Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 November	10 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Consensus is that the topic is notable/encyclopedic, but that there is nothing of encyclopedic value here to preserve. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Vision: Challenges in the Race for Excellence

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

Article seems to have been obviously created by a COI or Paid editor - author is obviously notable but can't find evidence of coverage of this vanity publication in independent reliable sources (emphasis on the independent). AlasdairEdits (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum: The present article text appears to be extruded from a machine-translation which has delivered chunks of incoherence: "Has been to rely in the formulation of article on cohabitation daily for development of international standards world"; "The book began with an introduction and the scarcity of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid"; "The Department of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid his book into five parts, issued provided". These would suggest WP:TNT even if the book had achieved specific notability. In the absence of evidence that it has, a redirect to the article about its author, which does list the book, may be appropriate. AllyD (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There is some good RS out there. For example, this is a review of the book: -Choruma, Allen (August–September 2019). The blame game doesn't cut it. p. 38-39. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help). However, the article would have to be entirely re-written to be encyclopedic and coherent. Unless someone wants to start completely over and produce a proper article, deletion is the best answer.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 17 November 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. not notable — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Lowe

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN & WP:N. Lowe is a municipal politician and a prospective mayoral candidate and not a notable sub-national/national official as required. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 22:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy Delete not notable Lightburst (talk) 23:41, 9 November 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 tallest buildings in Kelowna. Tone 22:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sopa Square

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

Article about a mixed-use residential/retail development in a midsized city, not properly referenced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear our notability standards for buildings. There's one reference to an article about it in the city's local daily newspaper, which is a start but not in and of itself enough; one reference in the city's local weekly newspaper which just briefly namechecks the building in the process of being fundamentally about a restaurant chain opening a new location in it, and thus is not about the building for the purposes of helping to establish its notability; and one reference ("Castanet") that is not a reliable source at all. As always, the ability to show one or two pieces of purely local coverage in the local media, verifying that the building exists but not doing anything to demonstrate why its existence would be noteworthy to the rest of the world, is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBUILD - no coverage demonstrates that it has "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance".--Pontificalibus 09:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a West Kelowna resident familiar with this development, I can say this has generated a lot of press coverage locally in the Kelowna Daily Courier, Kelowna Capital News, and local born-digital news publications like Castanet.net and INFOnews.ca. It's gone through a bankruptcy, which the Aquilini Investment Group took over, so there was coverage about that. But, I'm not quite sure what our requirement is for real estate buildings and developments. It has helped to reshape and densify/gentrify the South Pandosy neighbourhood of Kelowna, but that was already taking place—this just sort of served as a "catalyst" to accelerate that process. Is that enough? I'm not sure. Ping me with specific policy sections to re-consider my !vote. I would disagree that Castanet.net is not a reliable source; in small- and mid-sized cities, we are woefully out of touch with reality if are only considering TV, radio, and print news sources as notionally "reliable." Perhaps we need a rethink on WP:RS with respect to said cities. FWIW, Kamloops lost its daily newspaper a few years ago, and the Kelowna Daily Courier hasn't released circulation statistics since 2014. It's widely believed to have fallen to as little as 1,000-2,500 subscribers (perhaps less) in a region with 200,000+ people. It has denied rumours of a closure, even when they listed their editorial and print office property for sale and redevelopment, which seems to be on hold, presumably, due to a downturn in the local real estate market. Nonetheless, my reasonable speculation has them closing at or before 2023. Doug Mehus T·C 16:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that community hyperlocals like Castanet can be trusted sources of information within their communities — but they don't make a local-interest topic notable to the rest of the world all by themselves. For example, I might use one of Village Media's midmarket web "newspapers" to source a fact about a person who had already cleared our notability standards, if they had other, stronger sources in general while the VM source happened to be the only locatable source for that particular fact — but I would never claim that a person who had no "inherent" notability claim under any of our regular SNGs had somehow cleared GNG anyway because they had a hit or two in a Village Media publication alone. Just to clarify, because I think you might have misunderstood what I meant about Castanet — I'm not saying it's worthless to you as a resident of the area, but it's not notability-making for our purposes. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Kelowna

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 tallest buildings in Kelowna. Tone 22:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark VI

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

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

Poorly sourced articles about two buildings in the same midsized city, each making mutually contradictory claims to be the city's tallest building (and in neither case is the claim actually supported by the limited sourcing). As always, "tallest building in this one city" is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a building from having to have substantive coverage about it in reliable sources -- but in both articles, the only references present at all are directory entries in indiscriminate databases that routinely include entries for every building that meets their criteria, with no evidence of any sources that would establish the buildings as notable according to our inclusion criteria. Tall or not, getting a building into Wikipedia as an article topic requires a lot more than just technical verification that it exists. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is a much stronger delete than Sopa Square. Press coverage here is trivial, at best, and it is the sixth building in a commercial office building development going on 7 (or perhaps 8) now. Sopa Square may actually be notable, but this isn't. As to building height claims, it definitely isn't. It may be the tallest office tower, but not building. The tallest building is likely Waterscapes or One Water Street (which isn't on Water St.; it's an odd development name). Doug Mehus T·C 16:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Kelowna Djflem (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)

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

Other editors have raised notability concerns, and I agree. This is mostly just WP:GAMECRUFT. While there are many sources, looking at them individually reveals that there is almost no WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the subject notable. RSs exists. Lightburst (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As someone who hasn't played a (new) Sonic game since the Mega Drive era, I've never heard of this topic before, but the article seems to be generally superior to most of our articles on fictional elements, being written mostly from a real-world perspective and not hinging exclusively on in-universe plot summary. Is it possible that the perception that this topic is not notable stems from those who are familiar with the games drawing the subjective conclusion that they are a minor element within the games themselves and so should not merit an article over some other topic that doesn't get one? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading through the referenced articles it seems this character passes the general notability guidelines just fine. Dream Focus 00:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while a lot of the coverage cited is trivial, I think that the subject has received enough attention across the reviews cited to meet GNG, as several sources devote significant attention to describing game mechanics relating to Chao. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters with no prejudice towards recreation if someone does rewrite this. The current article is built too much on primary sources and passing mentions to be kept in this state, but I'm 100% sure that sources do exist that discuss the Chao in-depth. We just need to base it on that, not every single passing mention in a Sonic game review. JOE BRO 64 13:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here is game article from Kotaku that is much more specific to these guys if it helps anyones consideration:
https://kotaku.com/new-sonic-fan-game-is-all-about-raising-chao-1797597703 -2pou (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article has just about enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV but could certainly do with improvement with more reliable sources. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Chao are something of a series mascot and appear to pass notability, if just barely._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am reading through these same sources and see things such as interviews with the series director with multiple mentions of Chao. In addition the article has a valid reception section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters per this prior 2014 discussion. The sourcing hasn't changed significantly since then. In their amalgamation, once the primary source cruft is removed, the secondary sources that mention this topic do not warrant more than a few paragraphs of condensed coverage, which fits within the scope of the list article.

This warranted a merge discussion, not an AfD. Outright deletion was never a realistic possibility here as there was a reasonable alternative. czar 15:50, 16 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nagura Hiroo

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

After several searches, including both standard web searches ([1], [2], [3] as well as some more art-specific publications from library databases), I'm unable to find sufficient reliable sources to support this article. It was already deleted once in 2012 for that reason, and I can't find any reason to think that anything has changed. The "sources" cited within the article are Pinterest, Facebook, Instagram, and similarly nonreliable sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the subject has a Japanese Wiki. I will need to do more research. Lightburst (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks potentially notable, but also puffed up-- not only in the wiki page. We need some Japanese speakers to dissect this one. The biography section appears to be copyvio from this source, but I am not sure which came first.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Agreed, I put a delsort in the Japan and artist sections. These foregn language articles are difficult. I certainly do not want to delete a master painter. we should likely remove copyvio. Also not finding a Bio is problematic. Lightburst (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, agree that he may be notable. But it may also be a case where the artist himself has puffed up claims, so I will wait for a Japanese speaker to weigh in. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. It is on my watch list, so I can change my !vote if new information comes to light. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now WP:CREATIVE I am unable to confirm the many awards that this painter has allegedly received. Many of the awards are not known by me, so that may not qualify him for WP:ANYBIO. The artist web site has impressive accomplishments listed, and the art work is also impressive. The artist appears to be published and reviewed - and claims to have had a recent exhibition in Tokyo Japan. Much is in Japanese language. And more Japanese language (with video of exhibition). Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the Japanese Wiki page was written by two editors, writing over a period of years and barely overlapping, who only worked on that article and have never edited elsewhere. They also have empty user pages. Much of this article has the same sort of history (but with a different editor). It's important to assume good faith, but that sort of editing history gives me some cause for concern. Dekimasuよ! 13:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the research. It is true that I have been unable to confirm the many awards that the subject claims. Additionally I have found no biographies or news announcements of the subject's exhibitions. It may be a case where the subject has generated these things. I am willing to !vote delete if at least another editor comes up empty as the participants here have. Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dekimasu, thank you for looking into this!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot verify his notability through sources. This may be a language issue, or it may be that the claims have been inflated (E.g. I find it odd that an artist's bio would mention three magazine articles in it-- any notable artist has lots of magazine articles). So, delete per WP:VERIFIABLE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I just removed six non-reliable sources: two instagram, two Pinterest and two Facebook.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot confirm the awards claimed on the subject's web site, and cannot conform any exhibitions or bio. Wikipedia should not be the creator of the first biography on a person. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to draft. I can't read Japanese; but whatever that single reference says, one source is not enough to establish notability. The article could be improved by removing the long unreferenced list of "achievements", mostly non-notable awards. And the list of "Published books" – are these books that the subject wrote, or just works that mention him? Maproom (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Apollo

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMUSICIAN John from Idegon (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)/small>[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NEXIST No compliance with WP:BEFORE by the nominator. Non-trivial coverage exists and a musician is known for their musicianship. WP:NMUSICIAN is met, and additionally WP:SIGCOV.

Keep Ample coverage found by Lightburst. Pushing the Google news button I see many other potential sources out there, but enough has been found to prove the general notability guidelines are met. Dream Focus 01:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough legitimate coverage to pass. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above so there is no longer a need for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 15 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Repa SOC

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

Not a notable firearm. No shown proof of widespread civilian use, adoption by any nation's armed forces, or use by police forces. Efforts to find reliable sources leads to articles about airsoft guns. Molestash (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned in nomination, not adopted for widespread use by any organization, and no reliable sources available (at least not in English). SerTanmay (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:18, 17 November 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) 20:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flora and fauna of the Discworld

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

Collection of trivial in-universe details. The one source about a real world plant is trivial. TTN (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The whole article is a bit hard to look for sources for, as it is a very strange combination of fictional species as well as specific individual characters. It is almost entirely unsourced, except to the novels themselves, and written entirely as in-universe plot information. The one non-primary source, the scientific journal confirming that a species of real-life plant was named after a cat in the books, could possibly indicate that specific character is notable, but certainly does not extend to the rest of the entries or information in the article. Most of these entries are not even notable subjects within the series itself - they're things mentioned off-hand as jokes. The only sources I'm finding that actually talk about most of these entries at all are the actual myriad of official Discworld related books that Terry Pratchett was involved in writing. And I'm not finding any reliable secondary sources that discuss the overall concept of the flora and fauna of Discworld at all, thus the entire thing fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering the source material has a lot of humorous assides describing something once, I really do not see this as at all encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just WP:INUNIVERSE fancruft. Not encyclopedic at all._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is merely another collection of fancruft. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:03, 11 November 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) 20:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discworld gods

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

Massive collection of trivial, non-notable, fully in-universe details. TTN (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just not an acceptable encyclopedic article. We have virtually no sources, and no third party sources contextualizing this infomation as important.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, WP:INUNIVERSE, Wikia-tier article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fun stuff. But not notable. Feel free to transwiki anything that is not already at https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Gods into that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information would only interest a small number of Discworld fans. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:59, 11 November 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. Noting no discussion of reviews or secondary source coverage for awards (to show them as being "major" in the region). If you find such sources, please {{ping}} the participants. czar 16:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narmin Kamal

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

The article doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE -- all prizes are minor. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She was interviewed by The New York Times ([4]). Her award wins seem notable within her country. Saying they aren't notable seems biased/prejudiced to me.4meter4 (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @4meter4: sadly, no. These prizes are not even notable at local level. They are handed by small communities/NGOs. On Azerbaijani Wikipedia, we only consider honorific titles that make the person encyclopedic (Honored art worker of Azerbaijan and/or People's writer/poet of Azerbaijan). We have deleted her book after discussion. I'll nominate the article on azwiki as well. --Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 17:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE --SalmanZ (talk) 21:41, 10 November 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. Missed 1993, though. czar 15:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of national anthems in 1983

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

These fail WP:NOTDIR and any conceivable WP:LISTN. They are simply cross-categorizations of anthems and random years. All of this information is already in List of national anthems and List of historical national anthems, which lists the years that an anthem was in use. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (merge back anything exclusive into the two parent articles.) There’s no need for them to be split out by year, especially since they’re not typically something that would change on a yearly basis. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sergecross73: I don't see anything worth merging. Both the current and historical lists already contain the years that these anthems have been adopted in and used until. These are also unlikely search terms, hence deletion instead of redirecting seems like the best option to me. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Revised stance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should all the "List of sovereign states in YEAR" be deleted also in light of this? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

That's a WP:OSE argument and not related to this deletion discussion. Richard3120 (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, not arguing for or against deletion, just wondering. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not related enough to be bundled into this discussion. It’s a different discussion with no bearing on the national anthem articles. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, in any event some user has gone ahead and unilaterally deleted those pages, so it's moot now. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear god, what idiot thought we needed both List of sovereign states in 2014 and List of sovereign states in 2015??? Taking care of those soon. Reywas92^Talk 04:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Offers nothing beyond the two main current/historical lists. Reywas92^Talk 04:10, 10 November 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. While the consensus here is clear, there is noteworthy dissent on what role genealogies and local histories should play as key sources when establishing biographical notability. czar 16:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Dwight (died 1661)

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

This man verifiably existed, migrated, sat on the town council. It's a splendid article for a local or family history resource but has no place in an international encyclopedia. We do not need an article on every 17th century local worthy. PamD 14:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Adding to nomination: Not notable. PamD 17:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw: OK, have it your way - seems to be technically "notable". PamD 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close No reason given for deletion. No, we don't need the article, we managed until recently without one. But then we didn't need Ann Carter (rioter) either, did we? Wikipedia is improved by having both these articles. Many thanks to the creators of both articles. Thincat (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gets a lot of mentions in very limited histories, but does not pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Assuming good faith on the part of the article's creator, Dwight is covered in some detail in multiple histories of the town of Dedham (whose history seems to be well-covered) and his role as the progenitor of the notable Dwight family is discussed at length in the family's geneaology (if not an entirely independent source). Perhaps Slugger O'Toole could offer excerpts from the works cited to show significant coverage in these (mostly inaccessible) sources. For now, weak keep. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changed per contributions by FOARP and Slugger O'Toole, which clearly show non-trivial coverage of Dwight. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "a lot of mentions in very limited histories" = notable. This is a WP:BIO article, not a WP:CORP article, there is no audience requirement. Per WP:BASIC, multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources means the person concerned should be presumed notable and I see nothing here to rebut that presumption. For whatever reason, this early settler appears to have had a number of instances of significant coverage in non-self-published books, even if we ignore the references that only give passing coverage to this man, or which were written by family members (and thus aren't independent of the subject), that still leaves these references 1 2 as as those discussed in the article but which I do not have access to (but which appear to contain a lot of information about the subject). Obviously Wiki is not a genealogy site or a family tree site, but this article does not take that form. FOARP (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a start, but the number of sources already included shows that he has received coverage in a number of different sources. There is plenty more (see, for example, [5], [6], and [7]) that will, with time, be added. In the meantime, the lots of mentions currently included shows notability. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a valiant effort is needed to reference an article for a cat who passed in 1661. looks like we have notability. Lightburst (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as I suppose he's technically "notable", and is probably marginally more likely to be of interest in 10 years' time than the average sportsperson getting an article today. I'll just have to learn to live with these articles about early ~~US citizens~~ European migrants to North America who are notable for verifiably existing and arriving. I hope Americans are equally tolerant of articles on nationals of other countries who appear not to do anything particularly interesting beyond verifiably existing, migrating, marrying etc, but are well sourced as having done so. (Ann Carter (rioter), mentioned above, was executed, has a beer named after her, and has an article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) Sorry to have taken your time over this. @Onel5969: any chance of you changing your mind and then we can get this closed? No-one else has supported deletion. PamD 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC) corrected per JPL 80.234.189.226 (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Since he died in 1661 and the US was not founded until 1776, he was not a US citizen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, PamD - just because other editors don't agree with WP:SIGCOV, doesn't mean I should disregard it as well. He's not "technically notable", he's not "notable". He is a tidbit of flotsam in the history of this country. Using the above arguments means that there are literally hundreds of thousands of folks who get mentioned in local history and media, and genealogies who would qualify for inclusion. And nope, lots of trivial mentions does not equal notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well said, onel5969 I gave way to pressure from those who think that being a verifiable migrant to North America pre-some-date is notability. Any long-established town in England could probably produce verifiable worthy local persons from that era, and the journal of the local historical society will welcome their biographies, but we don't have Wikipedia articles about how they chose the names of their children. I was perhaps too defeatist. PamD 13:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not only will the journals of the local historical societies welcome them, but Wikipedia will be better off for their inclusion as well. This project should welcome such entries. —-Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SKCRIT nomination withdrawn. Any uninvolved editor can likely close this AfD. Lightburst (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because a valid ‘delete’ argument has been made. Read WP:SKCRIT#1 - “ The nominator withdraws the nomination ... and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected”. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We've kept several articles about the founders of New England and New Jersey towns. Consensus can change but it doesn't appear so yet.Bearian (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Out of curiosity, which part of WP:OUTCOMES seems relevant? I can't see anything about "Early migrants from Europe to North America whose family history can be verified". PamD 18:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, there has been a longstanding consensus to keep such articles about early colonists, if we can find sources. For examples, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hastings (colonist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Adams (Dedham), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Corbin (colonist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Sédilot, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Arthur Greener Penlington, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Jackson (Boston loyalist). There was no consensus from some, see, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Lovell. In 2007, we deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Lincoln, but it's been since re-created, Samuel Lincoln, as a stub. John Adams Sr. was once a redirect, but has since been made into a real article. Of course consensus can change - we used to routinely keep any old high school stub. While it's the sort of stub we keep, honestly, this one is a weak case. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian Thanks for such a detailed reply. I see, there's nothing actually mentioned in WP:OUTCOMES, but there are a lot of precedents. Perhaps there should be a new section in WP:OUTCOMES for these people? Of your examples, a couple of those I looked at had entries in their country's national biographical work, which sets them apart from the run-of-the-mill "arrived here early so is notable" variety. Ah well. I just hope that Americans and New Zealandersare as tolerant about articles on people in other countries whose only claim to fame is that they existed and have been documented. PamD 22:56, 14 November 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. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Ugalde

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

I tagged this article for deletion under CSD X2. The CSD tag was removed on the basis that the article is "improvable" -- which isn't the point, I'm afraid. In 2016 the community reached consensus that these articles should be deleted because the machine translations are fundamentally unreliable, and there are 3,603 of them, each of which can only be cleaned up by an editor with dual fluency in the source and target language. Because there are so many of these, it's taken me three years since that 2016 discussion even to patrol this article -- and it's a BLP. Will the community please authorise its deletion? —S Marshall T/C 14:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the CSD tag. I had looked at the article, and while it would be reasonable to delete a machine-translated article if it was garbled nonsense, that is not the case with this article. I also don't agree that deleting it is necessary because the translations can only be cleaned up by editors with "dual fluency in the source and target language". There are editors on English Wikipedia who have that fluency, and for those of us who don't, apart from machine translators like Google Translate, there are online dictionaries which allow searching of words and phrases to find nuances. Collaborative editing means that we are not reliant on individual editors to translate or improve articles. Also, if speedy deletions are being based on a decision about machine translations made 3 years ago, I think that decision should be revisited - translation tools are improving rapidly. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it may be worth having a fresh RFC about WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, so we don't do this again going forward. The translation we're talking about was performed in 2016, and there's clear community consensus that as of 2016, raw machine translations were worse than useless. The way to make this BLP keepable is for a human editor with dual fluency in English and Spanish to confirm that this text means the same as this text.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not see as the aim of improving machine translations just confirming that an English version matches another language version of an article. The sources in the article should be checked and the info confirmed and appropriately cited, and additional sources could probably be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be an excellent alternative but it's not required now. The minimum now is to verify the translation so I can take it off the list of 3,603 articles that are subject to summary deletion in accordance with the consensus I previously linked.—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs a bit of cleanup and a couple more refs wouldn’t do any harm but I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with it. Mccapra (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've done a bit of editing on the article and added one source, so far. I did not think that it was worse than useless - in fact, I don't think it can have been a raw machine translation even at the start, or there would have been more pronouns of the wrong gender, and no spelling mistakes like 'allso'. There were some infelicitous translations, but I have seen far worse on English Wikipedia. As it was, it provided useful information; now, I hope it reads more naturally. It could still be improved (and I would still like to find more sources), but these are not reasons for deletion. If the 3,603 articles had been immediately deleted in 2016 following the RFC, there would be nothing to debate, but this article (and I imagine others) has been edited in the meantime, had sources added, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak Spanish?—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can read Spanish well enough to know if this is a decent translation of the es.wiki article. Mccapra (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I withdraw the AFD nomination. Please edit the article talk page to indicate that you accept responsibility for its accuracy as of this timestamp. —S Marshall T/C 23:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's enough coverage and the article is not bomb-worthy. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 12 November 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. czar 15:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything You Wanted to Know About Business & Economics

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Citations given are for the authors other books, and I can't find reviews in sources other than Goodread (i.e. not professional reviewers but ordinary readers). ... discospinster _talk 14:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually no coverage in reliable sources beyond this undescriptive list of business bestsellers. Clearly fails both the GNG and NBOOK. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBOOK. Article appears to have been created by the book's author. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:20, 12 November 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. czar 16:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alessio Bidoli

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

Concerns of COI. There was text in this article that this person was notable as there grandfather was Dante Regazoni, supposedly one of the greatest violinists. Yet we have no article on this person... Looks like an advert to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence notability musician.124Sanroque (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - he's recorded four LPs with Sony Classical. Is there any evidence of charting, tour,s or awards? Bearian (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Four albums on Sony Classical (and this one on Warner); there are two stories in Il Giorno (and here's another); a full story in la Repubblica here and two stories in Italy's best-selling newspaper the Corriere della Sera. Undoubtedly notable. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Kite. Passes WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is mistaken in saying that his grandfather was a famous violinist. The it.wiki article says the grandfather was a violin maker - not that this really has any bearing on the subject’s notability. For a relatively junior musician he’s been very productive, and attracted coverage for suffering from quadriplegia and then recovering. I can see enough reviews and news coverage for him to pass GNG. Mccapra (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Kite. Tenpop421 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on articles found, this passes WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Canley (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myrna Casas

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

Wikipedia articles are not lists. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator, please read WP:ARTN: "Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." and also WP:ATD: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Being formatted as dot points is not a reason for deleting an article if the subject is notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict): The AfD rationale appears to be a comment on the article quality rather than a recognised concern? The article in question is clearly stub-quality, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. The article is referenced to two encyclopaedia entries, one published by Oxford University Press. A Google search quickly turns up more, for example a page discussing her works in Women Writing Women: An Anthology of Spanish-American Theater of the 1980s, and another overview in The Cambridge History of Latin American Literature. These seem sufficient for WP:AUTHOR. AllyD (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this article was nominated for deletion exactly ten minutes after it was first created. The article talk page is essentially blank, and the nominator's only edit to the author's talk page was an AfD nom.—S Marshall T/C 14:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A 10 minute article lifespan hardly seems long enough to have read the article and its provided references, far less to have conducted the necessary WP:BEFORE checks for nomination. AllyD (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the creator here; I believe the subject meets notability based on the sources already cited. I will work on adding narrative text to the article as well. Kschlot1 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject's inclusion in four separate encyclopedias - the Encyclopedia of Latin American Theater, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Theatre and Performance, Latin American Women Writers: An Encyclopedia and the Enciclopedia de Puerto Rico - more than meets the WP:GNG. Tenpop421 (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination. Interstellarity (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 2009–10 Liga IV#Timiş County. Feel free to merge from the page history. czar 16:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Liga IV Timiș

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

There is no article called Liga IV Timiș. I'm not whether the article meets the notability criteria but if that article doesn't exist, it should be deleted. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but why do you want to delete this article? It is a stub and I am looking for references to improve it. It has to start somewhere, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florin1977 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2009–10_Liga_IV#Timiş_County. Razvan Socol (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, selectively, to 2009–10_Liga_IV#Timiş_County, as there's information in the article that's much improved from the article selected for redirection, including more bluelinked teams and a general description. SportingFlyer T·C 01:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge as above. Giant Snowman 10:27, 11 November 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. After two re-lists and a WP:HEY by Dmehus, no desire to Delete, and a consensus to Keep which was unchallenged by any Deletes (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Soldiers

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

Non-notable "Club" (which seems to be a euphemism for "gang"?). No inline references, and of the remaining footnotes, most are passing mentions only. There are two sources that are not obvious passing mentions:

[8] - I'm not familiar with what "mapinc.org" is but it appears to be re-publishing an article from a different sources (possibly a copyvio issue) and is otherwise fairly routine coverage - police seized a handgun and a crossbow, and there was a bar fight.
[9] - second does go into more detail on a specific concern related to a member of the "club" having been released from prison in 2006, however, those concerns don't seem to have materialized, as there's no newer reference material available at all.

This article seems to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. ST47 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ST47 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ST47 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is well-documented, reliable and independent press coverage from CBC News, Postmedia-owned newspapers, The Globe and Mail, the Kelowna Daily Courier, and the like. I've added two sources and rewrote much of the second paragraph. Does this article need work? Yes, but AfD is not cleanup. @Bearcat: is involved in a number of noteworthy Canadian-focused articles and may have an opinion, or be able to cite additional WP policies and/or sources that established notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per your first linked source, that is the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. The article was originally published in the Kelowna Daily Courier and, presumably, reprinted with permission from that newspaper. No copyright violation here—none with respect to Wikipedia, which is what we care about. It's common for newspapers to permit non-profits and companies to re-publish their own news articles. Regarding your second linked source, that may be more useful as it provides important and substantive background information on this notable British Columbia gang, but I haven't yet integrated it into the article. I've added a number of sources, all of which establish its notability in a significant way. We're up to 7-10 sources, but more are definitely possible. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing coverage in reliable sources. We have some cleanup issues, however WP:NOTCLEANUP. WP:NTEMP is also relevant, since it was once notable it will always be notable. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, thanks...I tried to do a bunch of cleanup—check out its diff before I made my first edit when this article was nominated. It was incorrectly classified as a club instead of what it is, a street gang. It felt kind of odd that one of my few !keep votes at AfD was for a notorious street gang.

Also, do you think we can safely remove those bulleted Internet Archive references that I converted to fully formed citations? Could probably add those URLs to the applicable citations as "archiveurl," but haven't had the time to do that. Beyond that, we may want to sort the order of the paragraphs so it flows chronologically—save for the Lede. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes i saw right off this was a gang of some notoriety. I thought it odd that there would be a gang in BC. Layout is definitely something that should be improved. And the bulleted refs must be tied to the part of the article they represent, and then converted. Lightburst (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, Yeah, I didn't added those bulleted refs...I'll leave them for now in case someone wants to use those URLs to add in the IA archive URLs and dates. Doug Mehus T·C 00:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, Okay, I put the events in chronological sequence, added the archive-URL and archive-date attributes to the remaining footnotes, moved two of the currently unused bulleted refs to Talk:Independent Soldiers#Bulleted citations removed, then removed all the bare URL bulleted references. Only one URL I couldn't move to the page's Talk page due to nothing being in Internet Archive. I think the article is in a reasonably good shape now. Should I assess it as stub- or start-class, and do you think I would be OK to classify it as mid-importance to the WikiProjects? Doug Mehus T·C 01:36, 10 November 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 Ghost in the Shell characters. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 03:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saito (Ghost in the Shell)

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

I am inclined to think major GitS characters are likely to be encyclopedic. That means Major. Maybe Batou. Maaaybe Togusa. But others have been merged into List of Ghost in the Shell characters and Saito is the last one that seems to rather clearly fail WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG/WP:PLOT. I think this should be soft deleted, redirecting to that list. Not much can really be merged beyond what's there already, through a few sentences of fictional bio can be added I guess. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The one piece of reception is so trivial that it doesn't belong in the article. Non-notable. TTN (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ghost in the Shell characters. This keeps the edit history intact for future merges or improvements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Café Amazon

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

No indication this passes WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG. No sources beyond primary press releases and their reprints about WP:ROUTINE business activities. On the other hand, there is an unreferenced claim about this operating 2,700 outlets. Size is not a criteria specified in our policies, but it has been argument that has been sufficient to make some people vote keep. What about this case? Is this big enough to be encyclopedic? (And should NCOMPANY be revised to support such an argument)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some news coverage: This news piece about different brand (but same owner as Cafe Amazon) but gives the number of Cafe Amazon branches at 2700 [10]. This one puts the number at 2800 branches [11]. More news [12], [13], [14] [15] Those are national broadsheet newspapers. The company got regular coverage in business news. There are many more news for incidences involved in the cafe that every paper newspaper carried them. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lerdsuwa: Thanks for finding sources for the list of branches. I hope we can keep this as I generally think that anything with hundreds or thousands of branches should have an article here but WP:ITSUSEFUL is not sufficient. The news pieces you find are a good start, but for example the last one is WP:INTERVIEW that reads like rewritten PR piece (problem with a lot of lower quality 'news' outlets). And a look at the other sources suggests they share the same problem (being more like rewritten PR pieces, or as in the case of NASDAQ one, pure PR). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Bangkok Post piece [5] linked by Lerdsuwa above is presented in the reporter's own words, with additional research and sourcing that brings it beyond what could be considered "churnalism". Looking at some Thai sources (discounting PR reporting), Weekend Manager[16] covers the subject as part an article exploring the competition in the field. This has been explored in detail in a market research piece by Marketeer,[17] which I don't have access to, but was mentioned by one of Thairath's main columnists.[18] Former Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij has publicly questioned the legality of their operations,[19] and this was also widely reported on.[20][21] Brandbuffet.com has independent analysis of its brand image,[22] Marketingoops.com has its own analysis of franchising costs,[23] as well as coverage of its competition with Starbucks.[24] --Paul_012 (talk) 10:35, 10 November 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 wolf attacks. And protect. Any additional content can be merged from history. Sandstein 13:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Wyman wolf attack

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There are no unique circumstances that would make her death of lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG with RS. WP:NTEMP the article merits inclusion here. Wm335td (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The very few references here are not reliable or notability-making sources about the Wyman incident: one is a brief glancing mention of Wyman in the footnotes to a non-notable person's self-published personal statement about a different incident, and the other is a short blurb about Wyman in a wolf education organization's proprietary database of information on wolves — and the "external link" is just a repetition of one of the two footnoted references, not a new data point. These are not the kind of sources we're looking for to make this notable: we need sustained news coverage in real daily newspapers, indicating a reason why this would pass the ten year test for enduring significance, but this has no such thing. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect, and hard protect to List of wolf attacks per last AfD, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:SNOW. Short of a dingo attack that kills four people, such articles have been merged very consistently. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of wolf attacks and protect, per Bearian. Current sourcing doesn't meet the general notability guideline and a cursory Google Books/News search didn't find any great leads. I would suggest deletion but Wyman is already listed in the list. If that list had stricter inclusion criteria, deletion would make more sense but for now, redirection is a suitable alternative. czar 16:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect, and hard protect to List of wolf attacks per last AfD, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 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 The Guardian. Consensus to Merge post a re-list that was unchallenged; no notability so far outside of primary sources (this may change in the future). (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today in Focus

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

Podcast. Sourced only to the newspaper, The Guardian, that produces it. No third-party coverage as required by WP:GNG. Worth a mention in the main Guardian article, but probably not much more. Sandstein 21:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 21:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article now has two third-party mentions. The journalists and their guests in this series represent decades of experience in numerous European media outlets and focus on in-depth coverage of current topics of substance, as evidenced in the episodes mentioned in the article. Their guests are often authors of books on the topics discussed and/or veteran investigative journalists who have spent years reporting on the issue in question. It is my understanding, that unlike print media, news podcasts have fewer reviews. Based on the Wikipedia article on The Guardian, it is clear that the newsbrand is widely read, and considered to be high quality and trustworthy. All TiF journalists are also contributors to The Guardian. I wrote the article after listening to several of the episodes. I wanted to know more about the podcasts, the investigative journalists involved, and other topics they cover. There is no need to rush a deletion on this article.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Guardian per nom.—S Marshall T/C 14:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a mention per nom, whose rationale is sound. Once the primary sources are removed, this podcast is not independently notable. czar 16:48, 16 November 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 Channel 5 (UK) programming#Children and teenagers. czar 15:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Valley

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

Procedural nomination for an IP editor. Their rationale is:

that show doesn't look notable and the page only interests a certain audience - it's only talking about characters. Nothing but characters. No episodes, sources, and coverage. 77.125.107.43 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk _YO! 07:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Channel 5 (UK) programming#Children and teenagers so it has somewhere to go to; as it is, this seems like a show which won't get much coverage because it seems to be literal aural/visual wallpaper without a cohesive plot description (at least going by a YT upload of an episode). Nate • (chatter) 07:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee 87

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

There aren't reliable sources and this topic is not notable (fails WP:NBOOK). Interstellarity (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough reviews to meet WP:NBOOK. [25] [26] [27] Haukur (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NBOOK the book is notable and reviewed. Lightburst (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, in addition to reviews listed above (thanks to Haukurth and Lightburst :)), there are reviews by BookTrust - "Set in an unnamed country, this is a timely and important book which illuminates the realities of life as a refugee.", The Sunday Times (subscription required) - "Children’s book of the week: Boy 87 by Ele Fountain", The Guardian - "Children’s and teens roundup: the best new picture books and novels - Full of tension, fear, heartbreak and hope, it conveys both the bitterness of having family, home and identity stolen away piecemeal, and a courageous determination to survive." (a snip), i do, however, suggest that the article title be changed from Refugee 87, the US title and published 4 june 2018, to Boy 87, the English title and published 5 april 2018 as Fountain is an english author and it was first published there. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 10 November 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. David Eppstein has demonstrated the subject easily passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Ephraim Mikell

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

Fails BIO and SIGCOV. Sources indicate this person has not obtained notoriety. The subject's highest achievement was Dean of Law School at UPenn. This not president or chancellor of the University. Most of the the sources themselves are not independent of the subject. These sources are different UPenn registers for alumni, a mention in the Pennsylvania Gazette, which seems to be a UPenn publication, an annual report by the Carnegie foundation and so on. There seem to be a couple of obituaries, but these are mostly announcements. There is a small passing mention in "Who's who in America" and I don't see this as significant coverage per SIGCOV or BASIC. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although he was an academic, WP:PROF (as suggested by the focus on how high his administrative position was) isn't particularly relevant for this field and this date; it's aimed more at modern scientists. Instead we should rely on WP:GNG: are there in-depth reliable sources about him? We have some significant early-career coverage at [28] and three published obituaries on him in academic journals at [29], [30], and [31]. He also has an obituary in the New York Times: [32]. And (although our article doesn't say so) he was one of three editors of the independently-notable collection Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History. I think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom. David Eppstein has demonstrated the subject easily passes GNG. I am closing this AfD as a speedy keep. David, thanks for searching and finding these sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:05, 9 November 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 7 Up#Cancelled. Consensus that there isn't sufficient sourcing and that the relevant content is already included elsewhere Nosebagbear (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DnL

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

Outside of a few sentences, this page is already effectively merged into the 7 Up page. "dnL" just doesn't have enough notability to stand on its own. Jcmcc (Talk) 04:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that this article is over 15 years old, more opportunity for feedback seems appropriate rather than a quick move to soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to redirect to 7 Up#Cancelled, where it is listed, per WP:ATD-R. Agreed that on lacking standalone sourcing, though I saw some promising starts in Google Books. czar 16:52, 16 November 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 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and salt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Chandler

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

Non-notable screenwriter and dentist. Notable for 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and clear case of WP:SINGLEEVENT and is sufficiently covered in the sexual allegation article. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirectall material not cited here/mentioned in Evan Chandler article to 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson.Djflem (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Non-notable person. Only significant coverage (if even that) is only result of WP:SINGLEEVENT resulting from the 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson.The article was redirected twice 1, 2 in the past by two users including one admin, but was restored without giving a proper reasoning.So I'm also in favour of Salting the page.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Jordan Chandler article was redirected to the 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson; so should the Evan Chandler article, only known for being Jordan Chandler's father (WP:SINGLEEVENT). The Evan Chandler article should also be salted so it is not unduly created a fourth time. Israell (talk) 11:27, 15 November 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. Early closure per WP:Speedy keep, criteria #1 - "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected." (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redneck Rampage Rides Again

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

This game is a sequel to Redneck Rampage, which is a notable game. However, no notable coverage of this game seems to exist. Appears to be a candidate for deletion with a possible redirect and token text on the Redneck Rampage page Hog Farm (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Addition of several good refs by Jovanmilic97 and more content renders this page worthy of a stand-alone article. Hog Farm (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Redneck Rampage. This is only a brief article, and a merge should not prove difficult. The article on Redneck Rampage already has a sub-section on spin-offs of the game. Vorbee (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article a bit with a lot of reliable WP:SIGCOV references that either meet WP:VG/RS or are newspapers/magazines (reviews from Computer Games Magazine, Computer Gaming World, GameSpot, Gamezilla, PC PowerPlay, PC Accelerator and Svet Kompjutera, with coverage in newspapers like The Gazette (Cedar Rapids), The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Tampa Tribune and CMJ New Music Monthly). There are even more reviews in foreign language. Easily meets WP:GNG, which requires multiple independent significant coverage in reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously - awesome work, thanks Jovanmilic97! BOZ (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the number of dedicated RS reviews alone is enough in itself to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mosley (Producer)

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

I could not find RS. All of the links used as references appear to be broken or independent sources, failing WP:GNG. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no clear sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because producers are so common, we tend to delete such articles even if the songs they produce are otherwise notable. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Johnpacklambert, subject of article is not notable and doesn’t even scale through basic WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG criteria’s for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morla Gorrondona

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

Article lacks 1. General content. 2. References. Doesn't seem like she meets WP:ARTIST. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we cannot keep articles sourced only to the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much available, although the game could be very big, will be big more like so will case of WP:TOOSOON. Voice actor. Not much else apart from that. scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete without source, without context!Alibilbao (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - voice actress known for a single video game of unproven popularity. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian, nom's #1 and #2 reasons, and Alibilbao. Doug Mehus T·C 22:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination reasons.Abtehas98 (talk) 12:40, 14 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katya Kischuk

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

Article fails WP:SINGER, WP:GNG and WP:V previously there was an uncontroversial redirect that was made on January 3, 2019 however since October 13, 2019 one editor keeps reverting the longstanding redirect that was in place without improving the article. When maintenance tags are placed on the article an IP removes them. I'm proposing that the article be deleted entirely and salted to prevent recreation that way if someone wants to actually recreate an article on this person they have to go though WP:AFC and submit a draft. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 03:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the redirect was fine, but this person fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Might consider WP:SALT as well.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Suffcient notability not demonstrable. As I stated in my previous PP request (which sensibly was declined because it's not really reasonable to have single editor's misbehaviour force page protection), at this point I'd just as well see Kingshow2150 blocked; they have demonstrated that they have no interest in dealing with this in any constructive manner. I hope that a delete outcome here will either drive home the message, or result in putting the kibosh on them without further ado if they carry on with their disruptive actions. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to be independently notable outside the band, with no notable solo activities according to the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time to clear Wikipedia of junk articles on models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:54, 14 November 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 Star Wars planets and moons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bespin

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional location (but Star Wars...). I am actually surprised Cloud City doesn't have an entry that this could be merged too (but the odds are it wouldn't be notable as well). While this WP:PLOT element appears in SW movies and other media, it is pretty niche (keep in mind we are talking about the gas giant Cloud City orbits, not the CC itself even), so it is just a landmark seen in the sk, nobody walks on it, fights over it, etc. Of course, WP:BEFORE shows some mentions in passing (it is a landmark that characters mention, etc.) but it has no real world significance/impact, and even official SW materials are sparse on it, since after all, it is just an uninhabitable gas giant, eye candy in the background of the movies/etc. As such, fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION/WP:PLOT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Star Wars planets and moons as not notable as I said in the previous move discussion for this article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I do love Star Wars, but feel this would really belong to Star Wars wikipedia and not this one, I agree with Zx on a redirect. Govvy (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Wars planets and moons. As mentioned in the nom, the actual planet of Bespin, itself, plays little role in the movies, and thus actually does not have much in the way of reliable sources that go into much depth about it. However, its role as a background element of "The Empire Strikes Back" does make it a valid search term, and it is one of the planets that should actually be on that target list. Merging can be done if needed, but it looks like the target list already has the essential information on it there (its a source of Tibana Gas, Cloud City orbits it, etc.). Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 9 November 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. czar 16:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Biale

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

Subject is a guitar teacher at You Tube. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG where he has not achieved any major awards or any independent, reliable sources would be found about him in EN web search. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CASSIOPEIA! Thank you for your message on my talk page, I wasn't aware that the subject must receive a lot of awards. He is just a really famous YouTuber, he makes very creative YouTube videos and has over 4 million subscribers. If you think it needs to be deleted then I respect your decision or the decision of the admin who decides to delete the page. I do appreciate your time to look into this. :) Angus1986 (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even enough to pass GNG, let alone our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Viral videos that the subject posted have gotten some coverage internationally, but its mostly mirror postings among aggregators, blogs, social media, etc. No significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:44, 10 November 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. "Badly in need of clear inclusion criteria" and sourcing indeed. czar 16:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of filename extensions

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

This list is very poorly referenced. Some of the applications which manipulate these files might be notable, but the file extensions (just the partial names of the files they create or manipulate) aren't notable and practically none are blue-linked. The list is always inherently incomplete and out of date. There are strong problems for WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:RAWDATA. Mikeblas (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages with the same rationale, as they're just sections of the same content:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page and all subpages. There is no chance the list will ever get properly sourced or that the majority of filename extensions will ever have their own article. The content is mostly unverifiable and may serve as a platform for spammers or disruptive editors.—J. M. (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of Wikipedia's most helpful lists. I've personally used these lists several times. I realise that "useful" isn't an argument for keeping them on Wikipedia, but it's a splendid argument for transwiki-ing them somewhere before we hit them with the wrecking ball. Does the Wikimedia Foundation have a suitable alternative project that could contain them?—S Marshall T/C 14:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is easily justifiable as a WP:SPLIT from the parent article, and it is "helpful" or "useful" as S Marshall comments in that it compiles and organizes relevant information in a manner that is easy to browse or search. Utility is very much a relevant question for lists because it's often a question of why we should use that format. "Poorly referenced" is a poor deletion argument, however, because it just looks at the current state of content rather than its potential, regardless of whether something can be fixed. Whatever is "unverifiable" should be removed, whatever is verifiable should not because it can be sourced. "Incomplete" is also not a deletion rationale for lists, as no one would pretend there is such a thing as a "complete" list of filename extensions (as opposed to, for example, a complete list of Best Picture winners, state capitals, etc.). The extent to which these lists can or should be trimmed down, or whether they need to be maintained in more than one list as they are here or merged, are not deletion issues. See also WP:SUSCEPTIBLE, another poor deletion argument raised by the above commenter. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the WP:SUSCEPTIBLE argument: I explicitly mentioned it as a direct result of its unverifiability. The fact that the vast majority of these extensions will never be notable and properly sourced (and if you look at all these listed pages, there is really no chance these lists will ever get properly sourced) directly leads to these problems. Unverifiable, unsourced lists are constantly abused by spammers and disruptive editors on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is encyclopedic and useful. Dream Focus 15:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with this list in principle. The stand-alone list guideline does not require that every entry be blue-linked. In fact, it explicitly points out that for a group of items where none of them are notable enough to have articles, a list is a good way of covering the topic (WP:CSC). Having said that, the page(s) are badly in need of clear inclusion criteria. In my opinion, file formats that are only ever used within a single game or app are not suitable for inclusion. Only files that might be exchanged outside the app that created them, or file formats that are common to multiple apps, are useful to include. But that is not something to be resolved at AFD. SpinningSpark 01:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the condition that all of them need sources attached to them after this AFD is over. ミラ P 16:52, 14 November 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 H.323#Gateways. czar 16:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H.323 Gateway

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

Unreferenced technical definition. WP:BEFORE fails to show any in-depth discussion that's not a manual. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to H.323#Gateways, where gateways are discussed in more detail and in the larger H.323 context. This looks like a notable topic with book sources like [33] and papers like The key technologies of the H.323 gateway, so I would recommend keep in principle. In practice, there is a better discussion of gateways and gatekeepers in the H.323 article, so I think a redirect there would serve our readers better until an independent article is developed. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 06:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Mark viking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104gli (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:58, 11 November 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. No prejudice against future redirection. czar 16:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Entertainment

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

Non-notable record label permastub. Only released a small handful of albums, all in association with other labels. Article is also out of date, as company was renamed Road Angel Entertainment several years ago. Searching either name yields no major results, just passing mentions and fleeting interviews with label people on non-reputable websites. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect. Fails WP:SIGCOV. To my mind it's clear this needs to be redirected, but the question is to where? There are two possible places that this could be redirected to: one would be Fontana North which distributed their records, and the other would be Universal Music Group (although really they were a subsidiary of Universal Music Canada which is also a redirect).4meter4 (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus to Keep; not clear where to Redirect, or just Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:40, 9 November 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. There is disagreement if the provided sources present significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. To avoid a future AfD, I recommend editors to strengthen the article with the found sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Magnus

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots where there are multiple mentions of this character. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep question mark? Heh... Kind of borderline, but there is coverage of him out there. The article may not appropriately reflect that, but the coverage just needs to WP:NEXIST per the Notability test. It's also a bit tricky when it comes to these transformers since there is so much cross-media possibility and so many variations... Does that make it easier or harder to establish notability? Anyway, that's a separate discussion. Here are some examples of coverage:

Review from a major Philippine newspaper/outlet that also goes into his history
BleedingCool review of a toy
His movie death has been covered by a few places regarding what it was and what it might have been by io9/Gizmodo and by Den of Geek among other places.
Den of Geek also covered how his toy and character actually came about in the first place.
He's also in a CBR list of most powerful autobots. (Yes... a Top X list... that's why it's last here.) --2pou (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking through the links 2pou found, I agree, WP:GNG has been met. Dream Focus 11:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect I do not agree GNG has been met. The references are very short and do not satisfy the "significant coverage" criteria in WP:GNG. Some of them aren't necessarily about the character so much as the movie they appear in. Simply not independently notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple reliable sources coverage as detailed above so deletion is not needed in this case, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tagged the article for excessive use of non free images, these cant be decorative. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed two of the images. JIP | Talk 10:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — IMO no significant sources coverage is given, even though there are some citations present. As per 2pou (those sources aren't used in fact) I believe that it must be kept but shortened and rewritten from a non-fictional perspective. We also may spare it by moving to Transformers article or related one. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 11:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reliable sources. Passes WP:N Wm335td (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reviewed sources 2pou provides, but reviews of a toy can make the toy notable but not the fictional character. And mentions in passing like few sentences about his death scene cut from a movie are still pretty much trivial coverage that fails in-depth requirement. All of this stuff is better severed to readers at https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Ultra_Magnus_(G1) not here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about the toy as well as the fictional character, and should we be promoting sites with advertising directed at children? Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:35, 9 November 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. czar 16:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Bharadwaj

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

An actor who fails notability guidelines for actors. The subject is credited with 5 appearances: one of which is non-notable we series. I couldn't establish if the subject had significant role in it. Other credit is for a video of song Ehsaas Song, which is currently at AfD as well. Third credit is for a 2019 film, Sridevi Bungalow. In this film, the subject doesnt have a significant/lead role unlike as stated in the film's article. The subject had lead role only in two films (from 2016). Thus failing notability criteria for actors.

The only (and little) coverage for the subject in reliable sources was about the 2016 films. That coverage was not in-depth either. After that, no coverage can be found. In short subject lacks significant coverage. Hence failing general notability criteria as well.

On a side note, the article was created by sockpuppet who's master was blocked a while ago, but it is borderline for speedy. The SPI can be found here. The history is muddled with contributions by socks. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: May not technically be a WP:G5 (article created in April 2016, sock blocked in August 2016); re-list to see if any other engagement can be generated
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Britishfinance: erm... The master was blocked in Nov 2015 :) —usernamekiran(talk) 05:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran, then we are at WP:G5; do you want to tag it or will I? thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked it and posted the G5 on this - good spot! Britishfinance (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The G5 was delined due to other editors working on this article, however, most of which seem to be other blocked socks of this master (quite a list of socks they had). I guess we will just complete the AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: sorry for the delayed reply. I was offline. And that was the exact reason why I said it was borderline G5 candidate :) Anyways, with notability issue, going through an AfD is better in regards of future re-creations. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran, having looked at it, I am not sure it is so borderine (outside of the sock, the other edits of "material" content are also blocked socks; almost all other edits are mechanical). Good spot however, and surprised that it existed for so long! Britishfinance (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: yeah. I am surprised about that too. Especially given the fact that it was deleted just 1-2 days ago under G5. At that time, creation log was not live, but you can see in the log that Bbb23 deleted it under G5, and 4 days later, it was marked as patrolled/reviewed. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Actor who has only one notable role/film, with limited coverage. No other sources exist. While article can be slightly improved, not sure if it's warranted. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 18:16, 11 November 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. Good points were made on both sides of the keep-delete spectrum: sources exist for turning this into a proper article; the existence of this list depends on the (not yet finalized) categories and parent articles; and that WP:TNT is the best option for this topic. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of comic science fiction

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

Unsourced. Should the delete discussion end with "keep", this may be merged with comic science fiction. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't delete things simply because they are unsourced, especially lists of obvious blue links, like this. Per WP:BEFORE, the onus is on the nominator to search for sources if that's the issue, "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability The minimum search expected is...". There are certainly sources to be found such as Rob Grant's top 10 comic science fiction novels. Andrew D. (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Andrew Davidson - Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists seems to be met as it's a major literary genre and the list topic could, in principle, satisfy Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria as there is enough to demarcate between what is and isn't relevant, thus satisfying the Wikipedia is not a directory hurdle. I agree that the sourcing could be improved, especially for the selection criteria, but I wouldn't say it's worthy of dynamite. SITH (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid list. Some items might require a reference. No one would doubt that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a comedy. I look at the editorial reviews for at at amazon.com and I see them specifically mention how funny it is. Its article begins with its opening sentence stating it is "a comedy science fiction". If the main article linked to doesn't describe something as a comedy, then a reference should be found to keep that item on the list. And if the main article does list that information but you sincerely doubt it to be accurate, post a link saying a reference is needed there. Dream Focus 13:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a useful list. As a stand alone list it makes sense. Lack of sources is never a deletion rationale per WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP. If I feel ambitious I add refs. Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT as too broad. I'm guessing that maybe 10% of all science fiction is comical, and this list encompasses all media. That's way too much. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. There is no distinct criteria for inclusion whatsoever and membership of the list appears highly subjective. For example, would Big Hero 6 really be considered "comic" or just lighthearted kids entertainment that includes goofy moments? Might be encyclopedic if totally rewritten or refactored, but I doubt that any of the keep voters here plan to so much as touch it with regards to fixing its systemic issues._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE can be remedied by adding stringent criteria, for example requiring entries to be sourced to, say, a reliable source saying in toto that it's "comic science fiction". ミラ P 14:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In its current form, the list seems completely subjective. As it's not a mainstream genre, I'd say the only way such a list is going to be viable is if there's a requirement for there to be a source that lists each series as such. TTN (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a problem with a list like this being unsourced. If all the entries are blue links and all the articles identify them in that category then that's fine. I don't see any shortage of sources discussing science fiction humour, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy covers it from page 401 to 404. Nor is "not a proper genre" any kind of argument for deletion; Science Fiction Film: A Critical Introduction discusses this issue pages 110 to 111 and draws a distinction (with examples) of the difference between a commedy science fiction film and science fiction with some humour elements (which addresses one other objection raised). The argument that the subject is too broad doesn't wash with me either. The list is currently reasonably short (we have much longer lists than this one) and we still have the option to break it into separate pages by media. SpinningSpark 00:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the condition that each entry must have a reliable source saying in toto that it's "comic science fiction". ミラ P 01:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But the inclusion criteria doesn't match the description for comic science fiction. Sourcing doesn't need to be here as long as it is in the article. I don't think Quantum Leap belongs on the list. StrayBolt (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not a tight enough definition to clearly say what does and does not belong here. Then there is the lack of sourcing showing this is a recognized group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At least leaning that way right now. Here are the problems:

The largest section duplicates List of comic science fiction films
the list is original research. Unsourced, and none of the articles I've checked so far have sources calling the work "comic science fiction"
A search for '"comic science fiction" list' returns zero reliable sources, and lots based on Wikipedia (never a good sign)
It seems like this is one of many ways to write some combination of "science fiction and comedy"? even opening the search terms, basically all of the halfway decent sources I'm seeing are about films (which, again, already have a separate article).
We can take any two genres and create a list of movies at their intersection. That doesn't mean that sufficient reliable sources have written about that intersection across media to meet our standards for lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Did you look at the article by David Langford I linked above in the Greenwood Encyclopedia? If not, would you please take a look (use "humorous science fiction" as a search term to find it. It begins on page 401). Langford gives a wide ranging discussion explicitly naming numerous works. Also, his bibliography indicates that there are quite a few other reliable sources available. SpinningSpark 12:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is on "humor", not a particular genre, and he even says "humor is not a distinct genre like science fiction or fantasy and mixes easily with many fictional modes." It would be a fine source to use if we have an article on humor and science fiction, but it would be original research to say that this source supports examples of a particular scifi genre. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that it is a genre, that is not a requirement for an article in any case. It certainly didn't stop Langford writing one. I only claim that we have enough reliable sources to justify a Wikipedia article on the subject. And of course he doesn't need to title it "Humor in science fiction". He is writing in a science fiction encyclopedia so that is taken for granted. SpinningSpark 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the subject this is based on calls it a subgenre. It's straightforwardly OR to say that an entry about humor in a scifi encyclopedia is about that genre. If it's really intended to be a "list of any media of any genre that sources say have some elements of comedy and science fiction"... that's a straightforward fail per WP:NOT and WP:SALAT. By the same logic, presumably any entry in that encyclopedic of scifi which lists examples could sustain a "list of any media that feature elements of [whatever] and science fiction"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If a respectable encyclopaedia of SF contains an article about some aspect such as humour then this is obviously prima facie evidence that this topic is both notable and encyclopaedic. Such a topic is therefore valid here too. Andrew D. (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... It's absurd to think that [specialist encyclopedia subject] + [heading in that specialist encyclopedia] = [appropriate list topic for Wikipedia]. Either this is a list about a genre, in which case this entry is not about that genre and contributes nothing, or we're just cobbling together two elements like "humor" and "science fiction" and then populating said list with absolutely anything that has "humor" and science fiction"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article index per WP:LISTPURP, complementary to Category:Comic science fiction per WP:CLN. It should be obvious that if it is appropriate to include in the category (a structure which has existed since 2007), then it is appropriate for the list. "Overbreadth" could be dealt with by splitting into sublists by medium, time period, country of origin, etc. Note also there is a parent article at comic science fiction, which has not yet had any talk page discussion on the issue of inclusion, genre definition or recognition, etc. postdlf (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So presumably if that category were deleted, you would support deleting this? After all, none (or none that I've seen) of the articles in that category have sources saying it's in the "comic science fiction" genre, as is required for genres. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think in any event the fact we have a parallel category and a parent article means that all of this content should be discussed together, and not just raised for the first time in the AFD of a sublist. Particularly since you're really the only one so far who has clearly presented an argument that there are unfixable problems here, rather than just complaining about things that could potentially be fixed. postdlf (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now the parent article has rightly been renamed science fiction comedy. This list may be renamed to maintain consistency, whether it gets deleted or not. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to List of science fiction comedy works or something like that – There are sources that describe these works as "science fiction comedy". I added a few to the article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too broad, better handled as category. Artw (talk) 22:39, 10 November 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. Without prejudice to potentially merging some article content to the article for the author of the book that coins the term. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Border imperialism

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

I worry that this article is written more as an essay (WP:NOTESSAY) and based mostly in primary sources. 18 of the 27 references, two out of three sources, are authored by Harsha Walia, the creator of the concept the article talks about, including 16 that directly reference Undoing Border Imperialism, the book that coined this term. Four other sources consist in the publication Decolonizing Feminism: Challenging Connections between Settler Colonialism and Heteropatriarchy, which are the base of the Settler colonialism section. This means that apparently only 5 of the 27 references are not primary sources. Jamez42 (talk) 11:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator this isn’t an encyclopaedic article. It’s not really even an essay as it has disjointed sections that do not add up to a coherent argument. It’s a sort of book review with other related stuff thrown in. Walia’s book looks to me to be notable in itself, so possibly the entire article could be repurposed on that basis, but otherwise I can’t see a basis for keeping it. Mccapra (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Totally agree. The article doesn't meet general WP:GNG. The sources are generally primary. One source is behind a paywall. ^[1] I read an article almost completely and I think it's someone's invention of a new way to describe (In highly biased, leftist way) typical immigration policy of any country in the world which is focused on its restriction. I also noted that there are some mentions in the news^[2] but they don't seem reliable to use it as sources. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 12:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom mentions a number of page-quality issues (over-reliance on primary sources, over-reliance on sources that are not independent, written in essay-style). I think they are correct that these are issues with the quality of the page that should be addressed. However, these are not issues for AFD which is concerned with whether the article should be deleted or not, AFD is not clean-up. The only issue raised here that cannot be addressed through simple editing is whether there is sufficient, independent, reliable sourcing available (not necessarily cited in the article at present) to sustain the notability of the article. I find that there is based on the following sources discussing the Walia's theory of "Border imperialism": 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. I do wonder if the book might be a better target for this article than the theory per se, but it appears notable either way. FOARP (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: There is thing called common sense. A new term to describe a policy of cross-border movements restrictions in case of war/crisis doesn't make the term notable by default (WP:NAD, WP:MADEUP). At least 3 sources you have provided do not analyse, evaluate or interpret the subject (term) itself: the two from "the nation"^[3]^[4], and a Cambridge one.^[5]. It's rather embeded into a more wider research on non-directly related to the term matters of immigration. The term is mentioned in these cases but not in a way to make it notable. Another source you have delivered is a simple advertisement of the book.^[6] In other words neither of 4 sources scrutinize the subject by itself as it required per WP:GNG. There is also an alternative to a deletion: to move the part of the article into Harsha Walia one as a part of her works.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Davronov (talk • contribs)

I think you are possibly mistaking me saying this concept appears notable with me agreeing with it in some way. Just so we're clear on this: I do not think this concept is particularly useful. The sources demonstrate the notability of this concept by citing it and describing it - they do not need to do more than this to demonstrate notability. Objections to the article based on the present state of it, unless they are invoking WP:TNT (which I do not think justified as it is eminently savable), do not invoke a WP:DELREASON. FOARP (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I don't think about whether you agree or not with what this article is saying. I'm pointing out to the sources which can't make up a separate article. There is simply not enough of them that could make it to pass WP:GNG. I also checked out the first source you have mentioned: it doesn't analyze the subject closely either, making 5 out of 10 sources unreliable for notability. If you would have a good research on the statements in the article proving the subject's theory and reviewing these works I would agree to keep it in place and clean up but not otherwise. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 21:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sure AfD is not cleanup, but that does not apply here as there is nothing left after a cleanup. Most of the article is just a summary of the book, including making contentious statements in Wikivoice. There is also a tangent on settler colonialism which is based mostly on a single paper. It also cites three times an opinion piece by Walia in TeleSUR, listed at WP:RSP as deprecated for being "a Bolivarian propaganda outlet". This topic is not notable aside from the author (who already has an article), as largely borne out by the 10 links above. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the arguments of FOARP persuasive. I do not find the nominator's argument persuasive. AfD is not clean up and if the article is a ref bomb of primary sources, we can fix that. Sources do exist and therefore this article merits inclusion. Wm335td (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete this article does not really move beyond the expression of one person's world views with position pushing terminology. We already have an article on her, we do not need an article pushing her worldviews masquerading as a neutral content article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge) to author -- The article is essentially a book review of what is probably a controversial work. The title is WP:NEO. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Harsha Walia#Undoing_Border_Imperialism, per Peterkingiron. When the primary sources are removed, all that's left of the neologism can be covered adequately in the parent article and split out, as needed, summary style. Best compromise to retain the "keep" sources above while respecting the more convincing "delete" rationales. czar 16:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the other votes to delete. I do not think the article passes WP:GNG. I also think the article reads too much like an essay. -- Telescopegenius (talk) 20:10, 16 November 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. (Film, not business.) czar 16:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Subaru

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

This film lacks significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability, nor is there any evidence that other criteria for inclusion is met from WP:NFILM. Of the six sources present in the article, five are simply directory entries which do not contribute to establishing notability. The sole source which is a review is froma site which looks to be some sort of streaming site and it is not at all clear it could be considered a reliable source. Whpq (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Whpq (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if any editors can be engaged/have an interest in this AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:24, 9 November 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. After two re-lists, there is no consensus to Delete (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Demirci

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

Non notable journalist. One of the many thousands of journalist who have been detained in Turkey on similar charges, and no really special features or significance to this particular instance of their repressive policies. My PROD was declined, with a suggestion of renaming. Idon't see how that would help. "Detention of Adil Demrici "is no more notable than the individual, and "release of Adil Demrici" is not notable because only one of the sources is about it. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's gotten media attention in a leading German periodical. Bearian (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the case of Demirci caused an ongoing discussion about German-Turkish relations and freedom of media in Turkey. In German poltics the case get debated. --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lean to Keep, however, refs need to be provided at AfD that show GNG; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moose (drinking game)

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced for six years. Didn't find much beyond rules on "how to play drinking games" pages, some of which are probably copied form this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the backstory of this article as it's a little confusing: From what I can piece together, there was a previous version of this created in 2005 that was deleted as nonsense. It was recreated as an article about the game in 2006. That version was the subject of the previous AFD in 2007. In 2011 that page was moved to Moose (game), and in 2013 that page was redirected to the one currently under discussion. This is obviously not optimal as it obscures the history, but the redirected article also had no valid references attached. If consensus is to delete the redirected page should go with it in my opinion. If consensus is to keep it, I think a history merge may be in order, and a tag for the previous AFD should be applied to the talk page (due to the above described series of events I was completely unaware of the previous AFD when nominating) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No sources and no engagement; candidate for draftification? try one more re-list to see if there is any engagement
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not give enough sources or info and doesn't benefit reader. Dellwood546 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable drinking game. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 9 November 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 on the strength of the source analysis. As for the claim that "multiple is two", simply counting refs is the lowest possible bar for the GNG—discuss the merits of their contents. czar 17:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Maston

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

Non-notable basketball player. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. PROD removed by article creator. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see non-trivial coverage in the Waco Tribune and the Atlanta Constitution. Multiple sources denotes WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, "multiple" is not what GNG says. "Significant" is what it says. This looks significant to you? It doesn't to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with multiple coverage in RS. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One article in two sources is now considered "significant" coverage? :/ – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of multiple, independent, reliable sources of significant coverage. In case anyone considers OurDailyBears.com, I generally don't consider SB Nation reliable. Also consider guideline WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. There's not enough coverage to take it beyond it's current stub state. Even the current state is exaggerated with unneeded sections at this point. Per MOS:BODY: Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. (And let's not resort to WP:NOTDIARY and excessive stat line fillers.)—Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, articles in two different sources is enough to pass WP:GNG despite some others' assertions above. Read the guideline, people. Smartyllama (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama, I've read 'em. It doesn't say "two" anywhere. It says "significant coverage" and that AJC.com piece is insignificant. There is one piece of significant coverage presented here, which is not "multiple sources". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider the AJC source significant. You should also read WP:BADGERING given your behavior in this AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama, I can rebut your point without badgering. The AJC source is a minor mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a lean to Keep, they need to cite the specific refs they are relying on at AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's an extreme interpretation of "multiple sources" to mean just 2 sources.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple sources" has always meant two or more. That's what multiple means and how it's always been interpreted. Not even sure why this was relisted - myself and others have cited the AJC piece and the Waco Tribune piece specifically. Smartyllama (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not just a count of the number of votes, it's an assessment of the arguments. And really, it's 1+1⁄2 sources. The Waco Tribune piece is legit, but the AJC piece is more of a routine mention piece. Keeping this article would be a watering down of WP:SIGCOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not commented on this despite my initial prod, but it is mostly because I am not sure how much weight to give a sixth-man conference award in terms of significance. It seems minimal to me, especially because the AJC article appears to be the only coverage and it is a re-print of something called "Diehards". (At the bottom: The post Baylor F Terry Maston wins Big 12 Sixth Man of the Year, two others honored appeared first on Diehards.) Possibly a contributor-written non-RS source, but I can find no details on what "Diehards" is or was. It simply redirects to the college sports section of AJC these days. Yosemiter (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yosemiter, all I can see is that www.diehards.com redirects to the AJC college sports page. Conference sixth man awards are not significant enough for WP:NCOLLATH, not that anyone is proposing that anyway. It all comes down to assessment of the depth of the AJC piece, and, if it counts as "significant", whether or not "two" sources (the AJC piece and Waco Trib) are enough for GNG. The AJC piece has six short paragraphs, the first three are about Maston and the last three don't mention him. These are the three paragraphs (without the paragraph breaks) in the AJC article about Maston:

Baylor basketball forward Terry Maston earned Big 12 Sixth Man of the Year for his performance throughout the 2017-18 season. Point guard Manu Lecomte and center Jo Lual-Acuil were also honored. Maston earned sixth man honors after leading a massive turnaround in conference play. The Bears went on a five-game winning streak to move back into NCAA tournament contention. Maston averaged more than 16 points per game over the streak.Overall, he reached 20 points five times in Big 12 play. The Bears went 4-1 in those games. For the season, Maston averaged 10.8 points and 5.6 rebounds per game in just 22 minutes. He’s the fourth Baylor player to win the award along with LaceDarius Dunn (2009), Quincy Acy (2011) and Taurean Prince (2015).

I see this as insignificant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, I did some digging into DieHards. It was a series of college sports media websites owned by the Cox Media Group. It was launched in late 2017 and shuttered in early 2018 with all former websites republished/archived under the AJC website. So it was not contributor-based like SBNation, but it is also a site you would absolutely expect to see a list of award winners covered, in this case by Baylor and Big 12 beat writer Shehan Jeyarajah. The reason I was hesitant was if this had actually been published in the AJC itself, I probably would not have called it routine. But, as it was a Baylor reporter reporting on Baylor and the Big12 on a Big12/Baylor specific website (originally published on diehards.com/big-12 or diehards.com/baylor, the actual link appears to be missing in Wayback), then it would be WP:ROUTINE, especially considering the brevity of the subject's coverage as described above. This may not change the opinion of the keep voters (@Lightburst, Editorofthewiki, Wm335td, and Smartyllama:), but they should at least be informed that it was not published in the AJC. Because of these reasons, I lean towards delete with only very minor local coverage (1 non-routine article in the Waco paper about a player in Waco, and only after he won an award, and a few sentences about conference awards in a conference-specific sports website). Yosemiter (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yosemiter, thank you for this! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst, Editorofthewiki, Wm335td, and Smartyllama: I don't really want to badger anyone, but do any of you keep voters wish to re-evaluate the GNG evaluations based on the fact that the Baylor-based press release that was archived at the AJC website was not published by the Atlanta Journal Constitution? If your opinion has not changed, that is fine, it just seems that it was assumed that your GNG evaluations were based on it being published by AJC itself and not a school-specific news site. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NSPORTS, coverage of college career is minor and local and does not establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 06:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/experts-predict-50-million-environmental-refugees-by-2020/news-story/fa8c9dc5a56532bba8309602323e4e8a

[2] ttps://www.ubyssey.ca/culture/UBC-Students-celebrate-pakistani-heroes/

[3] ttps://www.thenation.com/article/open-borders-immigration-asylum-refugees/

[4] ttps://www.thenation.com/article/border-wall-mexico-todd-miller/

[5] ttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/278654/Ranjan%20Dissertation%202018_06_10.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

[6] ttps://www.straight.com/life/553901/harsha-walia-probes-how-boundaries-oppress-us-undoing-border-imperialism

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]