleearth stories was the "history and functions of the office of the Steward of Gondor". C'mon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (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 Zalaki. Please feel free to merge anything useful Spartaz Humbug! 17:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zalki

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

This article seems to be similar to Zalaki. The places Zalki and Zalaki which are mentioned in respective articles belong to Karnataka. Abishe (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 20:05, 18 December 2019 (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. The support for keeping (with the assertion that sourcing in the article has been improved over the discussion) is equal to the support for all other solutions combined. Since the purpose of this discussion is solely to determine whether the article should be kept or deleted, I find that there is no prejudice against the immediate initiation of an effort to merge this content into another suitable article. BD2412 T 05:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bad

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

No evidence this fictional term passes WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION and like. BEFORE fails to find anything that is not an in-universe WP:PLOT summary. Prior AfDs (2007, 2011) were closed as keep because the term is used in some scholarly works, but the problem is that the term itself is never analyzed (see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms. All there is out there is some mentions in passing that this term is used to denote some villains on this show. I guess we could redirect this to antagonist or such, but it might be a bit of a WP:SURPRISE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Antagonist
  2. Adversary
  3. Archenemy
  4. Bad guy
  5. Bad Wolf
  6. Big Bad Wolf
  7. Black hat
  8. Boss (video gaming)
  9. Enemy
  10. Mr Big
  11. Supervillain
It appears that we don't actually want all these related topics crushed together and, even if we did, the result is unlikely to be stable and so we'd better keep all the history in case we need to unpick it. Deletion would be disruptive in such circumstances and so is best avoided per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside that you linked a disambig and a TV show episode name, a lot of those can be justified to be different concepts in literary theory or other topics (real world crime, video game design theory, etc.). Whereas Big Bad is nothing but a plausible redirect to one of those (or the disambig at adversary). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, I would suggest you retract the needless personal attack The nomination says that "Prior AfDs (2007, 2011) were closed as keep because the term is used in some scholarly works" and so the main problem seems to be WP:IDHT. Yes, the nom is wrong on this point, but in the opposite way to how you claim: 2007 was closed as "no consensus" with a small majority in favour of deleting/merging, and 2011 was closed by a non-admin (now a blocked sockpuppeteer) as "keep" despite there only being three "keep" !votes, one "keep/merge" !vote, two "delete"s and one "undecided" (apparently leaning delete) -- clearly "no consensus" at best. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be happy with a merge I was assuming, without looking at both articles too closely, that they are of similar quality, but assuming StrayBolt's claim that the antagonist article is generally inferior to this one, I would be happy this article's content replacing that one and a new lead paragraph being created. But the two are obviously synonymous and redundant, and "Big Bad" is still somewhat slang-y (apparently totally dismissed by the compilers of Merriam-Webster) so "Antagonist" is clearly the better of the two titles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Antagonist per TTN. Most of the sources are either passing mentions of the phrase, or just uses of the phrase without any kind of explanation or analysis. The fact that this neologism has essentially entered modern language as a synonym for an antagonist means that it should be mentioned on that page, but there is really not enough substantial coverage that would justify it being its own article. TTN's suggestion of adding some brief information on its usage to the Antagonist page and citing Buffy as its origin seems to be the most sensible solution. Rorshacma (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Have added sources with explanation and analysis. Have even seen 2 college theses (not PhD) on the subject. Many popular RS websites use it without mentioning Buffy. Passes WP:GNG. It is not a synonym of antagonist. An antagonist is not necessarily a Big Bad. StrayBolt (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvement during AfD. Thank you Straybolt. Regarding WP:NOTDICT claims, see also: Antihero, Low-life, Black sheep. Lightburst (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The new additions don't convince me, they feel very much like WP:SYNTH. The articles use the term "Big Bads" but don't actually discuss the term.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an article solely (or even primarily) about the term "Big Bad"; it us about the use, purpose, practice (etc.) of Big Bads in Buffy and other programmes. It's pretty clear that the articles cited (and others) discuss/explore this. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it very much should be about the term, because otherwise it is obviously WP:SYNTH.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not obvious at all - more, I think it's wrong, even silly. Do you think our articles on hero or damsel in distress should be only about the term? We're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. It's striking that you think that this article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but when content is added to move it beyond a definition, you insist the article "very much should" be about the term, rather than the concept. Between the snide comments and the apparently shifting goalposts, my ability to assume good faith is seeping away. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone looked at the sources at antagonist? Seems like more than half are just dictionary definitions, one looks like a homework assignment for students to cut-and-paste together a glossary. Some go to other pages than originally listed. Could one of the Redirect editors or someone fix that page first? I would expect better for the literary term. StrayBolt (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS. It is perfectly acceptable to believe the two topics are redundant with each other and !vote based on which title would be better, regardless of the current state of either one of the articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, the MW def for "bad" uses "big bad" as a recent example: "The fam has to work together to fight the film's big bad, a villain known as The Taskmaster." — Abby Gardner, Glamour, "The First Trailer for Marvel Studios’ Black Widow Is Finally Here," 3 Dec. 2019 StrayBolt (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, that example conflicts with the definition given in our article -- Taskmaster can't be a season-ending villain in a TV show when Black Widow is a movie and he/she/it has never been mentioned in any of the prior movies (let alone the fact that if Black Widow is anything like any of the other Marvel spy-type movies so far, the trailer's implied primary antagonist will actually be either a red herring killed off halfway through the movie, a secret goodie/antihero, a comic relief non-villain, or not actually in the movie all that much and really a puppet of a secret villain not portrayed as such in the trailer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I posted it, I thought someone would have gone with, "Ironically, that example shows it is not an atomic term because 'big' is an adjective." That example does prefix it, "the film's big bad" but you say the sentence is wrong on many levels. I haven't reached a conclusion on its usage with films (more on your other post). I haven't updated the definition with what I have found. Also, language, definitions, and usage are always a little fuzzy. People will stretch meanings of popular terms, like big data. StrayBolt (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the sentence is wrong on any level. It might be (probably is?) wrong on a factual level, but on a grammatical/syntactical/semantic level it makes perfect sense. "Big bad" is quite a common synonym for "antagonist". That being said, having looked at it more closely, Webster is most definitely wrong to cite it as an example of "bad" as an "adjective", and even the "noun" senses Webster gives don't really fit. Perhaps they consider "big bad" as we use it, and as Gardner uses it, to be a non-standard slang abbreviation of "big bad guy", wherein "bad" is an adjective. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Recent improvements from StrayBolt are excellent. The article now steps beyond both plot summary and dictionary definition, and the wide range of sources display notability. Meanwhile, some legitimate questions have been raised about a possible redirect target. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any substantial improvement to the article, nor anything that removes the implied redundancy. It seems very much like you and a number of the other "keep" !voters were unfamiliar with this term (never heard of it?) before coming to this AFD and assuming that the term must not be synonymous with "antagonist" because our article said so. I have seen this phrase used as a synonym for "antagonist" in dozens of video essays and entertainment news pieces, and I see no reason to believe it is particularly associated with the academic field of Buffyology or that in that context it has some special meaning meriting a separate article. Conversely, one rarely hears of the primary antagonists of season-long story arcs of similar shows like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. being referred to specifically as "big bads" (yes, sources do exist, but it's much more common to simply use it as a descriptor for a one-off antagonist in a film, even one who is the primary antagonist in one of a series of films and is never mentioned again. Even if a source can be found that says Whedon or one of the other creative forces behind Buffy coined the term (the article currently makes this claim, but there is no citation, and the following sentence is attributed to Durand in a manner that implies it bears no relation to the preceding sentence), that would still only be etymological data for one of the synonyms of "antagonist". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are sources for the news search for "John Garrett" "big bad", I get 22. For "John Garrett" "antagonist", I get 28. Small difference, not rarely hears. And there were a few usages in articles already. An appropriate analogy for "big bad" in films would be a supervillian across multiple films like Thanos or Palpatine or Sauron. Your search for Ultron is getting many hits because there is much buzz/speculation as to who will replace Thanos as MCU's "big bad". Do you object to MTV News citation, "Discover The Secret Origin Of TV's 'Big Bad'"? StrayBolt (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88, are you talking to me? You say "It seems very much like you and a number of the other "keep" !voters were unfamiliar with this term (never heard of it?) before coming to this AFD and assuming that the term must not be synonymous with "antagonist" because our article said so". I had definitely come across (and used) the phrase "big bad" before seeing this AfD, and I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. And I wouldn't (didn't, don't) think "Big Bad" is synonymous with "antagonist". It strikes me as more specific - all big bads are antagonists, not all antagonists are big bads. All this is by-the-by, of course; I think we should keep the article because of the existence of decent sources, not because of my own beliefs or (non-)familiarity with the term. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I say you seem unfamiliar with the term because you take the article's word that it is specifically associated with Buffy. It may have originated with that show, but nowadays this is certainly not the case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just noticed the all big bads are antagonists, not all antagonists are big bads bit -- yeah, that's correct, and I apologize for blurring the line on that point. That being said, it's quite common to have a single article on a [broad topic] like antagonist that covers both "major" or "primary" antagonists ("big bads") and lesser antagonists together. The fact that "big bad" is still somewhat WP:SLANG-y to the point that even Merriam-Webster is apparently unfamiliar with it and cites its usage as one of "bad" as an adjective rather than as an independent term means we should give priority to the more widely-known and formal term. If you think that the antagonist article is too long and detailed and we should split it into articles on "primary" and "secondary" antagonists ... well, you're wrong, since the current text of Antagonist falls significantly short of 1,000 words. Maybe at some point in the future that will be the case and a discussion can be had about breaking the article into two articles on "primary" and "secondary" antagonists (though probably not with the titles "Big Bad" and "little bad"). The existence of sources that use this wording is frankly irrelevant, since it is essentially synonymous with the more formal "primary antagonist" and "major antagonist" and no one is saying that the concept that lies behind all these different words is not notable. (It would, however, be OR to take the neologism "Big Bad" and write an article under that title based on all the thousands of sources that use different words while implying that Joss Whedon created this concept that has since been retro-fitted onto hundreds of other fictional works.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not taken the article's word for anything. I agree that "it's quite common to have a single article on a WP:BROADTOPIC like antagonist that covers both "major" or "primary" antagonists ("big bads") and lesser antagonists together" - and there's certainly an editorial decision to be made about whether the concept of "big bads" is covered in the article on antagonists or in its own article. We clearly disagree there, but that takes us beyond AfD; if we're discussing whether we should have one article or two, then we agree that the content should be kept. (Though your "vote" was for a redirect - have you changed your mind?) And yes, I agree that "big bad" sounds like slang, which is why I drew attention to the fact that it's clearly a term of art in Buffyology; whether something's slang or not, if it gets some traction in academia or the press, that's important for an encyclopedia (compare: mansplain, manspread, bullshitting...). An Encyclopedia of Buffyology would surely have an entry, were one published. And I hear you on OR worries, but, again, that sounds like an editorial concern, and not a reason to support deletion. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Though your "vote" was for a redirect - have you changed your mind? My !vote was for redirect for the simple reason that the present title should redirect to the more commonly-known, established and formal title, without any judgement on which article's current or potential future content was superior or worth keeping. I am not a fan of either article in their present state, and I do think the onus is on the editors currently !voting "keep" to (for example) add a source specifically verifying that the term "Big Bad" originates with the creators of Buffy, either now or after this discussion closes (assuming the result is either "keep" or "no consensus"). I hear you on OR worries, but, again, that sounds like an editorial concern, and not a reason to support deletion. Well, I don't think anyone here believes the page wouldn't at least make a worthwhile redirect, so there's no point arguing that editorial concerns over what in the article should be kept are not a matter for AFD; can you and I at least agree that the content would be just as at home in an article titled either antagonist or primary antagonist, perhaps under a section heading in one of those articles entitled "Big Bad"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
add a source specifically verifying that the term "Big Bad" originates with the creators of Buffy That was the first thing I added, days ago. The MTV News article says "they all have an over-arching, season long villain that showrunners -- and characters -- like to call the Big Bad...can all be traced back to one show: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."... writer and former showrunner Marti Noxon...it was a little harder to remember the exact moment of origin...I would say Joss came up with that on his own...it's an expression Noxon recalled was bandied about the writers room long before the characters themselves started using the phrase on television…." Most of the sources have more details than I've added to the article. For a short def from me, it would be, "season-long archvillain" (but archvillain is a redirect). Another def has said "evil and powerful adversary". I think the def has been stretched some with usage/time, but antagonist is too general. StrayBolt (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Example text I was referring to the statement in the preceding paragraph, currently not attributed to any source, at least from appearances, that the term originates with the creators of Buffy. The statement that the first instance the phrase was used in the show itself was in Episode A is a separate matter. It's quite late here, so I have no inclination to check at the moment, but does that source also verify the statement that I was referring to? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This is in response to Hijiri Great - so you're in favour of a redirect, perhaps with content merged. I'm in favour of keeping the article, but we're agreed that perhaps the content is worth keeping (somewhere!). I am not sure that the content would be just as at home in another article - hence my "vote" to "keep" the article - but I don't think it would be not at home elsewhere. I have added a source to the article, though I do not have an opinion on whether the term was first used in Buffy. If you are concerned about the claim, and you've checked the sources that are apparently citations for the claim, you could add a {{fact}} tag to the article or remove it. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Foxnpichu: "Antihero" is an established word that has been in use since the 17th century, though; the present article is largely redundant with antagonist (which if it were a more filled-out article would probably be primarily about "big bads") and is named for a slang-esque word that our article claims only goes back to the 1990s. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: That's one of the reasons why it's just a weak keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Villain. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a lot of days have passed since somebody commented on here, and nobody can agree on anything. Is this just gonna close as No Consensus? Foxnpichu (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the improvements made to this article since the AFD are quite impressive and help establish sufficient notability to warrant it be kept. — Hunter Kahn 03:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Seems to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Many of the above keep !votes are based on the Heymann Standard, but they seem to assume, without any regard for the ongoing discussion in this AFD itself, that the newly added content is an improvement and didn't actually make the article's problems worse. The opening sentence of StrayBolt's newly added "On other television series" section is texbtbook OR, and anyone saying that the article should now be kept because it includes unsourced (or dubiously sourced) policy-violating material should probably have their !votes disregarded accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you are saying is far from clear. Maybe you can let the closing admin make the call about what people's views are based on and what is "textbook OR"? Can I advise you stop making assumptions about everyone else? I really didn't appreciate your assumptions about me above (which, I did my best to explain, were inaccurate - inaccurate is a polite word) and I suspect "[m]any of the above keep !vote[r]s" won't appreciate your assumptions and insinuations about them. If your arguments are so clearly compelling, why don't you let them speak for themselves? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can let the closing admin make the call about what people's views are based on and what is "textbook OR"? I have never once, in fourteen years editing Wikipedia, seen a sliver of evidence that all or even most AFD closers -- even in HEY cases -- go to the article and do source-check before finding out if the HEY !votes are valid. Technically, they are allowed assume that such !votes are valid unless someone points out on the AFD that they are not. My doing so is perfectly valid, and I don't appreciate your trying to silence me.
As for who is !voting for what reason: I will let the "keep" !voters speak for themselves, and of the two keep !votes in the last eight days, one of them explicitly cited HEY and the other explicitly cited "the improvements made to this article since the AFD [was opened]".
BTW, your apparent poor understanding of our policy on SYNTH, which you expressed in your responses to Zxcvbnm further up this discussion, is very unbecoming of an admin. I'm not sure if it would be worse to be sincerely unaware of such problems or to pretend as much so you can "win" this debate.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I think you are saying the first sentence of that section is OR. Citing sources that happen to use the phrase Big Bad in reference to the recently expanding trend for genre TV shows to have season-long story arcs as demonstrating that "the use of Big Bads has become common in TV science fiction and fantasy series" is textbook OR. What has become common is the use of season-long (or multi-season) story arcs, and those arcs having primary antagonists is practically a given. Both sources say the trend is the BB, not "season-long story arcs", so my sentence matches the sources. I was trying to summarize this paragraph: Following Buffy, Big Bads were suddenly de rigueur for all TV sci-fi and fantasy series… And because the RS said it was a trend, I liked to include another supportive source and I thought this paragraph matched: While some narrative franchises… recent trend… seasonal antagonist… "Big Bad" There is no WP:SYNTH, just "A and A therefore A." Therefore, the maintenance template should be removed. StrayBolt (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88: I am perfectly aware of what "our policy on SYNTH" is, and I did not display a misunderstanding of it. All I said was that this is not an article about a term, but about a concept. Whatever my opinion on the current status of the article, I stand by that. "BTW", If you want to talk about unbecoming behaviour, perhaps we could talk about responding to a recommendation that you tone down the snide accusations with a flurry of snide accusations? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, let's be clear about this. What I said above was that it was not obvious that the article "very much should be about the term, because otherwise it is obviously WP:SYNTH". And you think that this shows that I have a "poor understanding of our policy on SYNTH" (or am pretending that I do in bad faith)? That's ludicrous. Or are you referring to something else that I said? Either back up what you're saying or retract it. (Bonus points if you manage to do either without accusing someone else of incompetence or acting in bad faith.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2019 (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. Despite the sources put forward there is a consensus that this topic is not notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hellmouth (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

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

No evidence this fictional location passes WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION and like. BEFORE fails to find anything that is not an in-universe WP:PLOT summary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crappy article, decent topic. Hellmouths have received plenty of attention in Buffy studies; Slayage, a peer-reviewed journal focussing on Whedon's work, has a lot of articles with "Hellmouth" in the title - and not just Slayage. See here. And that's before we get to journalistic or otherwise non-scholarly (but reliable) sources. Even if this isn't it, I'm sure that a strong article could be written about this topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J Milburn: I saw those sources, but the problem is that none that I found discusses the concept of "Hellmouth" in detail, all I see is effectively a short PLOT-like summary. I am afraid it is one of those cases where a term may be popular enough to become worthy of includion in a dictionary, but not encyclopedia. But I am open to seeing any evidence of analysis of what Hellmouth is, its significance, etc. But right now we are at a stage of WP:GOOGLEHITS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • My argument isn't that there are lots of Google hits; my argument is that there are reliable sources ostensibly about the concept. I understand your claim that the sources don't discuss the concept of the Hellmouth, though. I suggest that this paper and this paper contain a decent amount of analysis; there's more out there that I've not really looked at (non-English, paywall, etc.) which may be promising - this looks very interesting, for example. There are also lots of smaller mentions that go well beyond plot summary; there seems to be a good bit about the difficulties associated with the Hellmouth as a metaphor for (or mirroring) the difficulties faced by adolescents, and about the role of the Hellmouth in the show, and about the significance of ways that characters go about trying to open the Hellmouth. Again, while I don't think that this article is very good, I do think that a very strong article could be written. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or weak selective merge to Buffy the Vampire Slayer#Setting and filming locations, where the concept is already covered with WP:DUEWEIGHT. The article is currently a mix of WP:PLOT and WP:OR, neither of which necessitates a stand-alone article. The "References in other works" section is the biggest plus point of the article in regards to WP:NOTABILITY, but it's overall pretty trivial as pass-by mentions. I have no prejudice against recreating the article with proper sources and scholar analysis per Josh Milburn's comments, but there have been no attempts to include them in the past 15 years. Until then, there is simply no need for a WP:SPINOFF. – sgeureka t•c 09:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer#Setting and filming locations, per Sgeureka. Not individually notable but can be mentioned in context.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 15:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kathmandu Kings XI

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

Non notable cricket team and fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- EPL is Nepal's IPL, with players from the national team leading each team whose squad consists of other CAN contracted players and international players from associate teams like Hong Kong, UAE, Singapore and Scotland. There's news coverage in National newspapers about all matches it's played in the EPL, squad changes and the like. Espncricinfo also tracks its squad and covers its games. No need for TNT. I'll work on it if it's kept. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 09:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- Looks like it should pass GNG in Nepal, and taking contention that EPL is top-level of game in Nepal at face-value. All the other teams linked to from there need similar sourcing, and if it can't be found then perhaps a redirect to EPL is in order. Spike 'em (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the article's creator I'm obviously biased, but my reasoning is A) as per the 2 above and B) it's important to have big teams in their respective leagues on the encyclopedia. SamRathbone (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 14:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThrustMe

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

Non notable spacecraft propulsion and article solely rely on a single source. Abishe (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2019 (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 Ethiopian Jews in Israel#Ethiopian Heritage Museum. Spartaz Humbug! 18:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Heritage Museum

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

No significant updates to the status of a proposed museum since page creation in 2007. Only one source in article and tagged for update needed since 2008 with no sources added. That sole source is now 404 and WP:BEFORE does not disclose alternatives. Only search result is probably not for this organization [21] due to not being located in same place, no indication of same organizers being involved, not having the same name, and still not being built three years later. Doubtful if this proposal was ever notable and no current evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The 2016 news item is probably the culmination of the project described in the article, and may well refer to something notable enough to need an article. I do not know whether there is enough in the article for it to be rescued and restructured into an article on the new centre, with a historical section describing the efforts of the Ethiopian Jews to het such a centre. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron:, thanks for your input. I thought something similar but if it was the culmination of the effort described in our article, it was an awfully odd one. There is nothing in the Times of Israel article that reasonably establishes any kind of continuity between the projects and the "launch" of the later museum was only an announcement of an intention to actually build it. I can find no indication that this announcement has resulted in actual building activity or other definite progress. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "Ethiopian Heritage Museum" section title probably should be changed, to broaden the section to be about initiatives to create cultural heritage center(s) in Israel. This 2016 article by a Judy Jaffe-Schagen, titled "Creating Space. The Construction of Ethiopian Heritage and Memory in Israel" provides broader context, about how Israel in the past pressured immigrant/refugee Ethiopian Jews to abandon their heritage, but more recently shifted to seeing the merit of recognizing their heritage, and that this latter approach would actually help in their assimilation. Anyhow, the article that is target of this AFD can/should be merged to there, and the section should be broadened. But, right, it probably isn't right for Wikipedia to keep the current article as it is, with its very specific title that was one specific proposal that hasn't panned out. This is similar to AFD i have seen about some Riverwalk type development in Colorado Springs (?), where the proposal was specific in one name, while the built project took a slightly different name. It was silly to be deleting the article that was created at the time of the proposal, it just needed to be moved to the new name. --Doncram (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure the section there should be renamed to something more general like "Movement to create museums" or "Scholarship about, and education of the public in Israel about, Ethiopian Jewish heritage". Because "Ethiopian Heritage Museum" as a specific proposed title of a museum didn't pan out. But it still makes sense as a section to have, and we can have an anchor there. Okay, I am now defining an anchor there which will still work even if/when the section is renamed. So I think Ethiopian Heritage Museum can be merged and redirected specifically to Ethiopian Jews in Israel#Ethiopian Heritage Museum, where there [already is info] about this specific name, within the section whatever is its revised section title [and more needs to be merged, including the source]. --Doncram (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC) [revised --Doncram (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)][reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Schweinbeck

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

not notable persons, failed WP:GNG Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Baudolino. No independently sourced material, but a possible search term. RL0919 (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pndapetzim

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

No evidence this fictional location passes WP:GNG/NFICTION. Pure PLOT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tirion

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

No evidence this fictional location passes WP:GNG/NFICTION. Pure PLOT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (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. Keep vote does not address policy Spartaz Humbug! 15:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giulio De Nardo

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCHESS. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 05:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 05:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 05:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 05:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Competed in the 2nd Chess Olympiad in 1928 as a member of the Italian national team and deletion would turn a blue link on the Chess Olympiad page into a red link, making him the only participant without a page.[strike my false claim, there are about 8 of around 70 players in the 1928 Chess Olympiad without articles]. Article has sources. Removal would not improve the encyclopedia in any way and would be antagonistic to the goal to build the web. Quale (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Quale, MOS:BUILD aims at allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. However, this is a person whose only notable relationship with Chess was playing in that olympiad. So, the standalone article provides no additional useful information. Red links of non-notable subjects are corrected by removing the link altogether. Sources in the article have matches listed, almost all rated games are recorded, that's bordering on indiscriminate information, there's literally nothing to build a biography with. NCHESS specifically mentions chess olympiad and says one must win a medal to be presumed notable. Moreover, as a player whose career is already over, GNG is a reasonable expectation. This is a person who played one olympiad and quit chess altogether and did other normal people stuff his whole life. Mention of his name in the squad for said olympiad is all the required understanding on the subject that we need. All other claims made in the article are unsupported, as none of the sources even write one sentence of prose on him. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 09:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? Please explain to me how it does not deepen the reader's understanding of the the 2nd Chess Olympiad to be able to learn more about the participants, including those competing for the Italian team. And who are you to tell me or anyone else what is all the information I or we need about a chess olympiad competitor? I understand that you have no interest in the chess olympiads and probably no interest in chess either, but although WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is a great reason for you to not read articles about chess, it is not a good reason to delete those articles. Many people do only one encyclopedically notable thing in their lives, but as it happens, one is enough. In this case that one thing was playing as a member of a national team in the top international team competition in a sport. Finally, WP:NCHESS is total crap, but that certainly isn't your fault. The Italian wikipedia article lists an Italian chess encyclopedia as a source, and likely this could be used to source most of the article. Quale (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Quale, please do not misrepresent my position to suit your refutation needs (see Straw man), or engage in divining my affiliations or my motives (see Ad hominem or even WP:NPA).
    At the risk of repeating myself, the article does not further the understanding on the subject because the only bit of verifiable information presented there are the matches played by the subject, of which only Olympiad matches are of note which are best covered in the Olympiad article. It is difficult to presume notability in absence of WP:SIGCOV such as we do in case of rising players or players not yet retired because the player retired almost a hundred years ago, and other than participating in that one olympiad, went on to do normal people things. Olympiad participation is not enough to confer notability according to WP:NCHESS which I find very reasonable. I will leave you to ponder the irony of your linking WP:IDLI in a comment which goes on to say WP:NCHESS is total crap. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 05:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No other sources that pass WP:SIGCOV found by WP:BEFORE searches. Don't want to reiterate nom's points, but sources in article are all statistics pages that don't pass WP:GNG, don't address subject directly enough to not need original research to extract content. Yes, there's a book cited in the Italian Wikipedia, but it's only one source and doesn't pass the multiple requirement of GNG. Removal would help Wikipedia by preventing it from resembling an indiscriminate collection of information. UnnamedUser (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 23:11, 17 December 2019 (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 but allow merge discussions. There is clearly no consensus for deletion, but the question of whether a merge or plain keep is warranted was left a bit open by comments as many of them are conditional on the presence of additional sources Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Mundi: The Book of Spirits

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

The article for this Werewolf: The Apocalypse tabletop game supplement currently cites only one source, and fails the general notability guideline. I have been unable to find any further coverage in RSs - hits on google are either user-contributed material (like the White Wolf fan wiki, or user-edited pages on RPG.net) or places selling the book, and google books does not seem to find anything relevant to Axis Mundi outside of other books in the same series. Alexandra IDVtalk 04:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Alexandra IDVtalk 04:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles, also Werewolf supplements, which also only cite one or (in the case of Caerns and Chronicle) two sources; I cannot find any further RS coverage for them, either.

Caerns: Places of Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chronicle of the Black Labyrinth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Freak Legion: A Player's Guide to Fomori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red Talons Tribebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Alexandra IDVtalk 04:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all of the articles that only have one valid secondary source to List of Werewolf: The Apocalypse books. A single source is generally not enough to pass the WP:GNG as a stand alone article, but would make them valid candidates to merge to one of the main franchise articles. The ones with more than a single source should probably have been listed on AFD separately, though, and should probably be Kept and relisted and examined separately to avoid the possibility of a WP:TRAINWRECK. Rorshacma (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arder Carson

Arder Carson (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:BLP of a person notable only as "Lord Mayor" of a city where that's a purely ceremonial position that rotates annually among the city councillors. This is not an automatic free pass over NPOL, but the article is "referenced" entirely to one primary source press release on the city's own website and one Q&A interview in the local media in which he's talking about himself in the first person, which is not even close to enough coverage to make him markedly more notable than the norm for a not inherently notable role. I'll grant that he sounds like a lovely man based on the interview, but being a nice guy isn't actually the notability test here. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local municipal leaders are not automatically notable per WP:NPOL, and there's no evidence after conducting a thorough WP:BEFORE search that this guy is unusually notable for a local elected official. Michepman (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2019 (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 Snow keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susan H. Hildreth

Susan H. Hildreth (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)

Could not find independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG; closest I could find was this interview. Criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO does not appear to be satisfied, either; a search for "Treasurer for the ALA" or "director of the IMLS" does not show the positions to be well-known enough. UnnamedUser (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. UnnamedUser (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. UnnamedUser (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is this a joke? She ran one of the largest US library systems and was head of a major US government agency. Gamaliel (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, it might help to put this in context. The director of the IMLS is a presidential appointment. The IMLS is the most important federal funding agency for libraries and museums in the United States, an equivalent to the National Endownment for the Humanities or the National Endownment for the Arts, but focused on libraries and museums. Additionally, Hildreth served as State Librarian in addition to directing several major municipal library systems. All the IMLS directors are quite notable, not only for their service directing the activities of a major federal agency but for their otherwise distinguished careers in librarian- and museumship. Merrilee (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More context: The California Library Hall of Fame only selects about six inductees each year, and some of them are historical honorees (I've started articles about several of them, all interesting and notable people). It's a significant professional honor for a living person to be inducted in the California Library Hall of Fame. This is an obvious keep for me. Penny Richards (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As has been pointed out, Hildreth has has been head of a major government dept and a major city public library system. I would have thought that being a presidential appointee would be considered a notable achievement in itself. Uberlibris (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as GNG is met, but per WP:HEY, the article is pretty low quality and needs more sources and a stronger lede to demonstrate context. Montanabw(talk) 05:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuala McAllister

Nuala McAllister (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:BLP of a person notable only as "Lord Mayor" of a city where that's a purely ceremonial position that rotates annually among the city councillors. This is not an automatic free pass over NPOL -- but with just four hits of routine local coverage, of the type and volume that's merely expected for every mayor of everywhere to always be able to show, she's not referenced anywhere near well enough to make her significantly more notable than the norm. Even a directly elected executive mayor of a city with a strong mayor system would still have to show a lot more substance and sourcing than this before they were considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2019 (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. Seems like there are valid WP:PROF#C1 based keep arguments that also address the WP:BLP1E claim by creating an additional notability argument. The reason why this is only "no consensus" is because even the keep editors have some caveats to their arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daisuke Takahashi (mathematician)

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

This person seems like a clear WP:BLP1E candidate for deletion. They are notable solely for allegedly winning a Guiness World Record but there is no evidence of continued or widespread notability past the initial flurry of coverage (which itself was quite modest). Michepman (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. With these GS data I would normally vote keep but the field of computer science does have a colossally high citation rate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    I'm also on the fence with this one. Holding (at least briefly) the world record for computing the most digits of pi was at one time a big deal, but in more recent times it seems to go to the person who has the most access to computing power, rather than to the person who creates the best algorithm. If we were to believe the disambiguator and treat Takahashi as a mathematician then the citation rates given by Google Scholar would make this an obvious pass, but nearly all of the papers cited seem to be in computer science, where such citation rates are pretty commonplace. It's unfortunate (at least for those trying to judge Wikipedia notability) that two such closely related fields have such different typical citation rates. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I comment that the descriptor of (mathematician) in the title is misleading. He really is a computer scientist. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
These boundaries are fuzzy and the name of an academic's department is not necessarily the best description of their research. There is also a lot of overlap between what he does and electronic and computer engineering, another topic that is often in separate departments from cs and math. Anyway, I agree that "computer scientist" would be a more accurate disambiguator than "mathematician". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I just made some cleanups to the article. It's not true that he is only known for computing π; even the nominated version of the article briefly mentioned his work on FFT. And he was part of a team that won the Gordon Bell Prize. Overall, I think his citations are (barely) enough for WP:PROF#C1, even in a high-citation field. But my keep is weak because, although the π calculation and FFT work appear to be primarily his alone, the Bell Prize work and many of his highly cited papers were by large teams. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep In addition to the news coverage on computing digits of pi, he also has several highly cited papers. Note that, although he's a computer scientist, he's in numerical analysis, which I believe to be on the lower citation side for that field. Anyway, between the evidence towards WP:GNG and WP:NPROF C1, I'm seeing a reasonable argument for keep. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hartfield Academy

Hartfield Academy (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)

Did a quick search and could not find sources to satisfy WP:GNG. UnnamedUser (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. UnnamedUser (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. UnnamedUser (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy San Dimas

Andy San Dimas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –(ViewAfD · nomination)Stats):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The previous WP:ANI from a few years ago was closed as delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy San Dimas. How/why was it recreated? This article does not seem any better than it was back then in terms of sourcing and notability. Michepman (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first deleted in 10-18-2010 as it failed the now-gone porn-bio guideline. I don't know how to link to a history but if you go all the way back to creation, it was remade on 10-23-2010 because "multiple years of nominations" was once a passing criteria? Now that that is gone, it has nothing to pass, all the links are to porn websites and interviews, and a mundane bit of coverage over once getting kicked out of a ballgame. Zaathras (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Zaathras: thank you for the context behind the article. I do think it is puzzling that the article was recreated in 2010 without a good rationale or even any attempts to improve it with stronger sourcing. I think a lot of times people evade or just innocently miss the WP:GNG and simply think that finding a source that is about the subject is enough to get it into Wikipedia, even if it's just a link to pornography or an interview with the subject that doesn't demonstrate notability. Michepman (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2019 (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) 21:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Sotnik

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

The article is lacking third-party sources (most of the links lead to the guy's own publications), so I have serious doubts about notability. The only time he got covered by independent sources was when he fled Russia, and it looks a lot like WP:INHERIT. Buzz105 (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2019 (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 Psionex#Members. RL0919 (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Persuasions

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

Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Abrahmsohn

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

Not seeing how the subject can pass WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. J947's public account 01:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Donovan and Kimberly Brady

Shane Donovan and Kimberly Brady (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)

Pure WP:FANCRUFT about a couple who were on the show Days Of Our Lives, that needs to be deleted. Pahiy (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "The Most Giftable Third Party 5e Supplements For Your DM". Geek and Sundry. 2018-11-29. Retrieved 2019-12-05.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_December_3&oldid=929069678"