Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Northamerica1000 (talk | contribs) at 03:42, 5 October 2019 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearson in Practice (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 26 September 28 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 03:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janus University

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

The article fails WP:NOR by being entirely based on primary sources. This doesn't appear to be curable; I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources covering this organization in any detail. What I did find indicates that Janus University is handing out honorary doctorates by the dozen, the hallmark of a diploma mill. Huon (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that this private unaccredited university is no longer in operation. See :1. https://www.bppe.ca.gov/enforcement/actions/order_3001531.pdf and 2. https://www.bppe.ca.gov/enforcement/actions/order_3001531.pdf Audit Guy (talk) 02:25, 28 September 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, contributions) 09:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Evil Marriage

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

A user who created the page of the evil marriage was block by wikipedia admin for multiple accounts. The film is not even notable and not showing in google news or any other major news outlet. the film producer rana abrar page was deleted twice by wikipedia. According to me the film isn't in reliable sources. پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 07:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 27 September 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. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coherency (homotopy theory)

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

This article has been in the Draft namespace for some time, and has been nominated for deletion at MfD twice. The most recent discussion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination), resulted in a consensus to move the article into mainspace and see if it lives through an AfD. This is a procedural AfD, so I'm not putting forth any opinion as to whether it should be kept or deleted. ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Homotopy theory. Too thin, in unjustified WP:SPINOUT. Get talk page consensus before making spinouts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both the title and the lede sentence assert that the topic is a subtopic or derivative topic of Homotopy. Neither that article nor it’s talk page contains even the word “coherency”. Making a separate page is certainly premature, and I am arguing, bad structurism. Notability of finely sliced mathematical topics is poorly defined, Wikipedia-notability doesn’t work for it. The approach should be as I say, structuralist. Coherency is meaningless without knowledge of Homotopy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Homotopy theory is itself only a redirect, although it's a fairly major topic in algebraic topology and certainly deserves an article (the broad topic ones are always the hardest to write though ). A homotopy is merely a specific kind of function, covered by the article there, along with some related notions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's in somewhat rough shape, but the topic itself is notable enough for an article. Merging (as suggested above) would be an inappropriate inclusion of a fairly specific topic in a very broad article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just marked it as a stub as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The topic is notable (in the Wikipedia sense if my parents don’t know about it). I don’t think the merger works because this is fairly a specific topic. There are probably not featured-article-level materials to cover but are probably still enough for a modest-size article. — Taku (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean merger? It's not something to try; for example, the section of Mac lane coherence theorem would appear very odd in homotopy theory article. The draft was not started out as a spinout anyway. Some small article on a village in Japan might be, length-wise, put in the Japan article, the result looks very odd. -- Taku (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reasonable comparison. Homotopy is not squeezed for space like Japan.
At a minimum, can you introduce a mention of coherency at Homotopy? Can you tell me what about coherency is not connected to Homotopy? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be somehow misleading (the best place to mention it at see also): just because some village exists in Japan, that doesn’t mean it deserves a section in the Japan article. Similarly, not every topic in homotopy theory deserves a section in the homotopy article.
Wikipedia currently does not have a list of homotopy theory topics; the closest would be Glossary of algebraic topology. Merging this page into it also doesn’t seem natural. It seems the most natural to discuss this topic in a separate articles, just as many other topics are discussed in separate articles. -— Taku (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: As others have observed, this is too thin to stand on it's own in my view. Merge to Homotopy any content that is unique and expand the content until it meets WP:SPINOUT criteria. Hasteur (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Coherency does not logically fit into the article about homotopy, so artificially sticking it there makes no sense. It would only even barely fit into an article about Homotopy theory (barely because homotopy theory is a very broad topic, while coherency is too narrow), which doesn't even exist. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you make that statement at talk:Homotopy. Are you saying Homotopy should not mention coherency? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to DV's kibitzing and attempting to argue that because no direct page exists as a good merge/redirect target this page should still be left alone. If homotopy theory exists as a redirect, perhaps Coherency (as a subset of homotopy theory) should live there to help raise homotopy theory to the level of it's own spinout. Hasteur (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. I read “merge with Homotopy theory, spinout the merger from Homotopy. I also note there are no valid deletion arguments, and suggest User:Scottywong close this as WP:Speedy keep #1, no valid reason for deletion. Instead, it belongs at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: With respect, I point out that Proposed mergers is open ended and (in experience with certain editors in Mathematics stubs) will remain proposed for years and then when a editor comes in to enact what seems like a low effort/hostility action of redirecting the page and leaving the previous page history, the editor will revert citing "Vandalism", Disruptive editing, Personal attacks, etc. Anything to keep "their" content from being rolled over and an anathema to the purpose of a collaberatively edited encyclopedia. Hasteur (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have returned to a higher level position that AfD should not be destroyed as a viable deletion forum by accepting difficult merge proposals. Coherency (homotopy theory) is a very thin topic, and appears to only have serious connection to one other topic, Coherency, making it obviously a derivative topic, and in my opinion prematurely spunout. Some are now arguing that Coherency (homotopy theory) can't be merged to Coherency Homotopy, but Coherency Homotopy must first be split to create Coherency theory Homotopy theory. That may be fair, although I think it is filibustering, presenting endless new arguments to prevent a decision. This is a misuse of AfD unless there is a valid single argument for deletion. i.e. Should this page be redirected, with an option to merge later? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m very confused. (1) “very thin topic”; no I disagree. I think the article already gives enough numbers of references. Also, nlab has many articles related to the matter of coherency or coherence so the topic appears to be significant enough for a stand-alone article. (2) Coherency is just a disambig page and the merger with it doesn’t work. I have never heard of “coherency theory” (and who is proposing that we start it??). For me, the article looks, whole rough, ok and I still cannot see why it needs to be a part of the other articles. —- Taku (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Homotopy, not Coherency. fixing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not much into specialized mathematics topics, but my impression of mathematics is that it produces many journal articles on very thin topics. Many journal articles does not imply breadth of topic. For breadth of topic, one must look for independent secondary sources citing multiple primary sources. I believe that this is a general challenge for mathematics topics, but leeway is usually allowed.
The criticism of User:TakuyaMurata's drafting, which I join, is that he does not appear to even seek consensus on related mainspace talk pages for closely related thin topics. His insistence on working in draftspace, as oppose to with others in WP:Wikiproject Mathematics, contributes to this concern. I think he crosses the WP:SPINOUT guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ok, it now makes sense :) I agree not every topic that ever appears in a journal to be considered significant enough to be treated in an independent article. But that's precisely why the article gives math (text)books as well. (Not every journal article is of equal weight and "Retiring Presidential Address" one by Mac Lane seems very significant; note Mac Lane is not your average mathematician.) There are many subtopics to this article such as homotopy coherence, or coherent homotopy category, etc. I agree they may be "thin" topics but "coherency" in homotopy theory and (higher) category theory does not seem to be a case. As I said, nlab is very similar to Wikipedia albeit specialization in math and the amount of stuff there seems to suggest there are enough materials to cover in Wikipedia as well. Determining the topic is significant enough can be done through an AfD just like this one. --
  2. On "seek consensus on related mainspace talk pages", because there is no need; in Wikipedia, we allow every editor (registered-and-editing-for-awhile user) to just start a new article on a new topic. Of course, some editors may then mass-generate articles on topics that are off-topics, non-notable, etc, that Wikipedia should not cover. We deal with them by talking to them or kicking out them from Wikipedia. The community consensus, as I understand, is that I am not among those. (I know the user Hasteur would want us to think otherwise though). -- Taku (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more collegiate to advertise your draft ideas on relevant talk pages. There may be no need, but it would be ideal. Surely you don't mean your drafts to look like walled gardens? I think this would be a good guideline: If your new page could be considered a spinout of any existing page, state your intentions (implicitly invite feedback) on its talk page. Ensure that this existing page includes at least one mention of the topic of the new page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean not to do "advertisement" if drafts are related to existing topics; although drafts are usually started because the topics are not covered in mainspace. I agree on "walled gardens" but again is there really such a concern? I mean which garden?? WikiProject Math is aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages; note the list contains many draft pages started by other than me. -- Taku (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to write a lede sentence In mathematics, specifically in homotopy theory as well as (higher) category theory, I think these two linked articles should mention the topic. Also, the lede sentence should restate the name of the topic. Style and structure issues, not reasons for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Walled gardens"? A better term is "near-orphan". I see you are de-orphaning, which is good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no disrespect, but that’s not quite workable in practice. It is often the case that there are too many topics in each subfield of mathematics to list; one has to ask if each topic is central to the field to mention that topic in the article on the field. I don’t think that’s the case for this one (though it makes sense to have links to this page in the “see also” section). About “Walled gardens“: that goes to the heart of the problem on the namespace that shall not be named (and will not make further comments). —- Taku (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The prohibition of mainspace articles linking to draftspace, and the blindness of mainstream content writers and editors to draftspace, are reasons why subfield spinouts should not be done in draftspace, except where there is an explicit article_talk page consensus to do so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 1 October 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 Catoblepas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catoblepas (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Non-notable fictional variant of a mythological monster. There are no reliable, secondary sources to denote any sort of notability of this particular version of the creature. The one non-primary book being used as a source only includes a direct quote from the Monster Manual, as seen here, and thus does nothing to indicate notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd personally argue against a merger here since, as mentioned, there is no reliably sourced material to really merge. In addition, the catoblepas is a fairly common creature to be used in fiction, so merging information on this version of it to the main article on the myth would be giving undue weight to this un-notable iteration of it. Rorshacma (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything, I would keep this page for linking the fictional character, and link the forgotten realms wiki page for more specifics on the creature itself. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.175.146 (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 2 October 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. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MusicLearningLive

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

I found no significant coverage for this conference. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:59, 27 September 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) 22:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Chisté

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

With just 5 passing press mentions on Google News, she clearly fails WP:NBIO. Also the article is somewhat promotional. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:52, 27 September 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 Hello! Project w/o prejudice to some selective merging from the page history. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Project Kids

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

Discussed on Talk:Hello! Project#Merger proposal: group was created as a project/pre-debut group where individuals appeared as back-up dancers or in television/film roles (but not credited as a group). No music releases as a group aside from being featured artists in one collaboration single and eventually debuted in Berryz Kobo and Cute (Japanese idol group). Information would be more appropriate on individual articles or as pre-debut information in Berryz Kobo and Cute especially since they did not release anything or were notable under the Hello! Project Kids name. lullabying (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Lullabying: what policy based rationale are you using to justify deletion? I can't read Japanese, but if they pass WP:SIGCOV, it's likely they pass WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. In your other nomination at another article you admitted that there were enough articles in Japanese to pass WP:SIGCOV. If that is the case here as well, I suggest you withdraw your nomination. If a group has a charting single, chances are they are going to have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. However, if they were not the main subject of the cited sources you can argue that they don't meet WP:SIGCOV and that would justify deletion. You really needed to give policy reasoning, especially since most commenters can read Japanese and we are relying on your evaluation of the sources in good faith. 4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:28, 5 October 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 speedy delete. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal zohourian

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

A review of the sources and a Google search give no indications that the subject is notable (WP:NBIO) - only trivial mentions, links to Youtube, self-published sources, and nothing in the news. Additionally, the page reads like a résumé, and would still need a fundamental rewriting should any reliable sources be found. I'm not sure if this makes it G11-worthy, so I'm bringing it here for discussion in either case. ComplexRational (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:05, 27 September 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pro Kenshusei

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

Discussed on Talk:Hello! Project#Merger proposal: Page is mostly BLP trivia with non-notable current members with little to no sources. Page is centered on trainee members (AKA members who have not officially debuted); debuted/departed members already have their own page. Discography can be merged with Hello! Project. lullabying (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who would ever think that this kind of completely excessive stuff would be suitable for an encyclopedia? God gave us Wikia for this. Delete. It's cruft, it's trivial, it is not properly verified, it stinks of BLP violations. That the group is notable doesn't mean this is notable. I don't care how many sources the Japanese version has--what matters is that our articles have decent secondary sourcing--not K-pop portals, not gossipy magazines, not industry-driven PR sites. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect/Selective Merge to Hello! Project. A brief overview and the recordings that charted are notable enough to mention in the parent article. Other than that, the rest is fancruft.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. I can't read the japanese references, but my impression from reading the article is that this is indeed fancruft. And given that this is a WP:BLP, with many of the subject minors, we need to have much better referencing, including in-line citations. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe WP:BLP is an odd way to phrase it, but we've got information about living people, most of whom are minors. We need to be very careful to make sure everything we say is WP:V. We state that somebody failed an audition, somebody else had health issues. Virtually nothing in the entire article is referenced. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSICBIO. For the sake of closing this AFD I am changing my vote to keep. Merger may be the best option but that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Additionally, any BLP concerning content can be removed easily. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: I'd rather we merge this article to Hello! Project, delete this article, or move it to draft space. This is a trainee group, with members that have not officially debuted/contracted to the company and the Japanese Wikipedia is mostly primary sources. They are not active as a group. Johnny's Jr. is on a similar vein. lullabying (talk) 15:53, 22 October 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 Roswell High. RL0919 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Evans

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

All citations are from the series, probably lacks a lot of notability. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:00, 27 September 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) 21:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DJ DX

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

No evidence this is a notable musician. The only thing I can find via news is this hyper local interview, I don't see any evidence they ever charted or are otherwise notable. Nothing in newspapers, books etc... Praxidicae (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How could you write that there isn't any evidence of newspapers? NJ.COM covers the whole entire state of New Jersey? It owns the Star Ledger, The Times and The Staten Island newspaper. This wikipedia article has been here for almost 5 years! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylstarz (talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence? This person has been on the front page of the state newspaper so how could you say that when you aren't from New Jersey? Then wrote he never has charted? Being on the charts is something you pay $40,000 to be on. It's just for looks it doesn't mean anything but someone who is from that state and has worked and been covered isn't a notable musician? I can not beleive this is the world we are living in now! You guys are wrong and I hope God blesses your souls for being this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylstarz (talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 September 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, contributions) 09:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Hotels and Resorts

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

I’m unable to find refs indicating that this small chain of hotels is notable. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:00, 27 September 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. Invoking WP:NOTAVOTE here. The weight of WP:PAG based argument and analysis of sources seems to come down in favor of deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue–green alliance

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

This listicle is completely unsourced and fails WP:LISTN, as it consists of a bunch of unconnected examples of alliances between political parties of varying ideologies or single parties with a certain ideology. Blue-green as an overarching descriptor for a list is useless, since colors aren't consistently applied based on ideology. The lead itself mentions this, stating that blue could be either conservative or liberal or even a non-political organization (i.e. labor unions), or that blue-green could even be a description of a single party's ideology. Most of the entries in the list aren't actually described as "blue-green" in the media, some are described using other colors, and several entries are "blue-green" but have nothing to do with Green politics per se. I suppose an article could be constructed about conservative-green alliances or coalitions, or about conservative-Green parties, but I don't think that "blue-green" is where either of those should stand in an international context, and I don't believe that the current content - or lack of content - of this listicle is where either should start. ansh.666 18:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No, a coalition of a green party and a conservative party is not green conservatism. These examples tend to be more for convenience of forming a majority coalition rather than an ideological relationship. This is largely OR to lump these diverse international variations together in a single list without any sources presented discussing the topic of "blue-green" as a set. Reywas92Talk 00:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's poorly written and lacking sourcing, but the topic itself is notable and easily sourced. My university library contains 452 published sources that discuss the topic, including 60 peer reviewed journal articles. Ask me if you need examples, but there are so many it's unlikely WP:BEFORE was followed by the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, yes, we are definitely going to need examples. ansh.666 21:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list indicates that the term is used, but to describe different coalitions. A green-labor coalition and green capitalism are not the same thing, and any article that tries to unite them is misplaced. There might be a place for an article on green-labor, and we already have an article on green conservatism, but combining them leaves nothing coherent, other than that green form coalitions, for which using the 'blue' color designator just confuses things due to the inconsistent color usage internationally (in other words, you could just as well describe the two as red-green alliances, depending on what country you were talking about). Agricolae (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @4meter4: The vast majority of the results in your sandbox (as well as my searches before nominating this article) refer to the BlueGreen Alliance, a U.S. organization which, in their own words, "unites America’s largest labor unions and its most influential environmental organizations". It has nothing to do with green conservatism or political coalitions. Please read the results you find next time. ansh.666 18:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:OR. I don't see anything here that suggests this is a unified phenomenon, rather than just an obvious consequence of color-labeling of political parties. If you assign colors to parties, at some point, particularly in multi-party political environments where coalitions are common, the 'blue' party and the 'green' party are bound to end up together at some point, but the individual instances do not represent some broader pattern as appears to be portrayed here. This is highlighted by the fact that what political ideology is represented by 'blue' is polar opposite in different political traditions, so it doesn't even reflect the same kind of union. I don't doubt that one can document 'green' parties forming coalitions with 'blue' parties, but using the superficiality of color-labeling traditions to portray US labor-environmental coalitions as a flavour of the same phenomenon as 'green conservatism' obscures rather than illuminates, and I doubt there are any references that do this. Maybe a disambiguation page with links to the different coalitions that have been referred to as a 'blue-green alliance', but not an article that tries to unify them all. Agricolae (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:28, 5 October 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) 21:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sit Mamudpur

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

Apparently unnotable; no sources, stub. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 17:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:04, 27 September 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. (non-admin closure) ミラP 16:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mason (journalist)

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

Previously deleted as not meeting WP:JOURNALIST; there are a few new sources in this version but they seem trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But do the sources show notability? IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ILIKEIT that is not an argument to show why it should be kept. Please discount the above vote closers. IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - two of the sources in the article are interviews, which are primary sources - the rest of the references are run-of-the-mill for someone on TV - there is no in depth coverage of Mason himself - has not won any awards or made a widely recognized contribution per WP:ANYBIO - has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:BASIC - just having a job with the BBC is not in itself notable - Epinoia (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... Major political journalist who will be even more significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.22.134 (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The washington post source does discuss him a little, not a lot, but it is barely enough to be significant. All the rest are either interviews with him or otherwise insignificant. Rockphed (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other news media, in Britain and internationally (US, France, Ireland so far), have reported on his reports - particularly about the Mr Blobby quote, but the Express and the Evening Standard have reported about him on other occasions too. An academic study of tweets by "seasoned UK political correspondents" included Mason as one of its 10 subjects. This is not a regional news broadcaster - he reports on national news about major political events, and receives attention from other news media for doing so. I have added some sources and info to the article, and will look for more. I note that some of the sources include interviews, but they also have information about Mason, so should not be rejected entirely. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ridiculous suggestion to delete. He's frequently on the BBC and is therefore well-known and notable. If the article lacks sources then go and find some! 31.52.161.37 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rillington.4meter4 (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a political journalist who is regularly making quality broadcasts on BBC News. He was one of the founders of Brexitcast where the other founders are on Wikipedia. He would not be that well known outside Europe <BBC>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 20:00, 4 October 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. – Joe (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brazell

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Sources primarily consist of mentions in passing and rewritten press-releases. Article created by a likely indisclosed paid editor, also has a history of copyvio and possible editing by the subject himself. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Article needs total cleanup, some of the write-ups don't have references, like the number of children and the names and also where he lives lacks clear citation from secondary sources Mustapha dare (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what's your rationale for keep, seeing as you comment only on problems? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about "partly because of the existence of Martínez 2009"? Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Martínez, Gemma (2009-10-05). "Robert Brazell, el misterioso amigo americano de Prisa". Expansión (in Spanish). Novo Media.
        • So the best source for an American entrepreneur is Spanish newspaper article? The source is reliable, but notability requires more than one in-depth source, and this one is not very in-depth. The writers notes that it is hard to find much about this 'mysterious figure', and discusses the Overstock company. I don't think a single article in a reliable, but nonetheless niche outlet, is sufficient for establishing notability. With all due respect, I am at a similar level of notability since I was profiled in a Wikimedia Foundation blog [2] yet I don't think I should get an article yet :>--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Usually people differentiate between web logs and newspapers when it comes to reliability, so you are not really on a par. I agree that multiple is good, having been one of the major original advocates of it, but the problem was that your nomination rationale did not address the elephant in the room, which was definitely not "mentions in passing and rewritten press-releases".

            It's a non-trivial biography. It names the person's wife, and discusses his children, hobbies, and parental background. It's coverage in Spanish because this person bought a media group in Spain, of course.

            Several other Spanish language sources, including a book on PRISA (Balcarce 2018, p. 357) and CM 2009, reference Pozzi 2009, which is not applicable for notability. I mention it because it is clearly not the source for Martínez 2009, and that one is not a re-hash of one Spanish interview. Then there are the likes of DN 1994 which is another, much earlier (and thus with far less to say, but equally more of a focus on early life), biography. Again, we have background information including education and first job. You are in fact definitely not on a par, unless newspapers have been publishing biographies of you across two decades, too. ☺

            Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 08:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's disturbing here is that some of the cited online references do not contain the information they are supposed to be supporting. (such as the second source cited which doesn't even mention the subject). This makes me question whether the veracity of the offline source can be assumed in good faith, if some of the sources online have nothing at all to do with the content they are supposed to verifying. The other online sources, other than the one spanish langauge source, are all tangential. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 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 per sources brought forward during the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Mims Cook Jr.

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

Promotional article. Not seeing how the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize for the issues. As a very novice content creator, I'm not versed in the policies yet; would you please provide guidance on how I can make sure it is in compliance with GNG and BIO, so it can stay active? I'm happy to hear any advice you have 12.163.219.138 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you. This process will last for seven days, and anyone can contribute to the discussion. As you are apparently being paid for your time here (I am not), I suggest you read WP:COI, and then WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Then try to find in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources (see WP:RS) and suggest appropriate revisions at Talk:Rodney Mims Cook Jr. or contribute here with two or three sources (max) that you believe demonstrate notability. Edwardx (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are already several sources in the References section, but it looks like some of the links may be old; I'll submit an edit request to update those in a bit, but for now I've found the following:
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0407/104.html#64394e862374 (the Forbes article "Arc de Dixie", Reference number 8, from Forbes.com. Article dated 2008)
https://www.wabe.org/atlanta-park-confederate-major-and-struggle-history/ (WABE article, Reference number 13, dated 2017)
https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2017/09/06/twenty-years-laterprincess-dianna-s-legacy-lives.html (BizJournals article and slideshow on the Prince of Wales' Foundation for Architecture's World Athletes Monument, dated 2017)
I would be happy to find further sources at need, but these cover some of Mr. Cook's activities as detailed in the article - 12.163.219.138 (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.163.219.138 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 29 September 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.  JGHowes  talk 01:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Park Ji-hyo

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

This article has seen a small edit war over whether it should exist (as opposed to being just a redirect to Park Ji-hyo's group, Twice. I think a formal discussion of deletion would be appropriate. I personally agree that there is a lack of substantial independent coverage to justify a separate article, rather than inclusion of the material in the Twice article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Zero individual work outside of Twice, simply being a member of the group does not warrant notability Snowflake91 (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Jihyo - Although she does not yet meet WP:SINGER for not having a solo career, top K-pop bands such as Twice, BTS, and Blackpink are such worldwide phenomena that I believe all band members satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER #2 for having an unquestionably "large fan base". All BTS and Blackpink members already have their own articles. Six of Twice's nine members have been voted among the top 20 most popular idols in Gallup Korea's annual polls, and it's safe to assume the other three, including Jihyo, are not far behind. Her personal influence is well attested in the recent media frenzy over the news that she's dating Kang Daniel, which has been reported worldwide even in mainstream media, often as "breaking news", see Teen Vogue, E-Online, The Standard, South China Morning Post, SBS Australia, just to name a few, and The Standard instantly declared them a K-pop "power couple" [3]. -Zanhe (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then simply make a rule that WP:NSINGER doesnt apply for K-pop and simply create a stub articles for every single band member of all k-pop groups, WP:ENTERTAINER #2 is so subjective and general that literally every k-pop group member would pass this by "being popular" – but what makes someone having a large fanbase? 100 fans, 1000 fans, 1 million fans? And this dating reporting would simply be WP:SINGLEEVENT, this is not in-depth coverage of Jihyo but just a routine current event reports. And dont assume that because a few of her band-mates were voted as the top 20 most popular, that she is also very close to that – where is the source that she is? Every single member needs to be notable in its own way, it doesnt matter if all other members already have articles or not, its like saying that being friends with notable people also makes you notable. And dont compare BTS and Twice (and therefore their members) in terms of popularity, BTS are among the biggest musical artists in the world right now and probably the most popular boy band of all time, while Twice is popular only in Japan and Korea – here in Europe, as much as 98% population would not know who Twice are, while BTS would definitely be recognized and are also covered in local media. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, who says someone has to be popular in Europe to become notable? Secondly, I'm a Canadian too old to follow pop music, not to mention K-pop, but I've gotten to know all the Twice members because my kids and their friends can't stop talking about them (even though none of them speak Korean) and their music is often played in local restaurants. And sites in Vancouver where they shot a music video have become tourist destinations. When we were vacationing in Barcelona last year, several times my kids noticed that Twice songs were playing in shops or restaurants. The concept of notability is subjective by nature, but the media frenzy from half way around the world, even in English speaking countries, over her personal life is strong indication of her notability. -Zanhe (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snowflake91 "while Twice is popular only in Japan and Korea" if that's so, then why Twice did 3 full concerts in USA, and also another sold out in Mexico? You have no idea how popular Twice (and the whole Kpop) is in Latin America, there are TV channels and radios dedicated to them, and there are many dance cover Twice groups. Also "BTS are ... probably the most popular boy band of all time" I hope that's not in their article, otherwise I'd have to add the template for "source needed" and "according to who?", YouTube views do not make a group big or important, specially fake views and purchased views, and also cheated views from their small fandom who compulsively stream their videos the whole day using eg: 3 phones, 2 tablets, 2 laptops, etc. at the same time. "And dont compare BTS and Twice", obviously not, in 2016-2017, BTS was just nobodies while Twice was already #1 girl group in Korea. --†_JuanPa_† (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect – Nothing in the article suggests individual notability. None of the information that is actually about Jihyo herself is even sourced apart from her place of birth, and the pre-debut section has trivial information like her being the “face” of some teen line and her changing her name. The only thing in the article that would warrant notability is the single that was released, but that is unsourced and lacks any charting information that would make it notable. People date, celebrities date, celebrities date celebrities. What exactly is notable about this? Because media outlets reported it? That’s usually what happens when celebrities date. One article happens to call them a “power couple”? Not exactly notable. Stating that she has a large fan base would work — if that was even mentioned in the article with proof. It isn’t, and “assuming” anything isn’t what Wikipedia is for. I’d also like to point out that what articles exist on other language Wikipedia’s isn’t necessarily relevant, they run completely independent of each other and may have completely different guidelines when it comes to notability. Alex (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole concept of notability for pop idols is based on popularity and media attention, so media frenzy from all over the world, even in English speaking countries, over her romantic life is strong indication of her notability. And even her celebration of a Korean holiday is reported by CNN Indonesia. I agree the existing article is terrible, but if we delete it, nobody will be able to improve it. Instead, people are going to keep recreating it and it'll keep getting deleted because of prior AfDs, as happened in many cases before, wasting tons of time and effort. For a particularly well known case, in addition to the above-mentioned Kang Daniel, see the deletion review for Harry Styles, which was created and deleted multiple times before finally being restored. -Zanhe (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, "if we delete it, nobody will be able to improve it" is not a valid reason for not deleting it, maybe they should do a draft first and release an actual good article and not just random pretty much unsourced fan-written article. Its like saying "I will create an article about myself, maybe I will be notable one day and maybe someone in two years will greatly improve my article, so dont delete it right away". Secondly, Kang Daniel was recreated much later after it was initially deleted because he released solo songs which charted, thus passing criterias for singer; furhtermore, he was nominated for the major entertainment award, passing #8 of WP:MUSICBIO. Thirdly, WP:GNG specifically says that the coverage must be in-depth, and not trivial mentions – Indonesian report, which basically just includes her Instagram posts of her celebration, is exactly that, half of the article is even about some other singers. And the article will get redirected not deleted anyway, so "hard work" (a.k.a unsourced fan trivia) will not be really lost, and even if it get deleted, those two-three sentences that you can write about Jihyo outside of her Twice career can be done in 5 minutes. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, comparing yourself to one of the world's best known pop stars (even as a member of a group) is beyond ridiculous. Secondly, our notability guideline for people (WP:BASIC) says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I've now added multiple independent sources to the article, including Time magazine. Thirdly, when an article is turned into a redirect, many inexperienced editors don't know how to find formerly written info from article history, and would rewrite them over and over again. For example, when Lisa (Thai singer) was finally restored after discussion, admins had to perform histmerge on at least five different versions of the article (several of which were deleted/redirected by you), see partial log, and that doesn't even include abandoned and deleted drafts. This is a huge waste of editor and admin resources, despite your casual dismissal of other people's effort. -Zanhe (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So? The fact that the article will be recreated by fancruft new editors and should therefore just be kept to prevent having 5 articles about her with different titles everytime is completely invalid argument for not deleting it, so I dont know what is your point. Then instead of redirecting, I will simply mark all new articles (like Jihyo (Twice) or something like that) for speedy deletion per Wikipedia:G4 if this AfD closes as redirect/deletion, and there wont be history merge problems. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you've been obstinately refusing to acknowledge the fact that these people have been notable all along, despite numerous complaints by others on your talk page and numerous cases in which you've been proven wrong (e.g. Lisa (Thai singer) and other Blackpink members, multiple Twice members, Kang Daniel, Lee Dae-hwi, Zhou Jieqiong, and many others I can't recall right now). You've been pointlessly wasting other editors' time and work with your years-long crusade to delete K-pop articles. -Zanhe (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All articles which were deleted / redirected were done so correctly, the fact that some were recreated (much) later is completely pointless as those people later gained enough notability. Lee Daehwi was correctly deleted in 2017 for lack of notability and correctly recreated in 2019 when he became notable as a solo singer, so? Same with Kang Daniel. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about Lisa (Thai singer) then? She still does not meet WP:SINGER, but everyone else agreed that she's notable per WP:ENT, which you called "dumb" and refused to follow. And from your comments in the current discussion, you're still obstinately disregarding the notability guideline. -Zanhe (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took a closer look at Kang Daniel and Lee Dae-hwi. They finished at #1 and #3 in the Produce 101 music competition, one of the most watched music shows in the world, and meet WP:SINGER #9 from day one. It's clear to me that you've not even adhered to the one guideline that you claim to hold so dearly. -Zanhe (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Produce 101 is not a "singing competition", its a variety/survival TV show, and everything else but their singing abilities determined the winners (i.e their looks and dancing skills). Snowflake91 (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Most media sources categorize it as a music competition, see Korean Herald, Billboard, Yahoo, Bangkok Post, to name just a few. Looks and dancing always matter in pop music, but it's definitely not a beauty pageant. -Zanhe (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect – still no sign of individual notability per other nominations. Just because other idols are listed under popularity contests doesn't mean we just go ignoring notability guidelines. Groups can be notable, but it doesn't automatically apply to members within that group when literally their entire career is "X is a part of group activites" Evaders99 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's saying she automatically inherits notability from her group or we should ignore notability guidelines. The point is that a person only needs to meet one guideline to be notable (in this case WP:ENT), not all. I've now added eight sources from major worldwide media to the article with in-depth coverage of her. -Zanhe (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just added her songwriting credits hoping it helps for her personal contribution and notability from Twice and for having more content in the article, I agree with Zanhe, if we keep deleting, then obviously the article is never going to improve. --†_JuanPa_† (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Co-writting a couple of B-side songs for her own band does not make her not even close to being notable as a songwritter, to being notable for that, she would need to write lyrics for several well-known songs, preferably for other artists. Did those songs even charted? Snowflake91 (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those saying if the article is deleted it won’t improve — why is a draft not created on and worked on until ready for publication once notable? Instead of first creating a terrible article and working on notability later? If notability isn’t being shown then why does it even have an article? Alex (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article revamped – I spent a few hours hunting down reliable English sources (which is fiendishly hard given the thousands of fan pages and media reports on every little thing she does), expanded the article and sourced everything. I've found quite a few in-depth sources, such as a Time magazine article that calls her the leader and main vocalist of Twice, which it lists as a top-three K-pop band. Two articles dedicated to Jihyo, one from SBS of Australia, another from IDN of Indonesia, another SBS article dedicated to a Korean TV show featuring her, multiple sources reporting that she topped the Twitter trends list in the Philippines, and multiple sources calling her and Kang Daniel a power couple of K-pop. I believe these sources altogether are more than sufficient to demonstrate that she satisfies WP:ENT and WP:BASIC. There's no doubt that a vast number of sources exist in Korean and Japanese, which I'm unfortunately unable to read. -Zanhe (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanhe: Just to point out, those SBS sources you mention are listed as unreliable here. The first one you mention, which lists nine things about her, doesn’t even mention where they got any of that information from. Alex (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I don't normally edit pop culture except for the purpose of article rescue, and I'm really surprised that Special Broadcasting Service, a public broadcaster funded by the Australian government akin to BBC in the UK, is listed as unreliable at KO/RS. I looked at the talk page and noticed your own comment that SBS was added to the unreliable list by a single user without discussion. This is ridiculous and I'm surprised nobody has reverted it. BTW, most news reports do not mention sources for routine information; this is not investigative journalism. -Zanhe (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The specific article that I mentioned is not a news report, it is a trivial “9 things about twices Jihyo” article which doesn’t mention where they got the information from, what makes it reliable? Regardless, im not attempting to enter a debate here, just pointing out that it is on the unreliable list and doesn’t state where the information came from. Alex (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement a reliable source has to provide its own sources. I've written more than 1,000 articles and probably cited 10,000 sources over my Wikipedia career, and most media sources I've seen do not provide their sources, unless it's breaking news or about something controversial. The Time magazine article, for example, does not provide any source either. -Zanhe (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SBS K-pop blog section is not reliable, they dont even list author of the article. This is a reliable report from SBS, which is on their main site and cited Australian Associated Press as a source, while K-pop section is part of the blog as you can even see in the URL name. And what is in-depth in that Time magazine article? Yes, Twice is covered in-depth there, but NOT Jihyo, there are only 2 setencnes about her. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who says reliable sources must name their writers? I've been a subscriber of The Economist for over 20 years, and can't recall a single article for which they disclosed the author. Same with many BBC articles, most US Government sources, and most Chinese news reports. So stop making up your own rules. And it looks like you can't even tell the difference between news blogs and personal blogs. News blogs are perfectly fine for uncontroversial, factual content. WSJ blogs, for example, are widely used in thousands of articles. -Zanhe (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, SBS pop asia k-pop section is unreliable and thats prety much it, it was listed at WP:KO/RS for a reason. This article is a typical fancruft, not more reliable than K-pop Wikia or fan twitters – in fact, half of those claims were taken directly from wikia sites 1, 2 Snowflake91 (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Whatever"? That's the best argument you could come up with? As pointed out above, SBS was added to WP:KO/RS by a single editor with no discussion, which is totally against policy. SBS is a public-service broadcaster with an extensive editorial guideline which governs all their content. If you have evidence they've copied content directly from other websites without attribution, file a complaint here. Otherwise stop denigrating a solid news organization. -Zanhe (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wont even read further then "Have a read of these fun facts about Jihyo and learn some more about the super cool 22 year old!", its obvious that this blog section at this website is written by some non-SBS contributors, which are taking their "sources" from twitter or wikia sides. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I've yet to see a single well-supported argument from you. Basically all your arguments are based on your personal feelings (SBS is not reliable because I don't like the way they write; Produce 101 is not a music competition because the viewers also care about the competitors' looks; WP:ENT is dumb because I think it's too general; Gallup Korea poll is not valid because I don't understand how polls work; when confronted with facts and policy, I respond with "whatever") You, my friend, are the epitome of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Zanhe (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. EVEN if this fan-written article from the blog would be relialbe, it still fails WP:GNG since its not "significant coverage", but just trivial stuff. This article is informing us, through random numbered list, that she can use both left and right hand and that she is a friend with other singers from her label, and is generally written in a POV and non-professional tone ("super cool 22 year old" etc.), like everything else at that blog page. No in-depth coverage there, unless random trivia is now counted as significant coverage. I mean, compare this, this, and your SBS article, and maybe you will spot the difference what is trivial coverage and what is in-depth coverage, and how the professional articles are written and how the fan contributors are writing for SBS. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've grown to like your "whatever"s, lol. Just realized that SBS PopAsia actually has its own Wikipedia page. It turns out to be a major program that's broadcast on Australian TV and radio, in addition to the newsblog we're talking about. The program obviously targets young people, and therefore uses language that appeals to them. You cannot expect a program dedicated to pop culture to use the sober tone of newspapers like SCMP that mainly cover serious issues and whose target audience is much older. This by no means suggests that the facts they report are unreliable as they're still subject to SBS's editorial oversight. -Zanhe (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then what makes SBS more reliable than Koreaboo, Allkpop, and Soompi, which are notorious unreliable K-pop websites? Tone is the same, authors are questionable or unknown, source is not provided (only Soompi sometimes cites Korean source). Well I cannot prove that of course, but I can assure you that k-pop blog at SBS is written by some fans, which are not full-time employed by SBS, and no one from the actual SBS staff is really overwatching those articles as long as they generate broadband traffic (k-pop = huge thing = lots of clicks = loads of money) and as long no one complain. I dont remember exactly where, but on some Wiki guidelines about reliable sources it was stated that on some news websites, part-time contributors are writting the articles and those articles are not reliable, even if they are posted on an otherwise reliable site. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, SBS PopAsia is subject to SBS's editorial oversight as there's no disclaimer stating otherwise, with the entire news organization's reputation on the line. Koreaboo, Allkpop, etc., are not part of a reputable organization. Some sites do employ outside contributors (such as Forbes), but these articles are always clearly attributed and come with a disclaimer that says they are not subject to normal editorial oversight. -Zanhe (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of additional research reveals that a couple of professors have written an academic book analyzing the influence of K-pop, with a whole chapter dedicated to SBS PopAsia: [4]. Who would've known! -Zanhe (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to SBS, I'll note that notability is not reliability. We should question all sources, esp ones that present both as blogs and news articles. Evaders99 (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, but what we are talking about here is the website of a major TV/radio program produced by Australia's main government-funded public broadcaster. -Zanhe (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No proof that blog section at this website is written by actual SBS journalists since their news are without signed author. If they would include a forum at their website where fans can write anything they want, would that still be reliable just because its hosted at SBS website ? Snowflake91 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the SBS PopAsia articles do not name individual authors, they're clearly attributed to "SBS PopAsia HQ" and cannot possibly be fan posts. And again, you're obfuscating the difference between WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:BLOGS and making up your own rule that reliable sources must name their authors. The first time may be attributed to ignorance, but this time it's clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -Zanhe (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because someone came with an idea that being voted as top 20 most popular female idols in a survey is enough for GNG. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you still think being voted Top 20 entertainers (not just female ones, BTW) in national Gallup polls does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER #2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", it's just pointless to reason with you further. -Zanhe (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The general test for notability is "a topic [that] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". My opinion is that the citations that are now in the article are significant coverage of Park Ji-hyo. They are not merely significant coverage of Twice with a passing mention of Park, but discuss her, to quote the notability guidelines "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." There are multiple sources covering her - SBS Australia, Evening Standard, Time. Enough sources are also reliable, and are independent of Park and of Twice. The coverage of Park Ji-hyo appears to meet all the required standards for notability, therefore, Park Ji-hyo is "suitable for a standalone article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryCrun15 (talk • contribs)
Not really, this is never a significant coverage of Jihyo, she is mentioned in 2 sentences, while Evening Standard article is just a regular report of her dating news. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the Time article does not focus on her exclusively, it unequivocally calls her the leader and main vocalist of Twice, which it names the world's top K-pop groups along with BTS and Blackpink. And "regular report of her dating news"? Pure nonsense. Regular dating reports do not call people "K-Pop’s newest power couple" and non-notable people dating do not become the most tweeted news in a foreign country (the Philippines). -Zanhe (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Even if the Time article does not focus on her exclusively, it unequivocally calls her the leader and main vocalist of Twice" – yeah, and? Thats all, she is the leader of a notable group, but that doesnt make her notable on her own. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're behaving as if Time were the only source used to support her notability, whereas the article includes in-depth media reports from all over the world, several of which are focused exclusively on her. And we haven't even included Korean sources which undoubtedly exist in abundance because of the lack of Korean participants in the discussion. But I've learned by now that trying to reason with you is futile. -Zanhe (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you provided in the article cover JIHYO in depth, only Twice. The only source that somehow cover her "in depth" (even though that website is full of fan trivia and personal opinions of the authors–which, unsurprisingly, are completely unknown) is that SBS blog article, which is listed as unreliable at WP:KO/RS with a reason. Snowflake91 (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you even read? All sources that I added to the article are about Jihyo personally, other than the Time article. And you're still hanging on to the untenable argument that SBS is unreliable because someone added it to WP:KO/RS with no discussion. -Zanhe (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, another indication how shit SBS popblog is – see 1 and 2, two (trivial) articles about Jihyo, both by SBS, and there are differented information every time, one article says she joined JYP aged 8, the second one says aged 9. Conclusion? BULLSHIT source, which is just posting random fan tweets or k-pop wikia stuff just to publish something. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment merely betrays your ignorance about Asia, and Korea specifically. Please educate yourself by reading East Asian age reckoning. Most people are a year older in East Asian age reckoning (although it's more complicated for people born in January and February, whose ages are affected by the date of the Lunar New Year). So when Korean sources say she was nine, she was actually eight in Western convention. Western media may directly translate from Korean sources using the East Asian age, or they may convert it into Western age, but both ages are correct. This is a very common inconsistency when reporting the ages of Asian people, which I've seen in all sorts of reliable sources, even academic ones. -Zanhe (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact which year is correct is completely irrelevant, the point is that the same source is using two different formats/years, which just proves its pretty much unreliable as they just copy/past info from somewhere else without actually checking the facts. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 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) 17:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tonya Rouse

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

Non-notable local broadcaster with 0 actual coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be part of a concerted effort at promotion of a Toronto television station in 2006–2007 or so. Many of these articles were unsuccessfully bulk-nominated for deletion in this AfD, and some of them – like this one – seem to have escaped detection ever since. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, single-market local television journalists are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they exist — nothing stated here is "inherently" notable at all, and the article is completely unsourced for the purposes of even getting her over WP:GNG. Rather, this is following that depressingly standard template for generating bad articles about local television and radio personalities — take her staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer, rephrase it just enough to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues, reference it to itself with no evidence whatsoever of any outside coverage about her in any other sources independent of her employer, and voilà. That's not how it works, however, and never has been — for one thing, even the staff profile itself is gone from the article now, because she doesn't work there anymore, and that's exactly one of the reasons why the existence of a staff profile was never an instant notability clincher all by itself in the first place. And we're much stricter on both notability and sourcing issues today than we were 12 years ago, because we've learned a lot of very hard and painful lessons about why we have to be. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable local TV personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 29 September 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chakkrawat

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

Article is poorly written; contains no EN-lang cites for EN-lang WP, could be better submitted to TH-lang WP where no article exists; sketchy citations; cites do not comport with content (e.g., list of restaurants on a street in the subject area; contains "so what?" info such as the mention of a bank branch; no infobox, customary for district articles; submitter refuses to be registered as an editor, submits as anonymous and does not reply to communications; uncooperative editor who does not respond to feedback. Seligne (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Officially recognised populated place, there is a government source already in the article. None of the reasons given in the nomination are valid - citations need not be English, other-language Wikipedias have different content policies, new article creations by IP editors are allowed, and we don't delete articles because any editor declines to discuss their edits. Poor writing or content issues are solved by editing not deletion.----Pontificalibus 16:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a officially recognized populated area so meets WP:GEOLAND. Sources in the article need not be in English. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 27 September 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 speedy delete. Was speedy deleted by User:HickoryOughtShirt?4 after the AfD was opened. RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mrr Fortune

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

Fails WP:GNG rejected at draft stage and moved here by article creator. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The person is a blogger and I think it should be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.172.39 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrr Fortune[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual organization (grid computing)

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

Does not appear to be notable. Only 2 references which together do not convey notability. , both old, and one reference is a powerpoint Nowa (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the updated link to the first reference. The old link was no longer active. When I Googled the title, it took me to a powerpoint presentation. I've updated the article with the new link.--Nowa (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 27 September 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. There's wide consensus here that the sources, while numerous, are not sufficiently reliable and/or providing significant coverage, to base an article on. If somebody wants to recreate this as a redirect, they can, but I won't include that in the consensus close. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Folx (term)

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

This neologism fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. The 21 sources currently used are not sufficient. Analysing these we find:

  1. Episcopal Church book that uses the term once.
  2. Wordpress blog.
  3. Book that does not mention the term whatsoever, used to compare "folx" to "Latinx".
  4. Podcast.
  5. Paywalled Boston Globe "Ideas" piece that, based on the title, appears to partially actually be about the term.
  6. Personal website of someone who claims to be "queer by choice".
  7. Word Spy, a site apparently dedicated to neologisms and run by a computer programmer.
  8. Urban Dictionary.
  9. Tumblr.
  10. An essay that uses the term once.
  11. A site for people to create their own classroom presentations that only uses the term, not explaining it.
  12. Linguistics professor's blog which really just links to the aforementioned Boston Globe piece.
  13. A paper which appears to only be about the term in a small part, and which anyway apparently found that only a small percentage of the people whom the term supposedly benefits had familiarity with it.
  14. Bachelor's thesis.
  15. A paywalled paper that seems likely to just use the term, not discuss it.
  16. Dissertation.
  17. Dissertation.
  18. Book that uses the term once.
  19. Same thesis as number 14.
  20. Bachelor's thesis.
  21. Book review that uses the term once.

The article doesn't even represent these sources correctly. It states, In particular, LGBTQ communities of color have embraced the term "folx" to emphasize that the presence of a binary gender system in indigenous societies is a product of colonization and oppression of indigenous peoples. This is original research, since the sources cited for this use the term without any explanation why. It is also claimed, Most frequent usage of the term occurs in California. While believable, neither of the sources for this even mention California.

Checking for any new significant coverage in reliable sources turned up only articles that use the term, but nothing that constitutes "reliable secondary sources [talking] about the term or concept" as required by WP:NEO. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Crossroads suggests, some of the cited sources seem to be use rather than analysis of the word qua word. But leaving those aside, there are still about half a dozen appropriate scholarly sources, satisfying WP:GNG, at least to my satisfaction. Completed dissertations, at least at the doctoral level, can be used as reliable sources when supported by other sources. Being behind a paywall or not available online has no bearing on sourcing. While the article may include original research or other problems, WP:Deletion is not cleanup. NB: I removed the blog that is #12 in nom's list above, and replaced it with a scholarly article by the professor in question. Like the blog, it also refers to the Boston Globe piece, but also includes much more analysis of the general issue. Cnilep (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have now checked sources 15-17. #15 again only uses the term once with no explanation, stating, Collectively, we offer historical, theoretical, philosophical, literary, cultural, digital, and spiritual points of departure for waging war against systems of oppression threatening Black folx’ ability to survive, live, and thrive. #16 is just a master's thesis, so not a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP; has zero cites on Google Scholar; and though only the first ten pages are viewable, there is no indication the source discusses the term beyond simple use anyway. #17 is a doctoral dissertation that uses the word 14 times, but its only discussion about the word is simply, Folx is a gender inclusive word. “In some languages, ‘folks’ is a gendered noun, so using ‘folx’ is a way to include people of all genders, especially non-binary genders” (Because I Am Human, 2017). ("Because I Am Human, 2017" is a Wordpress blog.) This dissertation also has zero cites on Google Scholar. The new #12 is paywalled, but has the broad topic of "Transgender language reform", so it is unlikely to spend much time discussing "folx" specifically. The same applies to #13. So, your half a dozen appropriate scholarly sources are really just small portions of two papers, and a doctoral dissertation briefly referencing a blog. The Boston Globe piece may not even be all that independent of a source, as it is also about "folx" only partially and according to the article here, quotes Lal Zimman, who is the author of new #12. I'm still not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. What I do see is a neologism that has little...usage in reliable sources; per WP:NEO such articles are commonly deleted. -Crossroads- (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

One recent "x" word is both broad and specific: "folx," which is defined by Word Spy lexicographer Paul McFedries as an umbrella term for people with a non-normative sexual orientation or identity. While this spelling has been around for nearly a century, the meaning similar to "Latinx" and "womxn" is a recent innovation. "Folx" is kind of brilliant. Even with the usual spelling, "folks" is an inclusive word, avoiding the gender associations of "guys," "dudes," and other male-associated words. That "x" retains the traditional pronunciation but opens the tent wider. Zimman praised this word for "suggesting solidarity" and representing "the everyday people." Society has a long way to go, but maybe someday we can all just be folx.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article is certainly longer than a typical dictionary entry, but that does not change the fact that at root, it is still discussing the meaning, usage, and etymology of a word. It has long been established here that such material belongs on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. However, I would not support moving any material there given the dubiousness of the references. Word Spy is alleged to claim the word has been around for "at least a century". If that were true it would be found in the OED, but it isn't. Sounds to me like a case of wishful folk etymology by non-lexicographers. Very possibly, this is too recent a coining to meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion anyway. SpinningSpark 14:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wiktionary : wikt:folx. I don't think as of right now there are sufficient articles for an article about the article folx similar to latinx, womxn, Mx (title), etc., but a redirect to the existing Wiktionary entry would be beneficial to those looking for more information. I also want to just note that additional sources discussing the word come from Dictionary.com: folx, How The Letter “X” Creates More Gender-Neutral Language. Umimmak (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The term does seem to be used in these terms in a few peer reviewed journal articles:
  1. "Xemiyulu Manibusan Tapepechul Uplifting Two-Spirits", Cultural Survival Quarterly, Jun 2018, Vol.42(2), pp.10-11
  2. "Rethinking disability: The need to rethink representation.", Procter, Jenna - Lee, African Journal of Disability, Annual, 2018, Vol.7(5)
  3. "Introduction by the Guest Editors", Haas, Angela ; Rhodes, Jackie ; Devoss, Dànielle Nicole, Computers and Composition, March 2019, Vol.51, pp.1-3
However, an actual use of the term as a topic unto itself isn't discussed in these sources or the others presented elsewhere in this discussion, but just used in a consistent context with the text in the article. Ultimately, while it may be true, it isn't verifiably true by wikipedia's standards of inclusion. In other words, until multiple independent publications actually writes about it directly we can't cover it. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 4 October 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Black Monday

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

Trivial term, does not pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:11, 27 September 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 List of Marvel Comics demons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thog

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:46, 27 September 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 List of Marvel Comics demons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undying Ones

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:46, 27 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellucian

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGCRIT. Refs mix of press releases and event, conferences and run of the mill refs. Previously deleted. scope_creepTalk 22:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may be but the references are chronic and they don't satisfy WP:ORGIND nor WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creepTalk
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All the references you replaced and added are exceedingly poor. The article doesn't contain a single secondary source which is in-depth coverage, independent of the company.. The comparison to Oracle is hype which fails WP:ORGIND, certainly Gartner doesn't think so. I guess I will need to go through each reference in turn. It is certainly noticeable that most of the references assert WP:NCORP, admittedly not included in the rationale, but the evidence is that multiple sources that are independent of the topic is not self evident. scope_creepTalk 23:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, gotta say you are entitled to your opinion. Thanks for encouraging people to contribute. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It shouldn't be this hard to delete an article when it is so very obvious that there is not sufficiently decent references to support it, instead a quite considerable amount of time is required which is entirely wasteful. Looking at the references:
Ref 1. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Is primary and fails of employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders
Ref 2. Fails [WP:CORPDEPTH]] USA Today:Newspaper article from USA today stating that AI is very useful. as an example of a type of company or product being discussed This is WP:PUFF. Everybody and their dog is saying is AI is useful.
Ref 3 Is a name drop.
Ref 4 New CEO interview. Very little on Ellucian itself. Majority of article discusses previous career.
Ref 5 Fails WP:ORGIND. Is a press release. Not sufficient to establish notability, press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials
Ref 6 Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Is a primary, the landing page of the company and proves nothing more that it exists.
Ref 7 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND Dependent coverage An event listing. Transitory, short lived and low in information, everything this encyclopedia doesn't want.
Ref 8 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND Dependent coverage Another event listings page.
Ref 9 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage
Ref 10 Only tangentially related to the company.
Ref 11 Fails WP:ORGIND. This is press release
Ref 12 Fails WP:ORGIND. This is press release
Ref 13 Fails WP:ORGIND. Fragment of a press release
Ref 14 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Single word name drop
Ref 15 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business
Ref 16 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business
Ref 17 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Ref 18 Fails WP:ORGIND of product or service offerings

References 19 to 25 are similarly poor, primary in nature and not a single secondary source amongst them. Nothing of depth. scope_creepTalk 16:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Comment Ellucian and it's products have had non-trivial coverage in multiple published peer reviewed journals. I have access through an internal database at my university so I apologize for not being able to provide a url. They may be available online, but that's not how I am currently accessing them. See the following articles:
  1. "Create ADA‐compliant learning experiences for all students"; Sutton, Halley, Disability Compliance for Higher Education, February 2017, Vol.22(7), pp.1-5 (Also published in Recruiting & Retaining Adult Learners, March 2017, Vol.19(6), pp.1-5 and Dean and Provost, February 2017, Vol.18(6), pp.4-5)
  2. "Technical Community College Achieves Smarter Data Integration with Kore Technologies", Database Trends and Applications, Dec 2018/Jan 2019, Vol.32(6), p.9
  3. "Entrinsik Informer Helps North Iowa Area Community College Optimize Decision Making", Database Trends and Applications, Oct/Nov 2014, Vol.28(5), pp.26-27
  4. "Rocket Software Receives Distinguished Award.(MV SOLUTIONS)" (article is about award given to Ellucian), Database Trends & Applications, 2018, Vol.32(1), p.26(1)
  5. "MOBILE AND CLOUD BASED SYSTEMS PROPOSAL FOR A CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS", Machado, Leandro ; Rita, Felipe ; Santos, Carlos, Independent Journal of Management & Production, Apr/Jun 2017, Vol.8(2), pp.271-286 (lots of indepth coverage in this article)
  6. "The Myths and Realities of Business Ecosystems", Fuller, Jack ; Jacobides, Michael ; Reeves, Martin, MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2019, Vol.60(3), pp.1-9
  7. "Enhancing the employee engagement through the organizational climate (a study of school of business and management)", Hary Febriansyah, Dematria Pringgabayu, Nurfaisa Hidayanti, Feny Citra Febrianti, Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, Apr 2018, Vol.12(3)
  8. "Student information system satisfaction in higher education: the role of visual aesthetics", Ramírez-Correa, Patricio Esteban ; Rondán-Cataluña, Francisco Javier ; Arenas-Gaitán, Jorge

Kybernetes, 03 September 2018, Vol.47(8), pp.1604-1622

  1. "8 Realities Learning Professionals Need to Know About Analytics", Wagner, Ellen, T + D, Aug 2012, Vol.66(8), pp.54-58,8
  2. "Can the Library Contribute Value to the Campus Culture for Learning?", Hufford, Jon R, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, May 2013, Vol.39(3), pp.288-296
  3. "Learning Analytics: The Emergence of a Discipline", Siemens, George ; Haythornthwaite, Caroline (Editor) ; de Laat, Maarten (Editor) ; Dawson, Shane (Editor), American Behavioral Scientist, October 2013, Vol.57(10), pp.1380-1400
Easily passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV isn't mentioned in rationale. These are book chapters, article and white-papers are terrible references to establish the bona fides of an article. Y

The last entry Learning Analytics: The Emergence of a Discipline is Ellucian saying they going to adopt a course, in only two words. The "8 Realities Learning Professionals Need to Know About Analytics" states only commercial Course Signal product now available from Ellucian.. This one Create ADA‐compliant learning experiences for all students talks about Martin LaGrow, designing a course in a small paragraph. Etrinsik Informer Helps North Iowa Area Community College Optimize Decision Making is a name drop. Rocket Software Receives Distinguished Award.(MV SOLUTIONS) Article not an award given to Ellucian, its about a business partner of Ellucian receiving a growth award and the wording seems to come from a press release. "Enhancing the employee engagement through the organizational climate (a study of school of business and management)" This one is quoting an Ellucian white-paper as a reference. Hardly in-depth secondary sources that satisfy WP:ORGIND or WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creepTalk 23:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:.Fair enough. I've struck my keep vote. Thanks for your analysis.4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 5 October 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) 12:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michiel van Bokhorst

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC which requires multiple WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. In my WP:BEFORE (there are some results for a politician of the same name), I found passing mentions like [8], [9], [10], none of which cover the subject in-depth. The article has two references, one being a WP:INTERVIEW and the other a listing on Discogs. It was created by a sockpuppet User:Laestrygonian3. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:53, 27 September 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 01:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very estimable organization, but the article is fundamentally promotional, focussing entirely on the merits and of their programs. I don't think there's enough left for an article, bu tif anyone wants to try, I won't discourage them. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 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) 11:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daemon (Warhammer)

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 2 October 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, contributions) 09:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Orc

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 2 October 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 Warhammer Fantasy (setting). -- RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Country

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:54, 27 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stauber

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

Not notable, and is promotional. The article promotes the artist, and links to his website. Two interviews are provides as the references, https://pittnews.com/article/126935/silhouettes-2017/jack-stauber/ and https://newretrowave.com/2018/07/20/an-interview-with-jack-stauber/ These are both blatantly non-independent of the subject and thus do not contribute evidence of Wikipedia-notability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are gnews hits. The list from the top begins:
  1. https://www.eriereader.com/article/jack-stauber-hilo A contributor review of an album. Not a reliable source.
  2. https://www.eriereader.com/article/jack-stauber--pop-food As above, same contributor different album
  3. https://lmcexperience.com/features/2018/09/13/pop-food-delivers-on-90s-nostalgia/ REviews 3 re-released albums. Student newspaper, not reliable enough.
  4. https://www.eriereader.com/article/jack-stauber-to-release-third-solo-album-hilo-at-basement-transmissions Event advertising. $8 entry, see Facebook for details.
  5. https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/jack-stauber-releases-absurdist-pop-record-hilo/Content?oid=7956275 Local paper album review, promotional tone, not a critical review. Close.
  6. https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/new-releases/Content?oid=2584225 As above, differnt album
  7. https://pittnews.com/article/128801/arts-and-entertainment/zaki-defies-genre-in-debut-of-self-titled-album/ Some mentions, close.
  8. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/laurenstrapagiel/biggest-tiktok-2018-trends-memes Barely a mention
  9. https://www.readdork.com/news/spish-we-like-jesus-video Promotional interview
  10. https://coyotechronicle.net/hundreds-children-making-videos-about-abuse-on-youtube/ A mention

I'm not sure these are good enough, although I am wanting to listen to some. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:52, 27 September 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 Bigil. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unakaaga

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

This may not be needed as a separate article and this single has been released recently. I think this article can be redirected to Bigil by now. I don't think even the popular single Rowdy Baby has got a separate one yet. Abishe (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A particular user seems to be an ardent film fan who has attempted to create for all three singles released from a particular film. The single Singappenney which is created by the same user looks like OK to me and I reviewed it. It has been expanded nicely and it could be the only exception. I leave it to fellow editors to think about this. Apart from this, I have noticed another Tamil movie single Why This Kolaveri Di which is quite accepted due to sufficient content. Thank you. Abishe (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete This article does not take a Neutral point of view. Also, it may just be my interpretation but the subject does not appear to be particularly notable outside of India.Grapefruit17 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 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. – Joe (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buraaq

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

no coverage of film in reliable sources. پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are actually a number of reliable secondary sources out there about the character and the comic. If the article was to change focus, it might be more noteworthy. Additionally, this isn't even a movie. Maybe there were thoughts on doing so several years ago when the article was created, but it has been changed into a "micro-series" on YouTube, apparently, with the first episode that just came out two weeks ago. I guess you could say WP:TOOSOON if you want to limit this to the animated work as opposed to the print work, though. I think there is potential, but I certainly don't have energy to change the article and keep it up. The original author and main contributor also appears to have since been banned. Perhaps the series release will drive traffic for users interested in improving it, but I don't lean one way or another... A WP:PROD might have run its course to deletion... -2pou (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:48, 27 September 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. It's WP:SNOWing, and this AfD isn't going anywhere else. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Borderlands franchise characters

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

Video game fancruft. The coverage at Borderlands (series)#Characters is sufficient. Fails WP:N, WP:V, MOS:REALWORLD. Sandstein 10:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The topic goes into unnecessary depth on in-universe details, failing the above mentioned guidelines and policies. It contains nothing necessary as an offshoot companion article. Each game can handle its own character summary, and there is the series article for those that are recurring. TTN (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 27 September 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 trend was delete, then it swung back to keep on the last relist, but with all the same basic disagreements in play. RL0919 (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters

AfDs for this article:
List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same thing as Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Fails WP:GNG, no sources seem to discuss the second edition monsters as a group. Not a very active user (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wienecke-Janz, Detlef, ed. (2002). Lexikon der Zauberwelten – Gandalf & Co. Wissen Media Verlag. p. 12. ISBN 3-577-13505-0.
which is the same source listed in the 1st edition version of this article. I suspect that the entry refers to monsters as an important part of D&D and has just been used to add a source to the edition specific pages. Per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this article is untenable. We do not need tables of contents for every book ever published about monsters by TSR. An article that lists D&D monsters that are either unique to D&D or are uniquely interpreted by D&D might be tenable. Rockphed (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, It does say page 12, right before the ISBN, so we know that whatever is said is on page 12. No, I don't think we can hang an entire list around that single reference, no matter how much good faith we assume. Rockphed (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like the other specific D&D edition monster lists currently on AFD, this list is really nothing more than an attempt to transcribe the table of contents of a bunch of official books, making this little more than a game guide. There is no sources showing the notability of this specific grouping of D&D monsters, making it fail the notability requirements for a stand alone list, and its not even particularly useful as a navigation tool, as many of the entries just link back to other D&D lists. As mentioned here and elsewhere, a singular "List of Dungeons and Dragons" creatures, including the handful of actual notable creatures, would be appropriate and easy to source. These massive lists of cruft, however, are not appropriate to be kept. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:GAMEGUIDE, etc. There should not be indiscriminate lists of monsters for this franchise, only a single list of the notable monsters.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of blue links there leading to the articles of these monsters of this type from this series. Thus is a valid list article. Dream Focus 21:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, quite a number of these blue links just lead to other "List of D&D X Edition Monsters", or to articles that are unrelated to D&D at all, such as all the entries that are just regular animals. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as with the others. A few blue links don't make this a notable list, let alone one of notable items. The sourcing is highly questionable (starting with the Lexikon der Zauberwelten, a totally non-noteworthy fan book, it appears; other sourcing is incidental and might help editors write a paragraph on some thing in a main article. No, this is, I'm sorry to say, way too crufty. Drmies (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not just a list of monsters from Dungeons & Dragons, but specifically from a single edition of the game. This might be tenable if there were substantial sources discussing how 2nd Edition AD&D monsters differed from other D&D monsters in terms of design philosophy, quality, etc. but I'm not aware of any such discussion. The only time they are discussed as a set is in the context of actually playing the game as a directory or game guide. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT, but leave behind a redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This information is notable and valuable to the player base of the game. D&D is a major cultural touchstone for tabletop RPGs, and most of the books/sources that the monsters on this list come from are long out of print. This list and the other D&D monster lists for older editions are pretty much the only way a large percentage of players are able to access these monsters at all. Especially the monsters that aren't included in the newer editions of D&D. It provides a centralized starting point for research. 12.106.168.131 (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The whole purpose of list articles like this was to reduce the presence of the individual articles about creatures from D&D which on their own were inherently unsupportable. WP:GAMEGUIDE does not apply here; this is not a guide to the game, or a set of instructions. (I'll add that had I known about the AFD for the 1st edition list I would've voted keep on that as well, for the same reasons.) The IP above also raises a valid point regarding the usefulness and importance of this as a research tool for out-of-print materials.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all the above Keep votes, but failing that I suggest a merge/redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons which is where the 1st edition monster list was redirected. BOZ (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vulcan's Forge: See WP:RAWDATA for why that argument doesn't hold weight. Wikipedia cannot simply have pure data for research purposes, it must be placed in context. Merely being verifiable does not mean something requires an article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mainly because of WP:GAMEGUIDE, and the concerns raised by others.KingofGangsters (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are about 2:1 for deletion so far. Valid points on both sides. This is on the border between delete and no consensus. Relisting again in the hope that the outcome becomes clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 14 October 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 to delete. – Joe (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Algeria

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

Apparently completely non-notable organisation. No hits on GNews and no verifiable hit on GBooks for the supposed official English-language name "Algerian Association of Ice and Inline Hockey", one passing mention on each for "Hockey Algeria". No hit and no verifiable hit on GNews and GBooks respectively for the actual name, "Association Algérienne de Hockey sur Glace et Inline". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is the official governing body of ice hockey in Algeria, and has just recently been accepted into the IIHF. Other national governing bodies have articles, and while that obviously doesn't matter here, it does show that these articles do exist. However there doesn't seem to be much coverage of the federation, but that isn't exactly a surprise as hockey isn't exactly popular in Algeria. I would assume any coverage, if it exists, would be primarily in French or Arabic, and I added something from the Arabic version of the page, but I don't know either language so can't really do much more. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:51, 16 October 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. Yunshui 雲水 12:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dez White (businesswoman)

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

Promotional article. Looking at the article lead, the domain names for the companies she founded, GoInvis and MouthtoEars.com, are both no longer active. Edwardx (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 27 September 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) 11:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulezau

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

Fictional creature not mentioned in any secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Not a very active user (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 27 September 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) 11:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Musume auditions

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

Discussed on Talk:Morning Musume#Merger discussion. The article's topic is simply about casting calls/auditions to Morning Musume (not even a competition reality show), which does not meet WP:NMUSIC, and is a list of trivia with no references. The only source listed is Generasia, which is a wiki. There is also information about "qualifications" to joining, which violates WP:NOTAGUIDE and WP:NOTFANWEBSITE. lullabying (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While being a wiki does not per se exclude a sournce from being reliable, in this case their policy page says "Open Community: Recognise that articles can be changed by anyone...". So not in any way RS, even if it verified everything in the article, which it is very far from doing. SpinningSpark 13:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suppose it is possible to source this via primary sources, and one might could find some secondary sources, maybe even reliable ones, to verify this--but even then, this is the level of detail that serves no encyclopedic purpose. The GNG doesn't just require mentions; it wants in-depth commentary that can help us assess whether something matters or not. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on whether this topic merits its own article, but given the popularity and influence of this group in Japan, any information in this article that is WP:TRUE can probably be verified in reliable sources, so the lack of non-wiki sources currently cited in the article is not really relevant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:55, 1 October 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, contributions) 09:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regen Power

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

Promotion for non notable business. TThis article is bombarded with sources but none good for gng. Primary, listings, PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:17, 27 September 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DrIdiot (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Rich

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

Subject is non-notable. A Google search turns up: his Twitter, his YouTube channel, a Reddit discussion thread, his books on Amazon. He has never been the primary subject of coverage in any reliable source (e.g. he is not the main subject in the Rolling Stones article). He appears to mostly be known for his appearance in various anti-Scientology documentaries and for his YouTube videos, but in the former case he doesn't play a central role and in the latter case, 300K subscribers is not that notable. To address specifically some of the notability claims above: (1) Ginjanglez claims Nathan is notable for his "research" on China issues, but this is patently false. He has a YouTube video where he talks about China. This is not notability. I want to emphasize that he is never cited by any serious China scholar. (2) Other users comment that he is notable for his appearance in Scientology-related media. Again, in the Rolling Stones article he takes up a paragraph or two and in the Hollywood Reporter article it is even less. (3) The links to his "coverage" in CNN, HuffPost, etc. do not actually mention him at all, but merely link one of his YouTube videos which is touches upon the subject of the article. He is never actually mentioned by name in any of those articles. These justifications are really really stretching it: passing mention in a two publications over the years and does not mean notability. DrIdiot (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. To further clarify, his most notable appearance was in a single episode of the TV documentary Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath. Everything else currently on his Wikipedia page is stuff he has self-published or details about his personal life. I propose that (1) appearing in a single episode of a documentary is not enough to be notable and (2) while there's nothing wrong with self-publishing, his self-published works have not received any coverage in reputable sources. The section that discusses (1) in his Wikipedia article contains three sources. One is a Hollywood Reporter article which is primary about the episode, and the other two are from a mostly unknown pro-Scientology website and from a mostly unknown anti-Scientology website. DrIdiot (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For example, his last AfD - only 3 months ago - has a large Rolling Stone article in which he features prominently. Your 2nd nomination above doesn't bring anything new to this recent AfD, and seems to ignore most of the WP:RS that was used at that AfD to reach a Keep decision? I don't think this is a good way to operate. Britishfinance (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This Nathan Rich guy is probably more known now for his pro-China views than his background in Scientology. As pointed out by DrIdiot, his appearance in Scientology articles is not enough. Now, I vote "weak" because he does have some coverage from strange media about his China views. However, the media in question are all not independent sources (WP:IIS). A search on him gave these articles from Global Times 1 2, another one from China Daily 3 and an article from the think tank antiwar.com 4. In the first 3 articles, it is clear that the sources are not neutral and are drawing attention to him because they share the same political point of view, while the last article only quotes one sentence from one of his videos. I would wait for more neutral and reliable sources to cover him properly before giving him an article, or this Wikipedia article seems to fulfill the same goal as the Chinese tabloid. Sociable Song (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nathan Rich appears to be a thinker and a political commentatorCGTN, comparing china and US cancer treatments with a high density of facts backing up his statements. Huwaei 5G facts as well as the tradewar facts in videos filled with facts. Nathan Rich viewpoints from both US and China gives a rich width seldom represented in the debate otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A-Bee-Honey (talk • contribs) 13:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the links you provided are reputable sources. They are either his own videos, Chinese state media (CGTN) on topics where they have a clear conflict of interest (Hong Kong protests), or blogs. DrIdiot (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok so CGTN one of the largest TV networks is not a reputable source? That sounds more like a political opinion than a factbased expression. In Nathan Rich examinations of NYTimes statements about Chineese healthcare he rather proves that the wellknown and reputable source to be wrong, and that is to me pretty strong. That is the foundation of reputability to me. Have we ever seemeed anything like it with that quality recently? Nathan Rich appears to be more pro-china in his views than other westerner vloggers ìn China represented in Wikipedia, but does that make him less reputable? A-Bee-Honey (talk)
      • First, state owned media has a conflict of interest when discussing protests which are aimed against the state. See WP:IIS. State owned media in China neither have editorial independence, nor do they lack a confict of interest in coverage on Hong Kong protests. You'll note that even YouTube (in the link you provided) felt the need to note the organization which owns CGTN. Second, the blog you linked is not even close to being reputable, and it doesn't matter whether you or I think it is incorrect or correct. DrIdiot (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep America’s greatest core value is freedom of speech. Nathan Rich’s views may deviate from what mainstream media in America would like US to know, but they are always fact-based arguments. He has never promoted racism and bigotry against any group in his arguments. He does however have strong opinions about certain subjects related to China that is different than the views shared by the anti-China groups. For this reason, his contents and stories are constantly subjected to suppression. This is highly un-American. We are nothing if we allow our core constitutional rights robbed by those who chose to suppress dissenting views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstwok (talk • contribs) 01:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, no reputable sources, and Wikipedia is not a messaging board. I want to point out this is their first edit by the above user to Wikipedia. DrIdiot (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Articles for deletion are not violations of free speech. Wikipedians are not acting on behalf of the government, which includes the US government. The free speech argument can be made to keep literally anyone on the site, yet Wikipedia's mission is not to have an article for every single person. Sociable Song (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Britishfinance's argument in the first AFD nomination. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the RS-based arguments that I (and @SJFriedl:) made just 3 months ago at the last AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich. I don't think this should have been re-nominated so soon from its last AfD (which was closed as a Keep), the nom seems to ignore all the RS from the last AfD and they reasons why it was Kept? Britishfinance (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Rolling Stone interview is very recent (June 2019), and even though he is not the sole subject (which would have made it a stronger case), it is a large article and he features in a major section of it. He also appears as more than just a passing mention in other pieces from the Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath series (e.g. Inquisitr [11] Hollywood Reporter [12]). Even from these sources, a larger BLP article could be written about Rich's experiences in Scientology. I would think that a casual reader interested in Scientology would expect to find something about this character and his bio details. I see that he also appears in various Chinese news sites, like this: [13]. His three references to Tony Ortega's website are better quality than I had assumed. Ortega seems a notable journalist and author on Scientology, and in this context would probably be considered decent RS. Britishfinance (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am the nominator. There are some points brought up here that were not included in the previous discussion, in particular regarding his content on China, which some seemed hesitant to touch on in detail, but as a person interested in Chinese issues I can say that none of the Chinese news sites that refer to him are both notable and independent (see comments above, e.g. by User:Sociable Song). He is mostly known for taking a pro-CCP stance on issues, but this isn't the problem. The problem is that all of his coverage comes from pro-CCP sources, and he just simply isn't notable enough to have received coverage from sources with different viewpoints. I submit that his only claim to notability is his appearance in the anti-Scientology TV episode. Since then all his appearances are self-published or from non-reputable fringe-interest sources. If you strip away all of these fringe-interest sources (and we should) you're not left with much, and there's a further problem: the subject isn't notable enough to get coverage from reputable media on his own. Finally, let me say explicitly what I mean by these fringe sources: (1) there's a lot of detail about his family, which appears to be the result of original research by contributors (i.e. it is not reported in any reputable sources), (2) the criminal convictions section is based entirely on a non-reputable source, (3) none of the sources regarding his China content are reputable and independent and (4) the entire section "YouTube" just cites his own self-published videos. DrIdiot (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At the very least, I think the page should be trimmed down significantly. But at that point, one wonders if it's just better to give Nathan a dedicated section in the various articles on the Scientology-related subjects where he appears prominently (e.g. Mace-Kingsley Ranch School). DrIdiot (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You are not making arguments regarding the RS on this BLP subject. His most recent AfD was not passed based on his Chinese RS (far from it). Writing a lot of words about this Chinese material and then ignoring the rest of his RS (despite the link to his AfD of 3 months ago listing out all of this RS), is not helpful, or efficient, to those who took the time to participate on that AfD. I can't see the WP:PAG argument from you as to why the RS listed at most recent AfD was wrong. Britishfinance (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't dispute the Rolling Stones, Inquisitr or Ortega sources. Maybe listing as AfD wasn't the right approach, but I think a lot of the content on his current page should not be there. In particular, sources [5], [8], [9], [10], [12], [16] are non-reputable. Removing them would amount to removing: the part identifying his mother (never verified by name in any source), the criminal convictions section, the youtube section, and the personal life section. DrIdiot (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of these issues could be addressed by reverting to the July 31 version of the article. DrIdiot (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Happy to withdraw nomination and revert to July 31 version, in addition replacing Followcn source with the Stones article (which already says he lives in China), if that sounds like an agreeable solution. I also think the aunts aren't particularly relevant, so I would also propose deleting the "personal life" section (there is plenty on his personal life in other sections) DrIdiot (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree @DrIdiot: that this BLP has gone in crazy directions since the 31 July (last AfD) - there are many edits now that are not appropriate on a WP:BLP in both directions. If you are going to withdraw the nomination, I would support restoring the 31 July version (I would do it myself now but if would be a major change to make during an AfD). I am fine with the Personal Details section - it is important in BLPs to chronicle core biographical facts, and one of his aunts Sharon Rich, has her own WP page (which makes the connection notable). I think this BLP needs more serious protection and perhaps long-term ECP, as it is getting abused/vandalized in both directions (same happened in run-up to 1st AfD); he is clearly a controversial figure on several counts. Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, Nathan Rich's entire & only noteworthy content should be merged into a subsection on a Scientology article. There shouldn't be an article on Rich, unless he gets more coverage from reputable and independent sources. I know comparisons on people's notability usually don't work. But I'd compare Rich to the occasional expert/prof/activist that the news talks to for one specific topic/event. And these occasional interviewees are not notable enough to stand out with a Wikipedia article. I would say that the interviewee crosses the threshold when they are consulted on many topics by the news, hence becoming a pundit. And/or when they are consulted on the same topic by many outlets for a significant period of time, at the point where the topic cannot be properly covered without them. Rich's presence in Scientology are not crucial to covering Scientology in some unique way. Rich's pundit status is only viable among the pro-CCP media and hasn't been identified by any media outside of that political leaning. Sociable Song (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Your !vote above shows that you are either unwilling to read about this subject or worse, are willing to misrepresent the RS on him (As a new editor, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here). There is nothing in the above Comment that relates to WP:PAG re AfD. I would advise that you take more time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia since you joined before making such contributions at AfD; which is a forum that requires familiarity with PAG to contribute effectively. Britishfinance (talk) 10:21, 7 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Sun Brewing Company

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

Promotion for non notable business. Outside of local they lack coverage in independent reliable sources. This article is bombarded with sources they are largely ordinary. Local, listings passing mention, primary. Then there is the straight out dishonest. A book published in 1992 does not verify anything about a brewery founded in 1995. They do get mentioned re sexist and lewd but they are just an example and a side note to the real news event. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sourcing does indeed seem to be local and/or copied from press releases. Rockphed (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The ref for "The brewery is well known for variety despite their small size. MSBC produces 40 brews each year and many are brand new recipes. The brewery has 8 year-round offerings (including 4 in cans), plus 23 seasonals, as well as series and specialty offerings. The Arctic Rhino Coffee Porter and the Midnight Sun Brewing Co. was highlighted in a 2017 Lonely Planet book surveying 200 global destinations.[1]" does not actually support the text in question. And it reads like spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Planet, Lonely (2017-10-01). The Cities Book. Lonely Planet. ISBN 9781787011663.
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Howell, Bill (2015). Alaska Beer Liquid Gold in the Land of the Midnight Sun: Liquid Gold in the Land of the Midnight Sun. Charleston, South Carolina: The History Press. ISBN 978-1-62619-449-6. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
    2. DeBenedetti, Christian (2016). The Great American Ale Trail (Revised Edition): The Craft Beer Lover's Guide to the Best Watering Holes in the Nation. Philadelphia: Running Press. ISBN 978-0-7624-6102-8. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
    3. Hampson, Tim; Hieronymus, Stan; Kopp, Sylvia; Tierney-Jones, Adrian (2013). World Beer: Outstanding Classics and Craft Beers from the Greatest Breweries. New York: DK. ISBN 978-1-4654-1438-0. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
    4. Mack, Zach (2016-07-27). "Alaska Is an Untapped Beer Paradise". Thrillist. Archived from the original on 2019-10-04. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
    5. Todd, Sue (2018-11-28). "Midnight Sun Brewing – 23 Years Strong". Glacier City Gazette. Archived from the original on 2019-10-04. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
    6. Lebow, Jess (2015). The United States Of Craft Beer: A Guide to the Best Craft Breweries Across America. New York: F+W. ISBN 978-1-4405-8373-5. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
    7. Volkman, Claire (2016-09-30). "10 of Alaska's Best Craft Breweries and Distilleries". Paste. Archived from the original on 2019-10-04. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Howell, Bill (2015). Alaska Beer Liquid Gold in the Land of the Midnight Sun: Liquid Gold in the Land of the Midnight Sun. Charleston, South Carolina: The History Press. ISBN 978-1-62619-449-6. Retrieved 2019-10-04.

      The book notes:

      Midnight Sun's original location was 7329 Arctic Boulevard, less than a mile from [Ray] Hodge's former workplace at Bird Creek; the brewery shared a small building with Knight's Taxidermy, a business featured on the reality television program Mounted in Alaska. After helping select the site, Hodge had to design the brewhouse layout, find and purchase the equipment and then install and test each piece. At that point, he was finally ready to begin brewing. Midnight Sun released its first beer, Wolf Spirit Sparkling Ale, in May 1995. Several others soon followed: Kodiak Brown Ale, Mammoth Extra Stout and Fireweed Honey Wheat Beer, among several other mainstream brews. There were occasional seasonals, like Double Shovel Dopplebock, Autumnfest Marzen and Humpback Jack Pumpkin Ale. By 1996, Midnight Sun was producing about one thousand barrels a year, but by then Ray Hodge had moved on to another brewing project, Railway Brewing (see below). Mark Staples initially assumed the duties as brewer and then hired Jimmy Butchard as head brewer. Together they developed some more challenging beers for the brewery's "Three-Barrel Line" of specialty beers, which were served only on draft at select outlets in Anchorage. Beers in the line included a raunchblock, an abbey ale and Snowshoe White Wit Beer, the first commercial witbier brewed in Alaska.

      All was not smooth sailing for Midnight Sun, however. The brewery was in the red for a while, and at one point the owners actually tried to sell it. Other local Alaska breweries had started up as well, and competition was...

      The book notes:

      While Millstein's "bakery model" might work for him, it was not an option for a production brewery in Anchorage. In the last chapter we saw some of the challenges that beset Midnight Sun Brewing Company from its founding in 1995 to the spring of 1998, when it hired its fifth lead brewer in three years, Gabe Fletcher. While he was young and inexperienced, Fletcher brought two things to Midnight Sun that it desperately needed: stability and vision. On the stability front, Fletcher would stay at Midnight Sun for over twelve years, and his steady hand at the brewing tiller would allow the brewery to find and develop a distinctive style. The vision he brought was of a brewery producing challenging beers that stretched the limits of what the local beer drinkers had previously been offered.

      ...

      With Ellis at the brewing helm and demand for its brews growing, Midnight Sun Brewing Company has become a major force on the beer scene in Alaska.

      The book contains a quote from Ellis.
    2. DeBenedetti, Christian (2016). The Great American Ale Trail (Revised Edition): The Craft Beer Lover's Guide to the Best Watering Holes in the Nation. Philadelphia: Running Press. ISBN 978-0-7624-6102-8. Retrieved 2019-10-04.

      The book notes:

      Midnight Sun Brewing Co.

      Under the watch of brewer Gabe Fletcher for twelve years, Midnight Sun emerged as Alaska's most innovative brewery, and built a strong reputation in the Pacific Northwest for big, interesting beers. New brewer Ben Johnson has a tough act to follow, but he's got plenty of training and a huge standing army of dedicated fans. And with a new brew-house and "the Loft"—an upstairs area with some fifteen to twenty taps, sleek metal tables and chairs, and polished cement floors—MSNBC remains a top draw for beer travelers (and locals) every day of the week from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. ... Once a month it's First Firkin Friday, for which they feature a local artist and—you guessed it—tap a fresh firkin, a traditinoally English bar-top, forty-one-liter cask of beer.

      ...

      Key Beer There are ten year-round offerings, including the flagship Sockeye Red IPA (5.7% ABV), four seasonals, five special edition bers, and several other one-offs and collaborations to try. Try the clove-y, creamy, Belgian-style dark Monk's Mistress and Arctic Devil, a nutty, warming, complex barley wine (typically around 13% ABV) that has cleaned up at the Great Alaskan beer festival for years.

      The book includes a quote from Midnight Sun owner Mark Staples.
    3. Hampson, Tim; Hieronymus, Stan; Kopp, Sylvia; Tierney-Jones, Adrian (2013). World Beer: Outstanding Classics and Craft Beers from the Greatest Breweries. New York: DK. ISBN 978-1-4654-1438-0. Retrieved 2019-10-04.

      The book notes:

      Although Midnight Sun Brewing distributes beer to only a few of the Lower 48 states, the Alaskan brewery has developed a cult following with its esoteric ales, many of which come but once... ever. For instance, in 2007 the brewery offered a seven-beer Deadly Sin Series: Lust was a strong dark Belgian ale aged in bourbon barrels and infused with sour cherries and Brettanomyces. Core beers like Sockeye Red IPA and Kodiak Brown Ale are readily available in Anchorage, including in cans.

    4. Mack, Zach (2016-07-27). "Alaska Is an Untapped Beer Paradise". Thrillist. Archived from the original on 2019-10-04. Retrieved 2019-10-04.

      The article notes:

      There's so much that can be said about Midnight Sun Brewing -- from the hilarious background stories behind the names of top-selling brews, to the super-friendly staff in the taproom, to the wall-mounted salmon that dispenses draft beer -- that it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the beers it makes are so damn good. Everything from top-notch barleywines and puckering sours (like Buzzwinkle) to bold stouts and well-balanced IPAs (like Pleasure Town) find their way into the bottles and kegs here, easily making it one of the state's top beer destinations since it opened two decades ago. Of course, travelers are rewarded with bottles that are only sold at the brewery, so consider packing those bags if you want to really get to know these guys… and make use of that wall-mounted beer salmon.

    5. Todd, Sue (2018-11-28). "Midnight Sun Brewing – 23 Years Strong". Glacier City Gazette. Archived from the original on 2019-10-04. Retrieved 2019-10-04.

      The article notes:

      The second oldest brewery in Alaska and the oldest brewery in Anchorage, Midnight Sun Brewing Company (MSBC) boasts over 40 different brews a year. Some are one-off, some are seasonal, but many are year-round. It is hard to imagine that an Alaskan has not heard of at least some of their offerings – Sockeye Red, Panty Peeler, Pleasure Town, and Kodiak Brown, to name a few – bold beers with pithy names, created for the hearty Alaskan tastes. MSBC has stood the test of time and continues to grow and expand its reach.

      I recently had a long chat with Barb Miller about the brewery’s humble beginnings and its latest direction. This 23-year old operation began when co-owners Miller and Mark Staples started a production brewery back in 1995. They shared a small industrial space on Arctic Boulevard with Knight’s Taxidermy.

      As MSBC grew, they developed a good reputation for beer. Thus, when they moved to Dimond Hook Drive in May 2009, patrons followed. Seven months later, food service was introduced at the Loft. Miller laughed when she said they couldn’t give the food away at first.

    6. Lebow, Jess (2015). The United States Of Craft Beer: A Guide to the Best Craft Breweries Across America. New York: F+W. ISBN 978-1-4405-8373-5. Retrieved 2019-10-04.

      The book notes:

      Started in 1995, Midnight Sun Brewing brews a variety of year-round beers as well as a host of seasonals and unique releases. Its beers are offered in 22-ounce bottles and 12-ounce cans in Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Oregon, California, and New York and on tap at the Loft, the brewery's taproom/pub located at the brewery itself. Every Thursday at 6 P.M., Gary Busse, the owner of the brewery, gives a free tour of the facility.

    7. Volkman, Claire (2016-09-30). "10 of Alaska's Best Craft Breweries and Distilleries". Paste. Archived from the original on 2019-10-04. Retrieved 2019-10-04.

      The article notes:

      Hidden away in a steel-enclosed industrial park in South Anchorage, the Midnight Sun Brewing Co. has been an Anchorage “must visit” since 1995. Head up to the Loft and grab a seat indoors (or outdoors in summer) to sample some of the company’s fresh Alaskan fare and – most importantly – their beer. The variety is best described as eclectic, with thick and hearty coffee porters and Belgian style tripels to luscious chocolate ales and a devilish barely wine. Not all done in stainless, some of Midnight Sun’s most coveted beers are oak-aged, giving each sip a smoother, almost buttery aftertaste. If they have it, order the Berserker Imperial stout or the Pride Belgian-Style Strong Pale ale to taste the difference. The food is just as good as the beer, with a new special popping up daily. Do yourself a favor and pair the mouthwatering smoked salmon bruschetta with their Pleasure Town IPA.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Midnight Sun Brewing Company to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:59, 4 October 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 Seattle Mariners minor league players. North America1000 03:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Kirby (baseball)

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

This baseball pitcher has only appeared in the minor leagues, so he doesn't satisfy WP:NBASE. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Seattle Mariners minor league players as usual with first round picks that are not yet notable enough for own page. Definitely no delete. Malmmf (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:22, 27 September 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 technical deletion. There is a very narrow consensus for deletion of the article as it stands. However, there is likely salvageable material from the article, so I am closing this as a redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, so that some content relevant to that article may be retrieved. I note that the redirect target is short on discussion of the interplay of different editions within the genre. bd2412 T 02:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters

Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The items in the list are not put in context with secondary sources. List of minor monsters sourced entirely to the Monster Manual. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There may be justification for a single list on notable creatures, but this is just WP:GAMEGUIDE material. TTN (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is not an indiscriminate list but a list defined by monsters that have been published in official D&D books. It is a drop-down list as a list for monsters of all editions would be too big. It was a compromise as some monsters had some independent notability. Monsters of D&D have been discussed in independent commentaries. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree that some monsters are notable. However, this is clearly a list of all monsters from 1st Edition, therefore it establishes itself as a directory, not an encyclopedic list. It fails to differentiate between notable and non-notable monsters, and therefore requires a total rewrite. A List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters that only features notable creatures would make sense, this is pure fancruft/gameguide content that does not have relevance to non-fans.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cas Liber, and this list does have several independent reliable sources. Any other issues could be fixed through editing. BOZ (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the list, there are 3 possibly independent sources. Two of them are not available online. The third, which gives a little hint that D&D monsters might be notable as a group, does so so in such fashion as to support the notability of list of D&D monsters, not index of D&D 1st edition monsters. The three sources I see are:
If someone has a good idea where to look for old copies of White Dwarf and can actually look up the two reviews cited (currently sources 2 and 16 in the article), that would help immensely. Also, if somebody has access to Lexikon der Zauberwelten and can explain what it actually says about D&D, that would also be awesome. Rockphed (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't hold my breath for anyone to find anything about that Lexikon. I have my doubts about White Dwarf and its independence and reliability as well--this is all we have. What we are finding here is for how long Wikipedia has been a playground for building walled gardens of this kind of boy game. Drmies (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not in any way indiscriminate as claimed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and the same arguments brought up in the other D&D Edition monsters lists at AFD. The very few non-primary sources included here would help support a singular article or list on the topic of Dungeons and Dragons monsters, discussing and listing the handful of actually notable creatures. They do not, however, support any notability for this specific grouping. And they also certainly do not justify this massive list which is nothing more than a game guide. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of blue links there leading to the articles of these monsters of this type from this series. Unless you erase all of those other articles, this is a valid list article. Dream Focus 21:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some have the same name as a creature of myth but in their links it has (Dungeons & Dragons) showing its a different article. Clicking through the list for a while I see ample articles specifically for Dungeons % Dragons monsters to justify a list article. Dream Focus 11:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And out of all of them, how many do you actually think deserve articles? You're trying to justify a unnecessary list with articles that don't even hold up to the standards of the GNG in the first place. TTN (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like Zxcvbnm said, a single list of D&D monsters, with the notability of the monsters clearly established by reliable, secondary sources would be useful and worth of having. Separate lists of D&D monsters for every edition of the game listing every single monster from the game, notable or not, is just a game guide, and only useful for a small portion of the readers. Not a very active user (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the same people suggesting we construct this hypothetical list, should be aware that would require using all the independently-sourced chunks from this list which the same people are keen on deleting. BOZ (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a list of generic monsters, the criteria for inclusion is a slippery slope, if one is allowed, then people will assume that others are allowed no matter how slipshod their notability is. The easiest way to ensure notability, is to require each monster to be independently notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My personal limit would be things with at least 1 reliable, independent, significant source could go on the list while things with more than that could support their own article. Why I am for deleting these lists as currently written is that the individual items are currently sourced to primary sources and there aren't sources to establish the notability of creatures for any individual edition of D&D. Rockphed (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its also important to note that the reason why there can be lists that include non-notable individual entries is because WP:LISTN states that stand alone lists meet the notability requirements if independent reliable sources discuss the grouping as a group. So, you can have a list of, using your example, cast members of a film that includes non-notable members if there are reliable sources that discuss the cast members of that film as a group. In this case however, there are not, as far as I have found or have been provided, any independent reliable sources that discuss "AD&D 1st Edition Monsters" in specific as a group. Rorshacma (talk) 19:10, 1 October 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. Fish+Karate 09:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali Medical Center

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

Delete The hospital doesn't even exist yet (TOOSOON) and the building is still under construction. Not a single reference in the article meets the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing++ 14:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: Hospital has been operational since July 2019. I have added other sources to supplement the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: GNG is established as there are at least 8 different sources discussing the hospital at length. MILL is not a Wikipedia policy. Makeandtoss (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss:, "at least 8 different sources discussing the hospital at length" does not mean that there are any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss, three of the sources are in Arabic, one is local news from Philadelphia about a company who helped construct the building, and the other four are industry periodicals. The hospital is now open, so there could be more in-depth coverage on the number of beds (many thousands of American hospitals are in the 209-bed-neighborhood due to regulatory restrictions), types of medical practice patient care (i.e. nursing practices), etc. Right, now there is just not enough information about the patient services -- as opposed the building design, parking decks, number of floors, and related information. MILL isn't a policy, but it's a guideline that I cite frequently as a heuristic. According to this PR source, the building was set to turn on its solar electric grid last week; there's no indication of a single patient being treated. This source claimed the hospital, with 200 beds, was set to open in July 2019, which contradicts the other source that said the lights weren't even expected to be turned on until August 26 at the earliest. Again, this is a small hospital in the grand scheme of things; there's no evidence in the artricle or online that it's even treated a single patient; there's no reliable sources since they contradict each other and they look sketchy; it's been struggling with delays for over a decade. As a hospital, it's just not notable; please convince me that it's notable for another reason, or find more recent English-language sources. I tried a Yahoo search as well, and found no evidence it had actually opened. In fact, according to their own website, it's still hiring staff to be able to open. See also WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to treat patients is not an indication of notability. Plus, citations to non-English sources is allowed on Wikipedia. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had originally closed this as delete, but per the discussion on the talk page, I'm backing out my close and relisting this for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
From source 3, google translated. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, are editors not able to tell blatant churnalism, company announcements and press releases from original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject as per NCORP guidelines. In summary, not a single new reference added to the article comes even close to meeting the requirements for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Venture source does not depend on this alleged press release. No text in the article matches a text from a press release. The intelligentcio source was not used in the article and the fact that it depended on the Venture Magazine's text does not make the Venture article any less credible.
      • The renewables source is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the hospital should have an article.
      • The Alghad article is again not copied from anywhere. MENAFN is a news aggregator, and the fact that it translated Alghad's article does not undermine Al Ghad's credibility. Arab newspapers rarely attribute articles to journalists.
      • This Alghad article does indeed name the hospital: Clemenceau Medical Center. It was renamed later. The article does have independent content as can be seen in the last sentence.
      • The Ro'ya article can be removed.
      • The Zawya article was removed.
      • This Alghad article is not based on any other article.
      • The Addustour article is not based on any other article.
      • The criteria for hospital articles notability are: significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable and secondary sources (WP:ORGCRIT). Significant coverage is checked as all of the articles discuss only the hospital; multiple independent, reliable and secondary sources is also checked considering they were reported in Alghad, Addusour and Al-Rai; independent, semi-governmental and governmental newspapers who also happen to be the most circulated newspaper in Jordan. page 22. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Here's the press release that the Venture magazine article (and others) faithfully reproduces or is largely based on. Also, the criteria for hospitals is WP:NCORP since it is a company/organization. This article is spam and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion not a Yellow Pages (see WP:NOT). Some people don't seem to be able to tell the difference between churnalism/PR/announcements and the requirement for Independent Content (as defined by WP:ORGIND). Lets agree to disagree and let others weigh in. HighKing++ 20:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Either way, Alghad, Alrai and Addustour remain to be credible sources that belong to the three leading newspapers in Jordan. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've no doubt they are "credible sources". But is not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability. No attributed journalists means those references are highly questionable as reliable sources for supporting facts within the article, never mind using them to establish notability which is a higher standard again for references. As has been pointed out above for those references, the *content* fails the criteria for establishing notability. You may assume that none here are questioning the bona fides of the publisher. HighKing++ 17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September 19.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination statement is false - the references are clear that the hospital opened at least a couple of months ago, therefore TOOSOON doesn't apply. The only delete vote says that there's no indications on how many beds there are, though the sources do mention there are over 200 beds, and that the sources aren't in English - which is not a policy-based concern. I can't imagine a 34-story hospital wouldn't be notable in any city. There are multiple good sources in the article, meeting GNG. The combination of these three references alone is very compelling to me - one, two, three. The article references have been significantly improved since the AFD started; there's some WP:HEY here. Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Eh .. no. The nomination statement also says "Not a single reference in the article meets the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP". And "multiple good sources in the article, meeting GNG" has been shown to *not* be the case above (unless you meant to rebutt what was said above about the sources but you hit "Publish" too early?) HighKing++ 20:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean "no" User:HighKing? Your nomination says "The hospital doesn't even exist yet (TOOSOON) and the building is still under construction" which is clearly not true. The nomination statement is false - please fix it ... and also remove the "delete" which makes it look as though you are trying to vote on your nomination, and has already created confusion! The article has been improved since you nominated, the sources currently there, and also provided in this dicussion meet GNG. Nfitz (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Nfitz, I'm not sure if updating a nomination is allowed but I've struck the piece about the hospital not existing as you are correct to point out that this isn't true. I always add "Delete" to my nominations and while I accept it is not done by very many nominators, it is not in breach of any guidelines. Finally, none of the sources meet WP:NCORP which are the guidelines for corporations/organizations as I have noted above. If you can link to any two references that you believe meet the criteria, post them below and lets see them. HighKing++ 14:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
side conversation about nomination formatting
          • @HighKing: please see WP:AFDFORMAT, where it says, Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. What you're doing is indeed confusing, and in fact, was one of the things that led me astray when I originally closed this. Please don't do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • RoySmith, I have not "repeated this recommendation on a *separate* *bulleted* line". I have already had this format cleared by another admin some time ago and this is only the second time in years that someone has said it is "confusing". There doesn't appear to be anything in the guidelines to say that it shouldn't/can't be done. Personally, I think it adds clarity to the nomination. That said, I acknowledge that not many others do this. I'll have a rethink but if there are sufficient objections in the future, I'll drop it. HighKing++ 13:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a long thread on your talk page about this, where two different people asked you to stop doing this. Please don't dig in your heels on this. The goal in all communication is to be clear about your intent. You've got multiple people telling you that what you're doing is confusing, and you're wiki-lawyering whether the existence of a piece of punctuation is significant or not. This seems like WP:IDONTHEARYOU. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't get a chance to respond before you collapsed this part. You've totally misrepresented that thread. Softlavender was being a dick (as is evident from the thread and from Floqeunbeam's comments) and took it upon themselves to modify my nomination without bothering to ask and then took over my talk page with a rant. Floq then said I was "probably" wrong but NA1000 said "It's all right to have the word "delete" in bold in the nomination header". That was 2 years ago in 2017. Now you say I'm wiki-lawyering and digging my heels in??? Please. HighKing++ 17:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Both are guidelines and GNG does not take precedence over NCORP. In fact, NCORP and GNG are the same thing, just that NCORP provides specific guidelines on how to apply policies and also assists by providing interpretations and clarification specific to ascertaining the notability of sources for companies. If NCORP hasn't been met, then GNG hasn't been met either as that would be impossible. None of the sources meet NCORP, specifically WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 13:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. There are multiple sources that are independent of the topic. GNG is met. Yes, there appear to be some churning of press releases in some of the references - but with 11 references in the article, that's not the sum total of the references. Does some of the text in some of the articles follow the press releases a bit too closely in an restrictive undemocratic closed society with a highly-controlled media ... surely that goes without saying. Nfitz (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You see ... this is why we have NCORP. You say there are multiple sources that are independent of the topic (without pointing to any specifically - can you point to some please?) but then go on to admit that they're "churning of press release". Therefore the *content* is not independent (which is clarified/explained in NCORP's WP:ORGIND section in great detail, but not so much in GNG). And while your opinion that due to this company being located in a restrictive undemocratic closed society with a highly-controlled media provides for an exception, this is not part of our guidelines/policies. HighKing++ 17:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • NCORP is irrelevant - GNG suffices. You are twisting my words; me acknowledging that some of the 11 references in the article have partially used press releases, doesn't contradict that there's enough there to meet GNG. Our guidelines/policies have been met, with the possible exception of WP:WABBITSEASON. I'm not sure why you are making false statements that I haven't pointed to any sources specifically. And I'm unsure why you haven't yet edited the original nomination to remove the misleading, bolded, delete in the nomination statement, in clear breach of the guidelines at WP:AFDFORMAT. Nfitz (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • NCORP is just as relevant as GNG and arguably more so. An article cannot be said to pass GNG and fail NCORP because they're both based on the exact same principles. NCORP provides additional clarity on sources that may be used to establish notability. Also, check out the Talk page at AFDFORMAT where you can see that my nomination is, in fact, not in clear breach of any guidelines. Finally, I don't know why I haven't commented on the references previously. This from Khaberni.com is based on an announcement/interview by the Vice Chairman of the Center and is therefore not "independent" fails WP:ORGIND and GNG. This from addustour.com is also based on an announcement and fails for the exact same reasons. Finally, this from jfrnews.com is a PR stunt and fails for the exact same reasons. HighKing++ 16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Subject meets GNG. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is this reopen again? How User:HighKing can you read that discussion at AFDFORMAT and think that you aren't off base on this issue? How is this not a snow keep - there hasn't been anyone here that agrees with you in a month. The only person who supported delete was User:Bearian, who hasn't spoken up in over a month. Have their views stayed the same, now that the article has improved? Nfitz (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep—I've added English titles to the citations that lacked them, which might help a bit in evaluation. I think what could push this over for me to a full Keep would be to flesh out the statement "...and develop it to a new medical-use project called "Abdali Medical Center", the first of its kind in Jordan." In other words, what makes this facility the first of its kind in the country; that is not made clear and without that this might be considered just another hospital. By the way "just another hospital" is not a support for delete - if I had by druthers, I'd have an article for every hospital as they are vital pieces of infrastructure wherever they are located. I know, though, that flies in the face of Wikipedia norms, so I'll just dream on and color just a bit out of the lines from time to time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceyockey: Removed the sentence you objected to. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing:—I didn't object to the sentence, and it does not improve the article by removing it. I'd rather see the question it raises answered rather than making the article's subject seem even less notable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceyockey: I removed it (and not Highking) thinking it was puffery but it was actually meant to reflect one of the claims in the article that the hospital is unique in offering patient-centered care. I added that in the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nfitz. Passes WP:GNG. I find Highking's argument unconvincing. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: an SNG can never be used to exclude a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult.4meter4 (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While there is debate as to other criteria this article may or not meet, it seems clear that the article, as it stands, passes GNG. GNG is the bar articles require for notability. I concur, and originally closed it as such but the nominator requested it be reopened. Ifnord (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to expand my !vote after discussion with the nom. At the time, I did not look at the article's notability through the lens of WP:GROUP. It is superseded by GNG. Admittedly, I am no expert in Arabic. But, while not stellar, the sources do appear reliable, secondary, and mention the subject in detail. Through the lens of GNG, IMHO, the subject meets criteria. Ifnord (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There's quite a bit of discussion above about the so-called irrelevance of NCORP and how GNG somehow supercedes it. This is incorrect. Both are guidelines and both are based on the exact same principles. There is nothing in NCORP that is new to GNG. Arguments along the lines that a reference passes GNG (but doesn't pass NCORP) are illogical and flawed and really only demonstrates that an editor does not understand how to interpret the guidelines. I have pointed out above that none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability (pointing to NCORP as the guidelines that best explain why) and have been met with vague arguments that the references meet GNG and therefore NCORP is irrelevant. I simply request that the Keep !voters simply provide a link to 2 references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP/GNG which, to date, none of the references are anything other than PR and churnalism. HighKing++ 16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Notability, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." The key word, for me, is "or". The subject-specific criteria exists to allow subjects which are notable but do not meet GNG criteria. I do not believe they exist to raise the GNG bar higher, if an article passes GNG then its ability to pass any other is not relevant. Ifnord (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ifnord, yup, don't disagree with any of that. But there's a little bit of dis-ingenuousness going on with that argument. The arguments that "it passes GNG therefore NCORP doesn't matter" is deliberately trying to ignore years of experience of interpreting sources used to establish the notability of companies/organizations. NCORP exists to assist editors interpret GNG in relation to articles on companies/organizations/etc. It doesn't add any new criteria or "raise the bar". So .. same question .. can you link to any two references that meet NCORP or GNG, same thing, doesn't matter. HighKing++ 18:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response As has been pointed out to you elsewhere by Elmidae, Throwing out WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE is without any value if you don't demonstrate what sources you found; i.e., they are empty buzzwords. I checked for available sources and found none that were sufficient to demonstrate independent notability. If you claim that there are some - present them here for evaluation. HighKing++ 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The HighKing just pinged another editor to this debate (Elmidae)...why the ping? Note to HighKing you should leave it to the participants to determine notability. It is a small group WP:LOCALCONSENSUS who come to these AfDs however you repeat the same mantra in every demand for deletion - WP:NCORP. You also mistakenly say that articles need to jump two hurdles, WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. This is incorrect and it has been pointed out to you. The fact that you can ping those who agree with you only means the system is not fair, and it is only an unfair local consensus. Lightburst (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to borrow that word ... niff- nawing ... I never saw it before but it is a lovely word, thank you. HighKing++ 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I first encountered the phrase when I was appearing before Blair Moody, Jr., who at the time was a Wayne County Circuit Judge. He went on to become a [[Michigan Supreme Court Justice. He died unexpectedly and at a relatively young age. After having Thanksgiving Dinner, he went out to rake some leaves. Every Thanksgiving I say something to myself as a memorial. He was a great jurist. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Two more !votes but I've the same simple request as I've made since the start ... where are the references? Ceyockey's references have been shown to be churnalism and PR. It is odd that nobody seems to be able to post a link to any two that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 10:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @HighKing: I only added English translations for the Arabic titles of the extant citations; I have not added any citations myself (had to check to make sure :-) ). Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 15 October 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, contributions) 06:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Longarm (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 04:06, 27 September 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 Decepticons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 04:05, 27 September 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, contributions) 06:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalantaka (film)

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

This film is not out yet, the only reference used is on a part of the Kannada News website that self-identifies as "gossip" and doesn't seem very in-depth from what I could glean from machine translation. In short, at this time this film simply does not appear to be notable and this article was created by persons involved with the film Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that they have now added two more sources. One is a facebook page, so no help with notability there. The other is a brief article from what appears to be a local news source, which verifies that the film was being made back in May and a trailer was expected out sometime last month, along with some very vague plot details. I don't feel like that helps insofar as notability either. At best this is WP:TOOSOON, the film certainly doesn't seem notable now, today. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 03:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 27 September 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. Yunshui 雲水 12:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Lang

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. The article in it's present state is essentially a resume, and does not show any coverage that would confer notability. After a BEFORE, I was not able to find many sources, save for profiles on the website of companies she work(s/ed) for. Vermont (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I'm getting tried of this bleep. I'll still pissed over the deletion of Holly Sonders and now with this. Enough with this BS. I can't make a page without a threat of deletion minutes later. If this gets deleted, my might delete some pages for the heck of it, TRY ME!!!!!!! You've been warned Dwightforrm (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwightforrm: Could you please clarify how you intend to "delete some pages for the heck of it". Thank you. Nick (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 06:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick: I am still pissed about the deletions Holly Sonders and Kelly Nash. Sonders had more content than some of these other pages and yet her page gets deleted and those other pages stay on the damn site and like Sonders some of those people like her aren't "famous enough" and their pages are still on here. You guys are picking and choosing and I'm tired of the hypocritical BS. Maybe I should pick and choose myself.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the notability of the subject, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:46, 27 September 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. " I presume there is coverage" isn't enough. Sandstein 07:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jembatan Merah Plaza

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Creator Vga1992 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for socking and considering talk page history, was likely an undisclosed paid editor. Previously prodded by User:LibStar, prod removed by User:Eastmain who expanded it (thanks for the effort), notability tag added by User:Epeefleche, and now I think it's time for the trial by fire here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 03:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. William2001(talk) 03:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. William2001(talk) 03:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Understandably, there is very little on this in English. I did find some comments in Trip Advisor, and many photographs that show this is a multi-level building with many shops that would meet GNG if it were in a major English-speaking country. So I presume there is equivalent coverage in Indonesian sources. MB 03:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A google books search got a lot of hits. Many of the books are in foreign languages, so I am not sure whether they count towards meeting WP:SIGCOV. It would be helpful to ping some wikipedians who are bilingual in English and Indonesian if anyone knows any.4meter4 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 06:38, 5 October 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 Move to Urban mining. North America1000 02:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digger gold

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

The term simply isn't used; no evidence on Google except for this article itself. Equinox ◑ 19:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:59, 27 September 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seedbox

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

No significant coverage. All cited sources are not independent of the subject. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:49, 27 September 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. Could be revived if sources in Arabic (or any other language) are located in the future, but for now the consensus is to delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Abbar

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

Despite playing in only two games in Ligue 2 I can't seem to find any resources stating that he played for the French team back in 2005-06. HawkAussie (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC) HawkAussie (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Football Database supports the 2apps in Ligue 2, though it's a moot point given it breaches the low appearance threshold anyway. However, I'd like an actual look into his Arabic name for potential media hits. It's admittedly unlikely given he played Ligue 2 (twice) and below for one French club, but we shouldn't delete without checking this - otherwise we'd have a bias to non-English articles. I usually would do so, but I'm unable to find a reliable name translation. R96Skinner (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - scraped by on WP:NFOOTBALL which is not enough when he fails GNG so comprehensively. Plenty of consensus about this. GiantSnowman 09:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about footballer who made two appearances in fully-pro Ligue 2 (see my note above), but for which there is no significant coverage in English- or French-language reliable sources. I haven't determined a proper Arabic translation of his name to search Arabic-language sources, but since he spent his entire playing career in France, the utter lack of coverage in French-language sources suggests strongly that an Arabic-language source search won't yield anything either. With a comprehensive GNG failure, the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL doesn't hold. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't necessarily disagree about the Arabic sources part, as I mentioned myself, but I think it would be poor of us to assume that; however likely it is. Abbar could be written about for something other than his footballing career, for all we know he could be making a career for himself in Algeria in a different field. Again, probably unlikely but surely we can't claim a subject fails something that we haven't even checked? It's an issue for Wikipedia as a whole to be honest, language barriers are rarely taken into account. R96Skinner (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am confident that سمير = Samir, and نادي كريتيل = Créteil-Lusitanos. Searching for these generates no relevant results. Without an Arabic transliteration of his surname, we can't be certain, but it's odd that nothing comes up with the more generic search. Jogurney (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_September_27&oldid=919684083"