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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:31, 10 December 2019

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 December	4 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NumXL

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

No indication of notability. Mostly unreferenced; sources and massive farm of external links are only to the software provider's website. A search for better references turns up only sales and download links, and some user-generated content ([1]), nothing at all ([2]), or very brief, passing mentions ([3]). Also more than a bit promotional. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I can't find dispassionate, reliable sources that discuss this in-depth. Nice sales brochure! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 05:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – sources found and understood do not pass notability guidelines: [4] (passing mention), [5] (non-independent), [6] (multiple passing mentions). Google Books & Scholar search turns up lots and lots of passing mentions in more technical works. UnnamedUser (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails criteria for independent notability and also WP:NSOFT. This is no more than a promotional piece of text, which, in years previous, before more stringent measures were adopted, managed to masquerade as a Wikipedia article. An interesting fact: Τhe creator of the contested page, who's also its major contributor, has made few other contributions to Wikipedia in the space of ten years; has a user page that redirects to the NumXL. -The Gnome (talk) 13:32, 10 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 Hisaya Nakajo. RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yumemiru Happa

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

Article uses only primary sources. Japanese Wikipedia page is a stub. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. lullabying (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author as with most manga works that aren't notable on their own but have a notable author. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hisaya Nakajo. This appears to be a stand alone manga series with no indication of notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect’ to author.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:20, 10 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. Consensus non-notable Nosebagbear (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Between (fictional place)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragons (Pern)#Psychic abilities and add this entry to the dab page Between. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, delete per below. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extreme, niche fancruft. I doubt that the redirect target suggested above will survive much longer, too. AMC books are notable in light of WP:NBOOK, but her characters and related concepts are much less so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this inevitably unsourced piece of original work, possibly made by fans. Wikipedia is not a depository of random infornation. -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and fails GNG. and WP:V. Niche term without reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 21:46, 10 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Parker (councillor)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NPOL: we don't usually consider leaders of councils to be notable. Fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there is definitely a very sensible argument for the leader of a county council to be considered notable. Lincolnshire has more than a million people. The mayor of a city with that population would definitely be considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLOUTCOMES says: "Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD". That's not quite "definitely considered notable". And he's not a mayor of a city: he's the council leader of a county. While one can draw an analogy, I am not convinced how strong it is. Council leader is a somewhat different role to a mayor: it's a less significant role than mayors in many countries are. It's a less significant role than a UK elected mayor. Lincolnshire, I would have thought, had a population below a million when he was council leader: it's only just over a million today. Ultimately, the question is can we write a meaningful article about this person, rather than just a bare minimum statement of his electoral history and some WP:ROUTINE coverage of local politics? Bondegezou (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies: I should not have PROD'ed the article in the first place as I now realise it had survived a PROD some years before. I should've come straight to AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leaders of county councils are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist. The reason a mayor of a city with a million people would be considered notable isn't because of that million people's potential interest in reading about their own mayor — it's because the mayor of a city that large would be a topic of wide reader interest far beyond just his or her own city alone, in a way that a county councillor would not. (That is, the audience for an article about Sadiq Khan is not limited to residents of London — it's worldwide. Most local politicians can't claim the same, which is why we don't consider all local politicians to be "inherently" notable.) At the county level, the notability test is not just "local media coverage in his own county exists" — local media coverage always exists for every county councillor everywhere, so every county councillor would always be exempted from actually having to pass NPOL at all if the existence of some local coverage were all it took. Rather, at the county council level the notability test is the reception of nationalizing or internationalizing coverage, demonstrating a credible reason to consider him much more notable than the norm for that level of government — but nothing here shows that at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there any distinction between national and local media coverage? What policy is that distinction explicitly stated in? It sounds arbitrary and in contravention of the principles behind WP:GNG. If, for instance, there are 20 reliable, independent sources discussing him at length, then surely that makes him worthy of passing WP:GNG, regardless of whether those sources are local newspapers; otherwise it just starts to sound like "I don't like it, therefore delete". Regardless of "presumed" or "inherent" notability under NPOL, GNG is all that matters and I'd argue he passes GNG as the article stands (I'm intending to add more over the next couple of days). —Noswall59 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

All local media everywhere always covers local politics; that's local media's job. So if purely local coverage were enough in and of itself to get a county councillor over GNG and thus exempt him from actually having to pass NPOL, then every county councillor on the entire planet would always get that pass, and NPOL would never apply to anybody at all anymore. And by the same token, bands could claim that they had passed GNG, and were therefore exempted from actually having to accomplish anything that would actually pass NMUSIC, if the existence of three or four articles about them in their local newspaper about them playing the local pub on Friday night were all it took to get them over GNG. Writers could claim that they had passed GNG, and were therefore exempted from actually having to accomplish anything that would actually pass AUTHOR, if the existence of a couple of articles in their local media about their winning a local poetry contest were all it took to get them over GNG. High school athletes could claim that they had passed GNG, and were therefore exempted from having to actually pass NATHLETE, if the existence of a couple of human interest pieces in their local media about their recovery from cancer were all it took to get them over GNG. And on and so forth — being able to show some purely local coverage in a person's own local media market is not always enough in and of itself to claim that they've passed GNG and therefore didn't have to actually satisfy the notability standards for their occupation, because local media cover lots of local interest topics that aren't of interest or relevance to an international encyclopedia at all.
GNG is not just "count up the media hits and keep anything that meets or exceeds two" — GNG does consider factors like the geographic range of how widely the topic is getting covered and the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and GNG does give some kinds of media coverage much less weight than other kinds. County council is not an "inherently" notable role — so the notability test that a county councillor has to pass to qualify for a Wikipedia article is that they're significantly more special than most other county councillors, by virtue of having received a depth and range and volume of coverage that goes significantly beyond just what every county councillor everywhere can always show. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say that coverage has to be national or international to pass GNG but I actually don't see anywhere on that policy's page where it says that. I understand what you're saying — that any local politician that has significant coverage in local media will be notable if we accept local media as a source. I just don't understand (a) why that's a problem; (b) where Wikipedia's policies explicitly stand against that; or (c) why your definition of "international" has to preclude the "local" (for instance, one could argue an online encyclopedia has to be about "global" subjects like wars and the UN; one could also make the case that an online encyclopedia can also provide coverage of local matters to a global audience). We are meant to be "sum of all knowledge" after all.

I'm also not suggesting (a) that we simply count sources; or (b) that we allow anyone with routine coverage to be included. But I'm saying that when Parker and others like him are discussed at length over three decades of locally high-profile local government work, then we shouldn't simply discount the notability conferred by those sources because they're local. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Indiscriminately maintaining an article about every local politician on earth is a problem for a lot of reasons. Firstly, it's unsustainable — we're not even doing a very good job of maintaining the quality of the articles we already have, let alone adding millions more by loosening or waiving our notability standards. Our model of being an encyclopedia that anybody can edit is admittedly flawed, because Wikipedia editors do not all edit Wikipedia responsibly — people try to add content that violates our rules all the time, but our quality control model, which depends on the attention of other editors after the bad edit has already been made, isn't highly effective either: a bad edit to Boris Johnson's or Beyoncé's articles will get caught and reverted within minutes, because they're world-famous figures whose articles generate a lot of traffic, but a bad edit to a low profile person of purely local interest, such as a county councillor, can linger in the article for months because far fewer people are seeing the article in the first place. I once found an article about a smalltown municipal politician in Eastern Europe, which had spent three full years making the completely unsourced claim that the subject was a cannibal pedophile who was known for taking children into the Chernobyl exclusion zone to rape and kill and eat them. And no, I am not making this up — I obviously speedied that shit right away, but somebody really did edit an article to say that, and it really had spent three full years uncaught before I found it. And secondly, even genuinely notable national-level politicians also frequently try to rewrite our articles about them into advertorial PR profiles that resemble their campaign literature rather than proper encyclopedia articles, and/or to bury notable and well-sourced controversies. But that's an WP:NPOV violation, just as problematic as unsourced claims of pedophilia. So as long as we're trying to be an encyclopedia, rather than a social networking platform, we have to maintain notability standards to determine who qualifies for inclusion and who does not — and whether you agree with it or not, we have a longstanding consensus that county councillors fall below the bar unless they can be shown to be much more significant than the norm for some substantive reason.

As well, please read WP:EVERYTHING. Wikipedia is not meant to be "the sum of all knowledge" — our role is not to indiscrimately be about everything and everyone who exists, it is to apply filters to sort out what information is important and valuable for us to document and what information is not. And, again, one of the filters that we have applied, through consensus, is that county councillors are not of wide enough interest to justify keeping Wikipedia articles — and another of those filters, again through consensus, is that the existence of some purely local media coverage in not inherently notable contexts is not automatically enough to exempt a person from having to satisfy our standard inclusion criteria for their occupation. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearcat. I've never said anywhere that we should allow anyone who happens to get mentioned in a local newspaper (or any newspaper) to be included. I'm suggesting that significant, sustained, non-trivial and non-routine coverage in local news shouldn't be considered differently than similar levels of coverage in national news. That way non-entity parish councillors would probably not meet the bar, but long-serving, top-tier local politicians like Hill and Parker would. I think this is a sensible way of dealing with this issue.

But, more importantly, I think we're getting to the crux of the problem here. It seems from your comment that the distinction that supposedly exists at AfD between the use of local and national sources for establishing notability is ultimately in place because some people feel that it would be unwieldy to maintain the project if we allowed some local politicians to be included. That's why you can't point to a policy; it's not a policy, it's a practice (I'm not saying you're wrong, by the way). So essentially we can split ourselves into two camps: the idealists who think that we should be striving to build an encyclopedia which reflects the sum of knowledge (yes, I know what WP:EVERYTHING says and I also know that summarising is different from being a directory, etc); and the pragmatists who feel that we have to do draw a line in the sand or lose control of the process.

You appear to be a pragmatist (fine). I suppose my first retort would be this: does Rob Parker's article look poorly maintained? Does it strike you or anyone here as having glaring BLP violations, poor citations, OR, POV issues, etc? I don't think it does. If the issue at stake here comes down to drawing a line so that we can keep out the trash, then we need to decide whether Parker's article constitutes trash. IMO it doesn't. Therefore it's better to keep it -- is that not an extension of the logic you've just outlined?

Beside, we also have WP:IAR, which says that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." At the end of the day, Parker's article is an improvement; there is no harm in it being there; it's useful and well put together. Removing it does far more harm to our readership and our mission than letting it stay. Surely, as someone who seems to be approaching the issue pragmatically, you can agree with that? —Noswall59 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

"I've never said anywhere that we should allow anyone who happens to get mentioned in a local newspaper (or any newspaper) to be included." I didn't say you had suggested that; I said (and am correct) that that's what would be the end result of what you suggested.

"I'm suggesting that significant, sustained, non-trivial and non-routine coverage in local news shouldn't be considered differently than similar levels of coverage in national news. That way non-entity parish councillors would probably not meet the bar, but long-serving, top-tier local politicians like Hill and Parker would." And my point is precisely, and correctly, that "significant, sustained, non-trivial and non-routine coverage in local news" is, by definition, a thing that every single municipal and county councillor and school board trustee on earth always has and can always show. There aren't some local politicians who get more coverage than other local politicians do — if local coverage were all it took to get a local politician over GNG as an exemption from having to satisfy NPOL, then every local politician would always get that exemption, every non-winning candidate for office would always get that exemption, and on and so forth. I didn't say you said that's the way it should be — I said that's the way it will be if we do what you suggest, because no local politician anywhere would ever fail to clear the bar if we put it where you suggest. Doing it your way would not set up the distinction you think — it would simply exempt anybody in politics from ever actually having to pass NPOL at all, because everybody in local politics always generates local press coverage in their local media.

And that, to be clear, is precisely why we have an established consensus that local politicians are not notable until they can show nationalizing coverage that expands beyond just their local area. You can dislike it all you want, you can disagree with its premises all you want, but you can't make it go away just by arguing with me about it — I'm just the messenger, not the decider, in a matter like this. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've learned that Parker was used as a case study in a 2000 academic book on local politics (I've included this in the "further reading" section of the article). I will be able to view the relevant section of the book on Friday. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Noswall59 has done a lot of work to expand the article and people in the discussion may wish to re-examine it. I think that most of the new content would be of value moved to the Lincolnshire County Council article, but isn't mostly about Parker individually and doesn't change the overall picture. However, the case study (what I can see of it through Google Book) does constitute significant coverage. GNG generally requires more than one piece of significant coverage, so I don't think alone it is sufficient to change my !vote, but it's a less clear cut case than before. The case study would also be very useful for the Lincolnshire County Council article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo, I should change my stance to Merge to the Lincolnshire County Council article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been sourced much better since the beginning of the AfD. Councillors are not inherently notable, but certainly can be. The fact he was part of a case study weighs heavily on his claim to notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat (no relation). While there have been traditional sources added, they continue to be all local news or party PR. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the case at all – there is in-depth coverage in numerous sources, including a scholarly book and national media like The Guardian and the Local Government Chronicle. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I've outlined my reasons in my discussion with Bearcat above. Essentially, I argue that he passes GNG, with significant coverage in local newspaper sources, many of which are now cited in the article (there are over 500 hits in Nexis's newspaper database for "Robert Parker" AND "Lincolnshire"); he is also the subject of a case study in a scholarly book, which the nominator of this AfD has stated amounts to a piece of significant coverage; he was also discussed in articles in the national news media: in the Guardian and the Local Government Chronicle. Those who argue, like Bearcat above, that we shouldn't allow local newspaper sources to establish notability do so on grounds of practical concern that this could lead to "millions" of stub articles on local politicians. But as he keeps telling me, this is not the place to argue the general point. Indeed, we are assessing Parker's notability and not setting precedent here. And, as I've already stated, practical considerations are moot here; Parker's article is in good shape, it's reliably sources, neutral and well-written; it's useful and encyclopedic. Deleting it would not improve the project, it would harm it. And "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That's what we should do here. We should keep this article on its own merits. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep " we don't usually consider leaders of councils to be notable." Why the hell not? At least, for county councils. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only of local interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- Maybe, but in what sense is he different than the Speaker of the Montana House of Representatives in that respect? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERSTUFF: if you think any Speakers of the Montana House of Representatives should be deleted, you are free to bring them to AfD. I would note that Montana has greater powers than Lincolnshire County Council. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no policy which says we should delete things which are of "local interest only". Where we distinguish between "local" and "sub-national" or "regional" isn't clear either. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment The article has been greatly expanded since I nominated it, thanks to Noswall59. However, I note that the Lincolnshire County Council article is very short and most of the Rob Parker article is about the electoral history of Lincolnshire County Council rather than about Mr Parker as a person. It seems to me much more sensible to take all the new material and move it to Lincolnshire County Council. Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable County council leader - Lincolnshire has almost one million people. We keep mayors of high population cities. Wm335td (talk) 21:53, 10 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) 22:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witan Sulaeman

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are we sure he fails WP:GNG? A very brief search turned up articles like [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] there's more as well. I haven't translated any of these but there's certainly coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the sources you scared up: This is pure advertorial, while this is about Indonesian players playing abroad, among whom is our subject player; this is a news item on subject's transfer prospects, and this is again about his tranfer prospects to a "major European club." Let's wait for that to materialize, I'd suggest. -The Gnome (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: The three kamikaze accounts that created and filled up the contested text are specialists in Asian football, as pasionate about it as fans (or agents and PR people) would be. -The Gnome (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GNG is the key thing here, I am not convinced that the sources are 'significant' - they seem to be transfer news/rumours etc. If anyone is of a different view and is able to more accurately analyse them then ping me. Giant Snowman 13:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL and even WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 13:52, 10 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki (rapper)

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

Not really any notability, not many reliable sources, seems like a c-grade celebrity. A few of his raps seem to hit 200k views at youtube, but i dont think this is significant enough. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. For reasons mentioned below. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: i found some raps of his with over 600k views on youtube. But i still dont think this is notable enough. There isn't much evidence of him being notable. Whilst he does have one article about him from the new york times LINK. It seemed like pretty minor coverage, unless we want to open the floodgates to every minor celebrity getting a wikipedia page the moment they get an article. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Also, beyond the discussion about notability, it's worth noting that the majority of the article is just his discography and that material isn't even given citations. So the article arguably has sourcing problems too. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This rapper also has several album articles, which will become untenable if his artist page is deleted. Those album articles could possibly be combined into this AfD. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very obviously notable given just a quick Google search. As well as being a member of a clearly notable group, there is plenty of coverage of him outside the group, e.g. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. --Michig (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig and the many excellent sources found. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Davidson

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

Many problems with this article, including almost no notability. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 21:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 21:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Out of the references used, the only headlines that she is mentioned in is the university of denver magazine and a student magazine from the university of denver (duclarion). It seems she attended the university of denver at the time of publication. This is obviously very insignificant coverage. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a person does not need to be named in the headline for significant coverage, which this person has: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." For example, in the Time article, Davidson is quoted three times; similar material is in several of the other reliable sources. There are certainly things I'd edit in the article, but AfD is not for fixing such trifles.Bearian (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being quoted can't increase ~~his~~ her notability - it would be inherently non-independent, unless there's actually accompanying content about the individual directly. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Her* Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - you get your name in a newspaper and you get a wikipedia article? No way. I think myself and every person i know has got their name into a 'reliable source' at some point in their lives. WP: GNG stipulates that "significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail". The time magazine article isn't even about her, nor does it address her in detail. This should be a snowball delete, i dont even see how it's an edge case. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should be an easy delete, there are no sources in the world (that i know of) that address the individual "directly and in detail"...Except for the university of denver magazine and the university of denver student magazine...and as she attended the university of denver, that's kind of insignificant (school magazines write about their students all of the time). Perhaps the organization she represents deserves a page, but the case for her having her own page is very thin. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An easy call. There's no significant coverage of her. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 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) 20:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - She has passing mention in several high quality RS's, but is only given direct coverage in a couple university rags. Not quite sure that cuts mustard. NickCT (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only coverage is by university publications o fher own university. Such publications are usually indiscriminate, and therefore not RSs for notability DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 26 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: Y. No.objection to sourced material being merged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Yinsen

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

Yet another non-notable fictional character. Zero real-world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: Y if not notable enough. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: Y. Don't keep, it has no notability. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: Y, as that list has an entry for Yinsen but no actual information beyond a {{main}} pointing at this article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't even a marginal case. Ho Yinsen is one of the most important characters in the Iron Man mythos, and absolutely crucial to Iron Man's origin, hence why Ho Yinsen has appeared not just in the comic books, but in so many other adaptations of the character, from TV series to multiple theatrical films. —Lowellian (reply) 01:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response: There isn't a single source cited in that article that isn't a marvel comic book. If this character is so notable, there should some be some coverage of the character from outside fictional marvel comics. Otherwise that article (A) lacks notability and (B) is just WP:Fancruft. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's worth noting that if the character is so important to iron man, then that can just be mentioned on the iron man wikipedia articles. That doesnt mean that Ho Yinsen needs his own article. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of coverage of Ho Yinsen in secondary sources: ComicBookDB, ComicVine, and MarvUnApp. Here is an article on Ho Yinsen from a non-comic-books website. Actor George Takei, who has no relationship with Ho Yinsen (has never played the character), has an essay about Ho Yinsen posted on his website. —Lowellian (reply) 02:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors: the above comment from Lowellian was only recently added, after much discussion had happened later on this article. Lowellian would not allow me to move his comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion. Lowellian adding that comment to this part of the discussion is poor form because it makes it seem like i was ignoring his comment when i was talking about how no one was able to show any secondary sources later on this page. My comments about that came first, and he/she has simply added this new comment to the wrong part of this discussion - which for bizarre reasons lowellian would not allow me to move. I have responded to these sources at the bottom of this article so as to preserve the natural flow of discussion and to retain a logical chronology of events. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your comment about lack of sources, so the appropriate place for the natural flow of the discussion is to place the comment here, directly below the comment to which it is replying. Trying to move my comment away is poor form because not only is it editing my comment without my permission, but it hides my reply to your comment and wrongly makes it seem like I did not reply to the request for sources. My comment is in the right part of this discussion, below the comment to which it is responding, since Wikipedia uses threaded discussion. Furthermore, it is logical to keep all my arguments together under the umbrella of my main bullet point instead of scattering part of my argument down to the bottom of the page as if I were multiple different editors. No one would have thought you were ignoring any comments; not only do comments have timestamps in the signature, but Wikipedia editors understand that in a threaded discussion, replies get added to earlier comments over time that may change the situation. Plus, I even put an extra note at the bottom that "I added examples in an addendum to my keep comment above" as a courtesy to make the situation clear. This was a complete non-issue, and posting this boldfaced "note to editors" attacking me needlessly injects incivility into this discussion. —Lowellian (reply) 04:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with everything you've just said, but I won't elaborate on this because it's irrelevant to the discussion and i don't want to derail the discussion, and thus I agree to move on. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is because Ho Yinsen is so pivotal to Iron Man's origin story that the character appears in adaptations of Iron Man across many different forms of media, not just comic books: Ho Yinsen saved Tony Stark's life, helped him build the original Iron Man suit, and then sacrificed himself to save Tony Stark again. Batman becomes Batman because Joe Chill kills Thomas Wayne and Martha Wayne. Those characters all have Wikipedia articles. Spider-Man becomes Spider-Man because of the death of Uncle Ben. Uncle Ben also has a Wikipedia article. There is thus plenty of precedent for having articles for supporting characters whose primary role is in the origin stories of the most notable superheroes. —Lowellian (reply) 02:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ignoring the "otherstuffexists" argument for the moment, literally every page you linked to contains a reference from the real world outside of a fictional comic book universe, something that this article doesn't have. Those examples don't help prove your case. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see much point in redirecting to a glossary that won't survive the next decade or two here anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by saying the glossary "won't survive the next decade or two here anyway." Can you explain that? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's referring to an effort to remove comic character articles from Wikipedia. There are currently 72 AfDs for comic characters, 65 of which were started by the same nominator here. That editor has expressed a dislike of the proposed target and would prefer to see it reduced to a bulleted list of blue links. The list's original (and current) purpose is to provide information on characters that are only notable within the fiction. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: Y. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. He played a part in the creation of Iron Man. Plus, @Lowellian: is right about the claim that user mentioned. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect. Note to closing admin or whatever: disregard any votes that may fail WP:ATAIDD, especially the WP:PPOV ones. ミラ P 01:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can people who want to keep this page respond to the fact that there isn't a single source used that isn't a marvel comic book? Like, this character doesn't even have an article written about him on IGN or anything like that. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can. This is an allplot GNG fail and should always be a redirect to the most relevant list. ミラ P 01:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources outside Marvel comic books. I added examples in an addendum to my keep comment above. —Lowellian (reply) 02:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: These are not reliable sources. "Goat" does not appear to be a mainstream news outlet with editorial standards and just seems like a random website. The comicsvine wiki appears to be something anyone to contribute to. Thecomicbook database thing is not a published article in anyway shape or form, and is just a random bit of information on the internet. Marvunapp is not a reliable source. George Takei did not write that article, some random person called dennis livesey wrote that article on his website. Georgetakei's website is not a credible news outlet with editorial standards. I wish you added these sources to the bottom of the article, adding your comment up there makes it look like we were ignoring your comment when we were saying no secondary sources have been presented because people read articles top to bottom. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above source assessments. Maaaaybe we could be a bit more charitable with the post on Takei's blog, but even then we'd only have one solid source, which still falls short of notability guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If George Takei actually wrote that piece on his blog, I would agree. A random fanboy writing something on George Takei's blog? Nope, not notable. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not George Takei's blog. It's his culture/society website with articles by many writers, and the author of the article under discussion is not some "random fanboy", but a hired writer for the website. —Lowellian (reply) 07:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Livesey (an unknown writer) wrote an very short article on George Takei's website about how a marvel fan made some tweets about an Iron Man character. I don't think this is notable enough to justify an article for Ho Yinsen. It's highly dubious whether this counts under WP:Reliable sources, it's totally WP:Fancruft, and even at best, that content from the article on Takei's website is totally insignificant failing the "significant coverage" test of WP:Notability. Surely the only options are to delete, redirect, or small partial merge. Even if we were to imagine that georgetakei's website was the new york times (which it isnt), I fail to see how one meaningless footnote is enough to justify the existence of an entire wikipedia article. Are we going to create a new wikipedia article every time a new article appears on George Takei's website? lol. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the List of Marvel characters. The character's repeated adaptation to other media shows his importance to the fiction and a minimal amount of information should be retained. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No sources available to establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: Y Wm335td (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No real consensus to outright Delete; relist to get clarity on Keep vs. Merge vs. ReDirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Considering the only proposed target has the character's name and a "Main" template pointing at his article, I think all the "redirect" votes should be counted as "merges". Argento Surfer (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Agree with the above comment. Also, all the delete votes should obviously be counted towards merge/redirect rather than keep. To be honest there seems to be a pretty clear consensus that the article should not be kept - none of the votes to keep the article were made along policy lines. There seems to be a clear consensus on the fact that this character lacks significant coverage by reliable secondary sources (so far only one article has been produced that could potentially count). Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apples&Manzanas, you have voted "Redirect" earlier. If you have changed your mind, please strike your earlier vote - Jay (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: Y. It is not notable enough to have an article on its own. Some of the info can be copied. - Jay (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @LeQuattroStagioni:, did you see that your proposed target only has the character's name and a "main" template? Would you oppose merging some information to the target? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:40, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whers

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

This fails to establish notability. Previous AfD was filled with outdated arguments that don't address it failing WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft per nom. Fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. They play a very minor role in the Dragonriders universe. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Terrible WP:FANCRUFT, editor who contested the redirect should be WP:TROUTed. Through I guess in 2014 the inclusionism was still stronger than today... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Blatant fancruft is so much worse than the sneaky kind. -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 10 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) 21:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weyr

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure fancruft and move Weyr (disambiguation) to base._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Terrible WP:FANCRUFT that fortunately survives in https://pern.fandom.com/wiki/Weyrs so nothing is lost. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fictional, usual-variety fancruft. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:32, 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 merge to Reynolds number. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jiří Březina

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:ANYBIO. I will withdraw this nomination if others can find sources to demonstrate notability. TJMSmith (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations on Google Scholar [30] far too low for WP:PROF#C1. The only thing that stands out in his cv is that he was a Humboldt Fellow but I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Reynolds number. While he's not notable his work is an example of that dimensionless quantity. Reynolds number currently lacks sufficient examples for our core readership, students, to gain a grasp of the topic. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearian, presuming there is a subject expert willing to do the work. You find a few more citations with a GS search for "Březina, J", but I'm still not seeing WP:NPROF. Meanwhile, although I'm not an expert, the figures look useful. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 8 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) 22:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Belgariad locations

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

Trivial list of fictional minutia that fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FANCRUFT trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You know you're scraping the bottom of the barrel when "an unnamed village" in Verkat is listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft, no notability. b uidhe 22:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The unnamed village is hilarious!--Jack Upland (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft that belongs at https://davideddings.fandom.com/wiki/Places not here --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unnamed villages? Unnamed archipelagoes? Good grief. This is excessive fancruft that belongs on Wikia. Reyk _YO! 09:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not have lists of "unnamed villages" on Wikipedia. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LOL, Wikipedia sure was a different place twelve years ago. 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 19:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fictional, usual-variety fancruft. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.Kacper IV (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW Wm335td (talk) 21:55, 10 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]

Eugene M. Gagliano

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

Lacks notability. Page was created by a single purpose account and makes claims unsupported by any of the available sources. No indication that being poet laureate of Wyoming has conferred notability - lacks coverage from reliable independent secondary sources. No evidence that any of his books were reviewed by standard children's book journals so does not appear to be notable under WP:NAUTHOR. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, agree with nominator (hi Barkeep49:)) that US state awards do not necessarily mean wikinotability (although they may point to a recipient/their works being "well known"?), curious that, although a couple of Gagliano's books library holdings are in the triple digits (but they are also held as those new fangled "ebooks":)) ie. Four wheels west : a Wyoming number book, 100 libraries, V is for venus flytrap: a plant alphabet, 130 libraries, that there is a dearth of reviews.Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR due to lack of reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Claude Jacob

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

A very minor footnote of a historical figure about whom almost nothing is known. More than half the article text is one massively overlong quote, which one of the other 2 sources even claims is inaccurate, and per WP:PAGEDECIDE the rest isn't enough for a full page; if there's a place to merge any of this I wouldn't see a problem with a short mention, but there's nowhere near enough for a full article. The completely ridiculous age claim doesn't help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The en.wiki article wasn’t linked to the fr.wiki article so I’ve fixed that. From the fr.wiki piece we can see there are portraits of the subject, a street named after him, and some sources not used in the en.wiki article. I’ll try and do some work to improve this in the next few days but it’s pretty clear this subject passes WP:GNG. Mccapra (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, to assist afdeditors, here is a link to the French wikiarticle. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG with available sources, also, written about by Thomas Carlyle, arguably one of the most important social commentators of his day, also contributes to Jacob's wikinotableness, thanks to Mccapra for bringing our attention to the French wikiarticle and for offering to improve the English wikiarticle. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a credible claim of great longevity, which makes him notable. I agree that little is known, but that does not matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry I completely forgot about this and likely will not get to improve it before this AfD closes. Anyway, still keep. Mccapra (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep longevity makes him notable. WP:NOTCLEANUP Wm335td (talk) 21:59, 10 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Kelly

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

Fails WP:GNG / WP:SOLDIER, unresolved issues since 2014 Mztourist (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A second-level decoration and a third-level decoration are not enough to make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kelly passes WP:GNG because he is significantly covered in the US Army's official history of aeromedical evacuation in Vietnam [31] and an article by historian David T. Zabecki calls him the 'father of dustoff', a key part of the American experience in Vietnam. As the first Dustoff pilot killed in Vietnam, he was the subject of a lengthy profile by Peter Arnett. This article needs much improvement, but AfD is not cleanup. Kges1901 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has his own entry in Spencer C. Tucker (20 May 2011). The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military History, 2nd Edition [4 volumes]: A Political, Social, and Military History. ABC-CLIO. pp. 564–. ISBN 978-1-85109-961-0.. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage, as shown by sources mentioned above. He is also prominently mentioned at The Vietnam Center and Sam Johnson Vietnam Archive, here at the American Legion page, here at an Army R&D source, plus several congressional resolutions. Easily meets WP:GNG, and as multiple sources refer to him as a pioneer of military medevac, meets WP:NSOLDIER criteria 6 as well. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kelly passes WP:SIGCOV Wm335td (talk) 21:39, 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 delete and redirect to Autobot. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix of Leadership

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

This still fails to establish notability, so fails WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. and WP:GNG. Sources in the previous AfD were passing mentions. None were ever added to the article. TTN (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Autobots as fancruft that fails WP:GNG. Can be explained sufficiently in the Autobot article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the article Autobots will survive for very long. JIP | Talk 14:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect; fails WP:GNG and is mostly WP:FAN. lullabying (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Autobot It would be impossible to make a valid article on this subject, as there are no reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional, usual-variety fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Autobot. It's a reasonable search term and this target contains sufficient information on the topic. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a fictional piece of technology unlikely to be looked up. I looked at the references for Autobot and saw that they are pretty much all primary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Knowledgekid87: The page has been viewed over 2,000 times in the last month, with about 70 views per day. It's hard to say how many of those were direct searches rather than internal links, but it's more than zero. The proposed target would also not be immediately obvious, even to some users familiar with the term. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:59, 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 redirect to Kazuhiko Mishima. RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love Neco

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

Article is a stub and is unreferenced. Subject does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. lullabying (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author Does not meet WP:WITHIN as it does not show any independent reliable sources to review the work. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kazuhiko Mishima. This is a one shot with no indication of notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 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) 18:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marina (novel)

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

Article makes no claim to notability and does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Cited reviews include a user-submitted review for the Guardian and a Publishers Weekly press blurb. I've found no independent, reliable reviews or other evidence of notability. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep: the book is known worldwide and was translated in several languages, not just in English. i.e in French, Italian, Polki, Portugese and so on.--Pampuco (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NBOOK only considers translations to be a measure of notability for academic texts. I considered the book's potential importance in non-English markets during WP:BEFORE, and attempted to find Spanish-language reviews or mentions of the book, which yielded similar results to the English-language search. Admittedly, my search methods might not be the most effective. Are there any sources you could provide that demonstrate the book's notability in non-English language markets? Thanks. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here is a review in Italian written by Angela Bianchini, a journalist of La Stampa (one of the most popular Italian newspapers), on Tuttolibri, its weekly supplement about books and literature. here there are some info about the book provided in French by a Quebec coopérative des Librairies indépendantes du Québec (coop of indipendent booksellers of Quebec).--Pampuco (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your response. I've been unable to access the review even after making an account with La Stampa, but from the small amount I can access, it seems to be the sort of RS coverage we need. The second source appears to be a sales blurb consisting almost solely of plot details. I hope other editors reading this discussion will also try their hand at verifying the existence of substantial RS on the subject. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This book meets WP:NBOOK criteria #1. It has received reviews from the Italian newspaper La Stampa ([32]), science fiction and fantasy magazine Tor.com ([33]), literary news magazine Publishers Weekly ([34]), and book review magazine Kirkus Reviews ([35]). These make up multiple reviews from independent and reliable sources. The book was also subject of a review in British newspaper The Guardian ([36]), although it was a reader-submitted review as part of the The Guardian's children's book site ([37]). MarkZusab (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews in Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus, and also coverage in Horn Book alone suggests notability. Listings in libraries across the world for the various language editions also suggests notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, in addition to the reviews listed above, there are reviews by Library Journal - "Spanish novelist Zafon's (The Prisoner of Heaven) cinematic writing ensnares the listener in a supernatural snow globe of altered reality both hypnotic and beguiling.", School Library Journal (star review) - "With elements of romance, mystery, and horror, none of them overwhelming the other, this complex volume that hints at Mary Shelley's Frankenstein manages to weave together three separate stories for a cohesive and eerie result.", Booklist - "Originally published in Spain in 1999, this sweeping gothic mystery from Zafon ..." (reviews are here), plus there are others but this will do:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Drake (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation is not required (WP:2DABS). The primary topic has a hatnote to the only other use. Originally PRODed by @Boleyn:, seconded by me, de-PRODed by @MarkZusab: with good-faith addition of an entry that was subsequently removed as a misspelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:2DABS. Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The hatnote is sufficient.—ShelfSkewed Talk 02:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Article is also a very undeveloped stub.TH1980 (talk) 04:27, 7 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) 18:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North Macedonia (Greece)

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

Complete WP:POINTy WP:OR/WP:POV fork. There is no "Northern Macedonia" in Greece, which is why the Greek government agreed to apply the term to its northern neighbour. The content of this article makes clear that this is a non-concept, mixing in the Ministry of Northern Greece, and the Northern Greek dialect, both of which are much broader than the supposed "North Macedonia (Greece)"... Constantine ✍ 18:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lol, the maps included disprove its existence. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree with the arguments used above. Just because "North Macedonia" isn't an official political area of Greece, that doesn't mean that the article cannot be created. For example Macedonia (region) is not a political boundary but a historical geographical one, and areas like Northern England and Southern Vietnam are cultural boundaries rather than strict legal ones. With this said, I agree that the current article is not good enough to warrant its own article because it does not use enough reliable sources. For this article to exist, it would require some more evidence that the term North(ern) Macedonia is often used in Greece to refer to the northern part of Greek Macedonia. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Apples&Manzanas, when I wrote 'There is no "Northern Macedonia" in Greece', I did not merely mean it as an 'official political area'. I also meant it as a cultural, geographic, and historical area (at least for the confines of modern Greek Macedonia, rather than as a generic descriptor for the northern parts of the wider Macedonia (region) in its various definitions by various authors). One of the reasons it is now being applied to the former Republic of Macedonia, is precisely because it is entirely unambiguous: the geographic term "north[ern] Macedonia" coincides largely with the modern state of the same name, and the same name/term is not otherwise used in any country. Constantine ✍ 16:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Greek Macedonia is the part of "Northern Greece" (Βόρεια Ελλάδα), together with Thrace (cf. the former "Ministry of Northern Greece", renamed later as Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace), but nobody talks in Greece of North (of Greek) Macedonia. There is not such a thing because of the "horizontal shape" of (Greek) Macedonia inside the Greek state. On the contrary, there is "Western", "Central" and "Eastern" (Greek) Macedonia. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. BTW, the creator of this article, user Argyross is probably a sock of the indef bocked (for abusing multiple accounts) user A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (cf. their edits, esp. on articles Othonoi, Diapontia Islands, Ano Panta, this edit at Magna Graecia and that one). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete Even the text in the "article" seems to confuse (or fuse) the non-existant "Northern Macedonia" with Northern Greece. --T*U (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK. The issue is settled legally and in every other way. If we kept this article, we would only be adding to the confusion. Compare Palestinian law, where until 1948, "Palestinian law" referred to the law of the Mandated territories, with Upstate New York, which can mean different territories. "North Macedonia" means only one thing, and creating an article around outdated sources would be giving undue weight to an antiquated phrase. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 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 delete as it does not meet our standards for notability of a company. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terroir (company)

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

In ten years nobody has found any reason to link to this article. I suggest, because it is not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I note a main contributor to this has already been blocked for "Promotional username, promotional edits". Page seems too self serving as a whole. Teraplane (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have just added a couple of terroir projects to the article that have quite a lot of useable online coverage ie. awards/media reports about them (have not added all the sources to the article:)), either these, one or more of the founders/principals, and/or the company can have wikiarticle(s), i reckon we should keep this one. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While some of their projects may be notable, that does not mean that this company basks in reflected notability. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:59, 8 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) 18:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Strakhov

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

Contested Prod as article has previously been to AfD and been kept as meeting WP:NFOOTY. However, a revision to NFOOTY mean the league he played in is no longer considered to have been fully professional. Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per updated policy. Geschichte (talk) 19:41, 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 keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmother of Europe

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unconvinced that this is a term with any currency, a feeling exacerbated by the lack of references.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is also Father-in-law of Europe which is notable. Interstellarity (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Queen Victoria~~ Queen Victoria#Descendants and haemophilia. There are a smattering of hits for others, but none from reliable sources. Only Victoria has those. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does seem that reliable sources using this phrase are almost always referring to Victoria. These books are self-published. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I normally go for redirects , but in this case I think it would merely be baffling. Is there anything in the article on Victoria mentioning the phrase?TheLongTone (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's noted at Queen Victoria#Descendants and haemophilia, so the redirect should be to that particular section. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a well-attested term used throughout history, most recently for Queen Victoria, albeit not in current use for any living person. This is useful for our core readers' navigation and as a list of women who held this informal title. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any reliable sources that use this description for anyone other than Victoria? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the term is notable We keep this as a service to our readers. Lightburst (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you the same question that I asked above of Bearian. I'm quite prepared to believe that this term has been applied to other people in other reliable sources than those applying to Victoria, if evidence is provided, but I can't find any such sources myself. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how reliable they are, but here is one using the term for Louise of Hesse-Kassel, and here is another using it for Carolina of Orange-Nassau. Victoria does seem to be the overwhelming favorite for the term, though. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first (history.info) is of dubious reliability, and the second uses the term as a description, not as a full-fledged nickname, and is of suspect reliability too. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG easily. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:21, 10 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 List of Black Widow characters. It's WP:CRYSTAL that the character will get more notability-establishing coverage because of an upcoming film, but it's also not unheard of. Redirect until then as an alternative to deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden (comics)

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

This fails to establish notability. The character simply existing in an upcoming film is does not equate to being notable. It can be restored should the film give enough sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I think it is premature to delete when there is an upcoming film appearance which will likely generate more sources talking about the character than we already have in the article, but failing that a merge to List of Black Widow characters until the Black Widow film comes out makes more sense than outright deletion. BOZ (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Black Widow characters as a non-notable character._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NCOMIC says the character is presumed notable if "Featured prominently in [a ...] movie of a comic book property (e.g. not a cameo)". If the character has a prominent role in Black Widow as expected, this article meets the essay critera. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really bad project guideline that nobody should use. That partly how we currently have this unending mess of articles. TTN (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another notability guideline or essay specific for comic book characters somewhere? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but it seems easy enough to default to WP:WAF and WP:GNG. This definitely doesn't have a real world perspective, and news articles about simple inclusion in a movie don't really do anything for content or notability. The opinions in that essay seem like a holdover from the Wikipedia of a decade ago where people simply made the assumption of notability on fictional items. Though the essay itself is relatively new. TTN (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Black Widow characters. I did an extensive search on Google and Newspapers.com to find any significant coverage of the character to no avail. If/when the character receives more coverage after the release of the film in May to pass WP:GNG, I would support a standalone article. Looking at the current state of List of Black Widow characters, I do not see how a merge of the contents from this article could happen. The essential information is already given in the table, and the remaining content in this article is too trivial (and probably undue weight) to include there. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and I don't think the supposed list fares better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect... somewhere as an alternative to deletion. This has an odd nomination... if "it can be restored" later, why delete it outright and make someone's life more difficult? I guess we could Draft it (unless someone wants to volunteer their Sandbox). Maybe Drafting is better since if there's nothing to add, it will eventually speedy WP:G13. I don't have a target preference—didn't even know that list existed. -2pou (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eagles247. The mass WP:COMICS deletion nominations from TTN (who appears woefully unfamiliar with subject matter of these nominations) is also troubling. The rationales behind a few of these, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin (Marvel Comics) are also erroneous and unjustified. Maybe they should open a larger discussion expressing their concern with the WikiProject instead? Dark Knight 2149 22:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: My !vote ended up being "redirect". Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My vote still stands. Maybe a merge would also be justified. Dark Knight 2149 22:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just wanted to clarify since your rationale for keeping this article is agreeing with an editor who does not think the article is notable enough for inclusion on a stand-alone basis at this time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:22, 7 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]

Karl Schmitz

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

Appears to have a couple featured articles because he was signed by the Broncos and Buccaneers in the 2015 NFL offseason as a 28 year old rookie after posting YouTube videos of trick shots. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and likely fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does appear to be some significant coverage, including an Associated Press feature story. See pt 1, pt 2. Doesn't count as multiple sources, but the same AP story was also picked up in the Los Angeles Times (here) and other papers nationwide. This could be written off as a "feel good" story about a 28-year-old getting NFL attention from YouTube videos, but it is a feature story and represents significant coverage. That said, multiple examples of significant coverage are needed for him to pass WP:GNG. I am not finding that but will reconsider my "delete" vote if additional coverage is found. Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 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 merge relevant content to Javontee Herndon and redirect to that page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Herndon

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

Non-notable ~~FCS~~ college football wide receiver, fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Played for the Arkansas Razorbacks in Division I FBS, but my searches do not turn up significant coverage in reliable, independent sources of the type needed to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is actually a duplicate of Javontee Herndon, and he played in 8 NFL games thereby passing WP:NGRIDIRON. I am going to speedy close this discussion, merge the relevant content to the Javontee Herndon article, and redirect this page to that one. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:42, 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) 15:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. Laster

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

Non-notable former FCS running back and lower level college football assistant coach. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG and not notable for stand alone article in regards to his football playing days or coaching. Trivial and reading like a poor attempt at a CV. Kierzek (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My searches turned up mentions in game coverage, but not the sort of significant coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable figure in American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan Dale Neis

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

Neis has not had multiple significant roles in notable productions. The article is also only sourced to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple roles, significant coverage. I've expanded and added information to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY based on the many improvements made by Megalibrarygirl. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY as the article has been improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources that pass WP:GNG and also show that the actress has had prominent roles in notable productions, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article now substantiates that subject is sufficiently notable Fawcett5 (talk) 15:08, 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 delete. Tone 23:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of smartphones with LTE Advanced support

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

The article is not perfectly written. I thought initially to PROD it but wanted to reach the consensus from fellow Wikipedians. Abishe (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple case of WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 18:53, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Platin Shopping Center

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

Fails WP:GNG and the content primarily depends on a single source. Abishe (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:33, 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 15:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matiss Kivlenieks

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

Player fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he ever meets either or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our extremely broad inclusion guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hockey player guidelines aren't met. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If/When he plays in the NHL (or clears WP:NHOCKEY in another way), the article can be restored, but at this point it falls short. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because he fails notability guidelines. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:35, 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. Tone 15:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of apologies to China

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

There is no need to have a list article like this. Wikipedia doesn't have such type of list article. Abishe (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a feeling that this article might be a WP:DIRECTORY, and possibly not following WP:NPOV. It also doesn't help that the article lists figures and groups who have "apologized" to China along with Chinese companies themselves (which of course are generally going to be "pro-China") Khu'hamgaba Kitap^talk 14:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of people apologizing for specific things are going to be hard enough. This is an open ended list of people apologizing for anything, anytime, as long as it in some way can be construed as "to China". This is not that notable, not defining, and not even fully quantifiable, especially with the rise of the back handed apology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They get coverage for making an official apology to the government of China. Dream Focus 19:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Whoever created this travesty of a list should apologize to Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m really sorry, but this needs to be deleted as per above. Brunton (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Why does Wikipedia even need this? In my own POV, this might be (slightly) defamatory to the companies (and so) listed here. Wikipedia should promote neutrality, and people reading this article will likely take a stand, either for or against China, which is not Wikipedians want. Lord of Math (Prove me wrong) 01:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEEDED is not a valid reason to delete something. It is not defamatory to companies since they made public apologies. Wikipedia does not censor. WP:CENSOR You can't delete an article because you believe someone might form an opinion about something. Dream Focus 19:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 01:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-brief-history-of-corporate-apologies-to-china-2019-10-09 https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/world/asia/2019-10-08-global-brands-offer-groveling-apologies-to-china/ https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/10/14-times-american-companies-self-censored-or-apologized-to-appease-communist-china/ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/corporate-americas-subservience-to-china-and-american-populism-cannot-coexist and other results appear with a Google news search for "apologies to China". This is a notable topic, clearly meets the General Notability Guidelines. Dream Focus 01:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: I feel that would be better served as an article titled Western companies and China or something like that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - the thing here is not about notability, it’s about whether it is meant to be in an encyclopedia. Frankly, I'm not an experienced user on Wikipedia, but my sense tells me that this is far from fit in any encyclopedia. 數神, the Lord of Math (Prove me wrong; My contributions to the world in numbers) 09:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already !voted above. Geschichte (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article in its current form is POV as it entirely lacks the context of the apologies. Judging from the content as well as the tone of the sources cited, a better title might be List of entities who bent to pressure after expressing support for protests in Hong Kong. I'm wondering if this short list can be merged in its entirety into Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests. Daß Wölf 11:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Wikipedia is still blocked in China. Should we apologise too? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't the article written with political motives and lets say could be related to 2019 Hong Kong protests. I wonder why Wikipedia should apologise to China because its China who blocked Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia could also be included in the list. We should comply with WP:NPOV. Abishe (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This technically abides by the rule for significant coverage, but looking at this as a reasonable person, it seems to be a well-meaning but intentional fork of the One-China Principle, written as an essay that gives undue weight to the concerns about insults. The page also attaches a list this is a catchall for different things - sovereign and corporate apologies, and responding to both intentional insults and accidental gaffes. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This expresses my sentiments about the article as well. Daß Wölf 14:09, 7 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 15:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by number of public holidays

(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]

Delete. Appears to be original research. Also very incomplete. Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised keep. The Telegraph,[38] The Toronto Star,[39] ABC News[40] and Business Insider[41] have all compiled such lists (though they don't agree with this one). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's particularly surprising. Here in the UK it's commonly remarked that we have fewer such holidays than most other countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep reliable sources have been found. The article could benefit from listing the days and names of these holidays. Dream Focus 22:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RS WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as meets GNG. It does sound like something a journalist would write about when they are bored, but nevertheless there is something to write about here. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 00:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep only if this AFD is closed by a person during an official holiday in their country.^[FBDB] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, I'm leaning keep but it's practically a coin flip at this point. This thing has a bit too much WP:OR to be salvageable at the moment. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - Clarityfiend demonstrates it meets WP:LISTN. Daß Wölf 19:05, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaos Mikroulis

(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]

Delete does not meet our extremely broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 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]

Weak keep Most of them are transfers, but I found one source in the WP:REFBOMB that's probably not = "Ξανά στην ομάδα της καρδιάς του ο Σμοΐλης, στην ΑΕΛ και ο Μικρούλης". ミラ P 01:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falls outside of Wikipedia's scope. Geschichte (talk) 19:45, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Nagpal

(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_creep^Talk

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]

Comment This wasn't transcluded correctly, so I have added it to the last day. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been me moving the AfD page. Thought I changed everything but may have forgot something. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 23:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person in advertising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ - there's broad coverage in the news, but I'm unsure if we could consider that significant enough. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 3 December 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_creep^Talk 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]

Delete - the coverage seems to be much broader than deep. Changing my !vote. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the WP:REFBOMBING characteristic of this editor's creations, the subject does not appear to me to pass WP:GNG. Also very likely WP:UPE. -- Begoon 07:24, 7 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)

(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

List of Marvel Family enemies Reyk _YO! 12:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Delete This can be covered in other articles, it does not warrant a seperate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The grouping does not establish notability. There are 27 primary DC character lists that can house any DC characters, so this being a necessary article fork is not established either. TTN (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all four articles - The combined size of the four articles is over 200kB, and would be arduous to merge into Marvel Family, which is just over 30 kB. If the articles can not be kept, they should be redirected to Marvel Family in order to keep the history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Nearly all of these entries are completely non-notable, being one-shot characters that appeared in one issue of a comic ever. The handful of characters that actually are notable (i.e. Captain Nazi, Black Adam, etc) already have their own articles. The remainder is complete non-notable cruft sourced only to the single comic issues that they appeared in. Rorshacma (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. More of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Extremely trivial comic-cruft lists that fail WP:LISTN hard._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or prune. I doubt this list is useful and satisfies LISTN through I guess the 'prune all that don't have articles' approach is fair for now, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with @Jax 0677: on his claim. Plus, there are some redirects from The Kid Superpower Hour with Shazam! that go to the child pages. If it is Merge, perhaps they can be reorganized like the rogues gallery pages for the other known superheroes. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - clearly fails LISTN. Cjhard (talk) 07:46, 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abhi Nahi Toh Kabhi Nahi

(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]

delete the film doesnt pass WP:NFILM. If we consider for general notability criteria, all of the references I could find are press releases. These references are vague too. One ref that i could find was about a notable actor's sister getting a role in this film, which was not about the film too. The film had just one passing reference in that source. As the film lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, it also fails general notability criteria. Also, per the rationale provided by nominator. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
draftifyNotable movie which will pass GNG easily but TOOEARLY to have an article. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harshil169: erm... How can it be notable if it doesnt pass GNG? —usernamekiran(talk) 16:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Usernamekiran, It received coverage in multiple independent reliable sources which are enough to pass GNG but movie is not launched yet. Hence, we should draft it. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great – would you mind posting those sources here, or even better, add them to the article? --bonadea contributions talk 17:54, 10 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

(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]
- Do you have some reliable secondary sources? Central to works by a major author or otherwise, if we don't have the sources, I'm not sure we should have an article. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:57, 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]

Redirect to Dragonriders of Pern#Overview. While there is certainly a lot of sources about the series and its books, I'm not finding any discussions in reliable, secondary sources about the planet in specific that would warrant an article separate from the main overview of the series and its setting. A selective merge could potentially be done to fill out the "Overview" section of the main article a bit, but as nearly all of this appears to either be unsourced or sourced only to the books themselves, I don't know how much of this content is actually worth including there. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then create a dab page including a redirect to Dragonriders of Pern#Overview, Pern, Lot, Pern (bird), Pakistan Educational Research Network, the title character of The Life of Rock with Brian Pern, the station code of Pernem railway station and PERN Przyjazn SA. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that this is the clear primary topic for the word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except it isn't worth a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' to Dragonriders of Pern per Rorshacma and per WP:TNT. Even if there is a notable topic here, it needs to be totally rewritten from scratch._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional, usual-variety fancruft. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create dab page, per Clarityfiend. There are obviously several articles that could legitimately have this title. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that this is the clear primary topic for the word. Anarchangel (talk) 02:43, 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 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

(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]

Fold, spindal and mutilate per nom. No such animal, and the number of possible misspellings of all article titles is enormous. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 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]

Except a disambiguation page with zero legitimate entries is not a disambiguation page. WP:ZERODABS is even stronger than WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 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

(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]

I found a brief mention of Machinima Island in https://www.jstor.org/stable/44429561. Vexations (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inter-activa. All the cited content is already there, and both articles are short. The sources in the article, [42] [43] [44], are very minor and possibly not reliable. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor art projects, references do not suffice for WP:GNG. Ping me if better refs are added. BEFORE fails to show much, seems very niche. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Activa

(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

(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]

Comment: This article was mentioned in a related AfD in 2008. AllyD (talk) 14:13, 28 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

(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]

Redirect to Future plc. Not notable. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This magazine is not to be confused with Games for Windows: The Official Magazine, which is published by Ziff Davis. Much of the content in the article is unverifiable (e.g. "The magazine is notable for being the biggest magazine launch in publishing history"). The magazine is currently listed in {{Future plc}}, so the Future plc article appears to be a good redirect target. — Newslinger talk 08:22, 8 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

(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:

(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]

Keep or merge to either Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) or List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:02, 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]

Redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons)#Dragonets. I could have sworn we already had an AFD that resulted in this, but I guess I was thinking of the similar Pseudodragon. In any case, the creature is not notable, as it does not have much coverage in reliable, secondary sources, so it should not be kept. As Dragons, as a group, are one of the D&D creatures notable enough to warrant an article, and Faerie Dragons already have an entry there, Redirecting it there makes the most sense. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep GNG/SIGCOV satisfied by publication history in both Paizo and Wizards of the Coast/TSR. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize those are all WP:PRIMARY sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. If a topic is the subject of dozens of publications since the 1970s then these sources should be taken into account for GNG. There is a distinction to be made between the content of the article, which can be improved, and the sources, primary or secondary which contribute to WP:SUSTAINED. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fancruft. Not even sure Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) is notable, which is ironic but makes sense due to the overly broad scope._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No Opinion Not anymore, just interesting to me that BOZ, Piotrus, and TTN are all doing stuff again. Those were the days! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you mean, but User:TTN hasn't even posted here (yet). I'll ping him, maybe he will have a clue as to what you refer to? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - He'll find it eventually I'm sure, but until then there's no need to WP:CANVASS (even if unintentionally) with a ping. I imagine Peregrine Fisher was speaking generally of the slew of AFDs and seeing the same people over and over in them. BOZ (talk) 12:59, 4 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]

Delete. Fictional, usual-variety fancruft. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) - they probably deserve at least a mention there; without secondary sources, though, this can't really have a standalone article. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:07, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom King (martial artist)

(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]

Delete - fails WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 15:49 04 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete the sources do not verify notability. ww2censor (talk) 17:26, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geneviève Dieudonné

(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]

Delete. No independent sources. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:PLOT information only, no sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:00, 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 Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Dwarf. Tone 15:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf (Warhammer)

(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]

Merge to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Dwarf. Non-notable on its own. Contrary to Necrothesp's interpretation, this is not 'central to major literary works', it is specifically about dwarves in Warhammer rather than overall._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I also said "and games"! It is central to Warhammer, which is a major game. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Dwarf, where this fictional race is already covered with WP:DUEWEIGHT. Per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF, primary (plot) info only serves to provide context for real-world info (sourced!, not WP:OR like here), and since this article hasn't got sourced real-world info, well, it doesn't need to exist. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 14:59, 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 delete. Tone 15:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gods of the Old World

(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]

Keep. Major element of a major fictional setting. 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) 14:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Warhammer Fantasy is not a literary work. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually, yes it is - there are many literary works based in the setting. But it's also one of the biggest games ever produced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lord of the Rings is borderline literature (though the characters are, for the most part, far from Dickensian). I don't think you'll find any scholar who would claim the same of any Battlehammer work. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure fancruft that fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.Kacper IV (talk) 12:28, 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 redirect to Gondor#Government. Tone 15:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards of Gondor

(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]

Delete per TNT. There may well be a way to write this as a notable concept article. However this telling of the fictional history and geneaology of the office is not it. What we would need is sources discussing this topic in reliable, 3rd party sources not written or edited by a Tolkien. This is lacking from this article, so we can delete it and let others start over if they can find reliable discussions of the topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gondor#Government. The topic is covered pretty well at that spot, with the main difference being that the list and family tree are not found in the Gondor article. The list and tree aren't encyclopedic and can be transwikied if necessary, and the good concept material is produced at Gondor. I found several articles on Google Scholar for this topic, but the references didn't seem to be in-depth enough to indicate sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. Hog Farm (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The only significant Steward of Gondor in Tolkien's fiction is Denethor and we have an article about him. The rest is fancrust.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gondor#Government This topic would only interest a small segment of Tolkien fans. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being all WP:PLOT. I'd rather not see this merged to Gondor#Government, as it's not a likely search term (one would rather look up Gondor directly), and that target section is already pretty bloated with plot too. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.Kacper IV (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was going to echo the argument above about redirecting to Gondor, as the fictional leaders have zero real-world notability or citation, but that doesn't appear to be on solid ground either. Gondor has about 100 citations, 1 to support the comparison to Byzantine, 1 about language influence, the rest to source material, i.e. Tolkien's books, to support plot elements. ValarianB (talk) 12:59, 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 redirect to Zalaki. Please feel free to merge anything useful Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zalki

(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]

Redirect to Zalaki. I agree they’re pretty certainly the same place. Mccapra (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Could this be merged with and redirected to Bijapur district? Vorbee (talk) 16:53, 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]

Merge with Zalaki, though an additional spelling appears to be Jhalki. Will have to research WP:COMMONNAME. SportingFlyer T·C 01:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now WP:GEOLAND criteria Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 8 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]

Redirect - Per User:Mccapra. NickCT (talk) 20:38, 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:

(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]

Delete This term is too widely used at least in discussions of works to support its coverage is such a narrow way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a complaint about the quality of the article rather than an objection to the article itself; AfD is not cleanup. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; seems like a decently sourced article about a concept that has a big role in Buffy and that is used elsewhere. Clearly a term of art in Buffyology, and clearly the the subject of some academic attention; I came across a published paper called "The Big Bad and the Big 'Aha'" in a recent collection from Lexington, for example. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDICT and per nom. A pure dicdef mixed with fancruft. I love TVTropes, but Wikipedia is not TVTropes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything is sourced to scholarly analysis. If we're dismissing scholarly analysis as "fancruft", we're in trouble. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we say everything is notable just because it had a brief mention in a scholarly analysis, we're in trouble. C wut I did thar?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've no idea what you did "thar". If you think you're describing my view, you're mistaken. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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. But it's entertaining to consider the WP:DICDEF aspect. The point of that policy is not that we should delete anything but that "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." So, it is instructive to see how many titles we have for this concept. Let's start with:

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]

Keep [45] [46] [47] and other reliable sources do use the expression. Dream Focus 22:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS again, the term is used but not analyzed, pure WP:DICTDEF usage example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (where the last paragraph of #Characters already mentions this concept) or List of Buffyverse villains and supernatural beings (which needs decruftifying, but might have a future). Scholars seem to focus on BTVS only for this topic, so better cover it in one of the show's main articles rather than getting rid of it completely. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - It should be redirected somewhere, maybe a sentence added to Antagonist and redirected to Buffy as the main usage? The MTV article is the only in-depth analysis. Otherwise, it's just passing mentions. TTN (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Andrew Davidson. This term as defined in the bare-bones WP:DICDEF article we have at present is synonymous (read: redundant) with antagonist, which is the only context I've ever heard it used in and the only sense defined in our article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:03, 6 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]

It still seems to be mostly passing mentions. This would easily fit under Antagonist's "Types" section. They are a type of antagonist. TTN (talk) 20:04, 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]

Merge perhaps to List of Buffyverse villains and supernatural beings. A term for some of the major villains but I'm not seeing in the sources enough that this warrants a separate article as a concept of its own. Reywas92^Talk 08:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That list has about zero notability, though. It would definitely not survive an AfD, IMO._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:44, 9 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]

Weak Keep - The article is very dictionary-like, but remember other terms like Antihero have their own article. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:21, 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)

(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]
    - [48] does not appear to be reliable (fan article?). Your second link has expired, can you link it again in a way that will work for others? I will try to access the third article form my uni later, it doesn't appear to be on Library Genesis :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The first article is from Slayage, which is a peer-reviewed journal published by a scholarly society. (The link I gave was to a fansite, but here is the same article on the journal's website.) I admit their formatting leaves a lot to be desired, but it's undoubtedly a reliable source. (And the author is an associate professor at CUNY.) The second article, also from Slayage, is this. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:17, 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

(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

(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

(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 [49] 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]

Merge to the existing section Ethiopian Jews in Israel#Ethiopian Heritage Museum, including by adding reference there. It does look to be a prior plan for what became National Institute for Ethiopian Jewry Heritage Center covered in the 2016 article cited in the deletion nomination. Add a bit to that section, saying it was planned but didn't happen as expected, apparently, then this probably related result happened. --Doncram (talk) 23:25, 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]

Comment -- The parent section in the article pointed to also clearly cannot survive on its present form. The whole thing seems to fail WP:CRYSTAL. The 2016 article might constitute the basis for a substitute section. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 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]

Delete or reditrect to the later project Ethiopian Jews in Israel#Ethiopian Heritage Museum. The current article is about a project that was not carried out and accordingly fails WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps one or two sentences from the present content might be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, same as what Peterkingiron said.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:48, 21 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

(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]

Delete a non-notable person in advertising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The editor November 29th added a paragraph that was promotional and advertising in reading. I deleted that paragraph & added more sources regarding her notability. Deletion of this page is not recommended. Gwalkerone (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a person who does her job without standing out. Geschichte (talk) 19:50, 4 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]

Strong Delete Entirely non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, possible promo piece. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 04:06, 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 delete and redirect to Baudolino. No independently sourced material, but a possible search term. RL0919 (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pndapetzim

(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]

Delete: Insignificant fictional location, minor feature of novel.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baudolino This article is simply a collection of plot-related information. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:25, 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tirion

(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]

Delete This lacks coverage in indepdent sources that would show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valinor#Geography and residents. Not notable on its own. Hog Farm (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor place in a minor work.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fancruft, fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:44, 8 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

(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 IDV^talk 04:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Alexandra IDV^talk 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.

--Alexandra IDV^talk 04:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all because we do have some sources and something to build on, or at worst merge the available sources into List of Werewolf: The Apocalypse books. All of the books have at least one review, and some of the books do have more than one review, and I will see what I can do about finding the reviews I have yet to add, and whatever other sources might exist. BOZ (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have access to any of these sources, but there are more potential reviews (under "Linked Items") for Axis Mundi and Caerns, at the very least. BOZ (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on Caerns and Chronicles, which both have two RS reviews. And if we are not able to find more reviews of the others, merge into List of Werewolf: The Apocalypse books, given that each of them has one RS review. Guinness323 (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you arguing that an RPG supplement only covered in a single magazine review would be notable for a standalone article?--Alexandra IDV^talk 11:15, 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

(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]

Delete mayors do not get default notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Finucane (Sinn Féin politician) as delete and Carson's claim to notability is far weaker than Finucane's. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lord mayor is a ceremonial position. Only executive mayors are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 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 Snow keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susan H. Hildreth

(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]

Keep Hildreth has an international profile proving advice to libraries in Australia (eg https://www.libraries.sa.gov.au/custom/web/PLS/SAPLN_tomorrows_libraries_digital_edition_3.pdf Also it appears the editor who nominated the article for speedy deletion is only new to the task? Aliaretiree (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some work, but notable! Lirazelf (talk) 15:34, 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

(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]

Delete another non-notable mayor. We seem to be weighted down with lots of such articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lord mayor is a ceremonial position. Only executive mayors are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 4 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]

Delete Yip. scope_creep^Talk 15:32, 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 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)

(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]

Delete -- Per WP:BLP1E N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 09:32, 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]

The subject's Google Scholar profile is here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 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

(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]

Keep - There's tons of trivial mentions out there (mostly athletic scores, etc.), so a proper WP:BEFORE is quite difficult. The current article is very poorly sourced. But there does seem to be enough out there to pass WP:GNG. This, this is more in-depth, even if an athletic article, even some tv coverage, this, and this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even the most simple Google on the school name and the road give results . One building renovation architect gives enough material for an article. I query whether 'I did a quick search' shows sufficient diligence to disprove notability WP:NEXIST?ClemRutter (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Going by the keep statements above, the sources do exist that would satsify WP:GNG even though the search engines bring up mostly athletic news. One particular source not related to atheletics would be the partnership between the school in question and Belhaven University which disproves WP:NEXIST. I also want to mention that I have made some changes to the article in question, so some improvements can be made over time. Shadowhen89 (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As it stands, it merits a weak keep, but I'll bet if we dig into history under the previous name, a wealth of information might be found. John from Idegon (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a pdf on the school's previous name. Although the pdf only shows a list of schools, the previous name has its own "previous name." To point the name out, University Christian School, the school's previous name, has its own previous name, which is Brandon Academy. To add more, I found sources, which are football records, on the previous names Brandon Academy and University Christian School; however, both schools do not have complete records, which the records may contain errors such as the year of name change to Hartfield Academy. The sources could possibly satisfy WP:GNG. Shadowhen89 (talk) 02:50, 7 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

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. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(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]

Delete considering this article did not pass munster even back when we had the now deprecated pornbio guidelines, it is even more in need of being deleted today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 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

(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]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Half of Russian political bloggers criticize Putin and claim that Putin is after them. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:31, 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

(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]

Keep or merge to either List of Marvel Comics characters: P or Psionex. BOZ (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psionex#Members per nom. ミラ P 03:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psionex#Members since the character is already covered there. Aoba47 (talk) 07:13, 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Abrahmsohn

(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. J 947^{'s public account} 01:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. subject is only passing mentioned in the sources and not indication of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO after a WP:BEFORE of any significant coverate or achievement as a real estate sale agent. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Should be a G11. scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this looks like an add placed for a real estate agent, not an encyclopedic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the promotionality (which merits a G11 speedy deletion), the sources (in the article and after searching) only give passing mention of the subject that is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO

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

(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]

Delete per WP:PLOT - this is just a summary of their character arc with no out-of-universe content whatsoever. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia MDDevice^talk 01:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(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]

Delete. No evidence of passing GNG. In current form belongs on wikia/fandom site, not here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Soap Opera Super Couples: The Great Romances of Daytime Drama has a section about the couple, and No End to Her: Soap Opera and the Female Subject discusses the couple's storylines. The couple also won two Soap Opera Digest Awards, as supported by these two sources, (1 and 2). The Odessa American, the St Joseph News-Press, and the Tampa Tribune each include brief references to the couple's popularity with fans. I do not believe this alone is enough to support independent notability, but there does seem to be at least some coverage from third-party, reliable sources on this couple. With that being said, I am not opposed to deletion since the information on the couple could be kept in the articles on the respective characters instead of an entirely separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs on fandom. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I guess an article on a fictional relationship with enough coverage could be a thing, but this is lacking coverage. TTN (talk) 22:00, 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 Most Giftable Third Party 5e Supplements For Your DM". Geek and Sundry. 2018-11-29. Retrieved 2019-12-05.

[1] "The Most Giftable Third Party 5e Supplements For Your DM". Geek and Sundry. 2018-11-29. Retrieved 2019-12-05.

[1]

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pndapetzim}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirion}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giulio De Nardo}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giulio De Nardo}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis Mundi: The Book of Spirits}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arder Carson}}