Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Log 2019 December 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 December	8 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 17:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Andalusia, Arizona

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

Non-notable development which fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst ( talk) 02:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - seems to be a bit of retaliatory nom (along with 4 other articles) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr., which now seems to be headed for the deletion. And since this editor has never shown a propensity for Arizona geography articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND, since, according to GNIS it is has a "an official federally recognized name." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment My !voting record and AfD participation is available for anyone to see. I participate on multiple AfDs across every subject. I am sure Onel5969 has acted in good faith in creating these many non-notable Geoland articles. Unfortunately the fifty or so articles must all be nominated since they do not come close to satisfying SNG or GNG. Since the many articles created are not Legally recognized per the SNG of WP:GEOLAND - they must then pass WP:GNG as Populated places without legal recognition. They clearly do not pass Lightburst ( talk) 03:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment, as per GNIS, this location is a place "having an official federally recognized name" as per the official US database. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Which is different than legally recognised, i.e. in Arizona's case, incorporated (though a large number of unincorporated probably qualify for #1, and would easily pass WP:GNG anyways). SportingFlyer T· C 10:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep, populated place, exists. Hyperbolick ( talk) 06:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete The GNIS has myriad housing subdivisions listed in Phoenix before 1984, when it apparently stopped being updated, and this is one of them: [1] Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn Ridge, Arizona, these subdivisions do not pass WP:GEOLAND #1 (there must be thousands in the Phoenix metro area), has a Scottsdale address, and there is no indication this place passes WP:GNG either as a neighborhood. I've extensively searched for this one as well. SportingFlyer T· C 06:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete GEOLAND quite clearly states that "subdivisions...housing developments...unofficial neighborhoods" must meet GNG, and there is zero evidence that this does so. Existence is not notability. Reywas92^Talk 09:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete like the others, the GNIS entry is sourced only to "Living: the Phoenix Housing Guide V. 6 #1. Dallas, Texas: Baker Publish Inc., 1983/1984." This is just another NN subdivision specifically excluded under GEOLAND#2 as presumed notable. Must therefore meet GNG. MB 16:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment - just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):

The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.

Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.

The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.

The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete This is a non-notable sub division. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 17:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Amberwood North, Arizona

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

Non-Notable neighborhood which does not pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND Lightburst ( talk) 02:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - seems to be a bit of retaliatory nom (along with 4 other articles) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr., which now seems to be headed for the deletion. And since this editor has never shown a propensity for Arizona geography articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND, since, according to GNIS it is has a "an official federally recognized name." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment My !voting record and AfD participation is available for anyone to see. I participate on multiple AfDs across every subject. I am sure Onel5969 has acted in good faith in creating these many non-notable Geoland articles. Unfortunately the fifty or so articles must all be nominated since they do not come close to satisfying SNG or GNG. Since the many articles created are not Legally recognized per the SNG of WP:GEOLAND - they must then pass WP:GNG as Populated places without legal recognition. They clearly do not pass. Lightburst ( talk) 03:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete This is just one of thousands of small sub-divisions in the Phoenix metro area. This showed up in GNIS merely because it was listed in "Living: the "Phoenix Housing Guide V. 6 #1. Dallas, Texas: Baker Publish Inc., 1983/1984." and seems to have been a mistake or premature listing as according to the Maricopa GIS, that area is part of the Western Meadows subdivision and the only Amberwoods of any kind are far away in Chandler. It is not a populated place per GEOLAND#1 and fall far short of GNG required for GEOLAND#2. No place to redirect this one. MB 03:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Weak delete This is a bit of a weird one. Amberwood North itself is a mere pre-1984 housing subdivision, which fails WP:GEOLAND #1 as it's part of a larger community. See [2] for an advertisement and proof it's not a standalone populated place. However, in 2006, a group of residents in Chandler, Arizona, probably 30 miles away as the crow flies, got together and named their neighborhood Amberwood North. (What's weird though is most of the coverage of the neighborhood comes from 2006.) So, this particular subdivision is not notable and needs to be deleted, but Amberwood North, Arizona may actually be a marginally valid article per WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 06:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete GEOLAND quite clearly states that "subdivisions...housing developments...unofficial neighborhoods" must meet GNG, and there is zero evidence that this does so. I doubt the other Amberwood North is notable just because they created a new unofficial neighborhood, but I don't have access to newspapers.com. Reywas92^Talk 09:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

There's a decent amount of coverage, including how the neighborhood association put the name on all of the street signs. I think someone could clean it up and get it past WP:GNG without a whole lot of work. But that digresses from the subdivision the topic currently discusses. SportingFlyer T· C 10:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment - just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):

The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.

Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.

The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.

The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete the place in Phoenix is a non-notable subdivision. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Notability is not established in the article, concerned it cannot be established. ~ riley ( talk) 23:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Redirect to Linden, Arizona. Consensus is reasonably clear; it is not clear that the subject is in fact a populated place, or that it is in any legal sense independent of the proposed target article. BD2412 T 14:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Roundy Crossing, Arizona

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

Non-notable area which fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Lightburst ( talk) 02:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - seems to be a bit of retaliatory nom (along with 4 other articles) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr., which now seems to be headed for the deletion. And since this editor has never shown a propensity for Arizona geography articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND, since, according to GNIS it is has a "an official federally recognized name." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment My !voting record and AfD participation is available for anyone to see. I participate on multiple AfDs across every subject. I am sure Onel5969 has acted in good faith in creating these many non-notable Geoland articles. Unfortunately the fifty or so articles must all be nominated since they do not come close to satisfying SNG or GNG. Since the many articles created are not Legally recognized per the SNG of WP:GEOLAND - they must then pass WP:GNG as Populated places without legal recognition. They clearly do not pass. Lightburst ( talk) 03:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Linden, Arizona which now has a few sentences covering this Mogollon culture archaeological site. It is in GNIS because it happened to be listed on a topographical map but I can't find sufficient coverage to meet GNG for a stand-alone article. MB 04:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect per MB. GNIS has incorrectly classified many crossings as populated places and that is still not basis for an article. Reywas92^Talk 10:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment - just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):

The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.

Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.

The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.

The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Linden, Arizona per MB seems the most appropriate action. ~ riley ( talk) 23:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies. RL0919 ( talk) 00:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Goblin (Marvel Comics)

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

Collection of several unrelated topics with the same name. Notability for the whole of any of them is not established. TTN ( talk) 21:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 21:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 21:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Oppose: Not even remotely unrelated. The "Goblin" family is a notable lineage of supervillains in the Marvel Universe that are connected to one another. There have even recent storylines (such as "Goblin Nation") where the premise is Norman Osborn or some iteration of the Hobgoblin leading an army of all the different goblins. Virtually all of them are also tied to the Osborn bloodline or the Goblin formula in some way. Given that many of these characters are also notable enough to have articles of their own, there is no basis for a deletion. The deletion rationale is presumptuous and misinformed. Dark Knight 2149 22:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

There's the Goblin-themed characters, related characters through the "Goblin Formula", and sets of actual goblins. Three different headers of unrelated characters. None of them establish notability. Even if you reduce this to the Goblin-themed characters, they do not currently establish notability as a group. TTN ( talk) 22:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Again, wrong. I just scrolled through the entire list, and literally every single character on there is connected to Norman Osborn or the Goblin formula. And the subject matter is definitely notable enough to maintain the hub page. Many of the characters even have articles of their own. Your rationale is objectively false. Dark Knight 2149 22:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

If you want to be pedantic, yes the "Goblin Formula" itself is related to the Goblin-themed, but the characters are not directly related to the themed characters. You're also ignoring "Goblins (species)." But at the end of the day, this is a pointless discussion because this article still fails WP:GNG. You're trying to frame this as some ignorant assault on comics, but GNG is all that matters. TTN ( talk) 22:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Except, again, what you are claiming is incorrect. All of the characters are connected to one another and tie back to Norman Osborn in some way. The fact that you claim otherwise just demonstrates your lack of awareness for the page you want deleted. This is a hubpage for the lineage of supervillains known as the Goblins. That being said, I'm not sure who added Goblin (species), but that section should be removed for being off-topic with the rest of the article. However, that section alone doesn't justify going nuclear and deleting the whole page. I'm not being "pedantic", you are just wrong. Dark Knight 2149 22:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

There are either sources or no sources. That's the only remaining relevant topic of discussion. If there are real world sources discussing the group as a whole, it should be retained. If there are no sources discussing the group, it should be removed. TTN ( talk) 22:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Except this topic (and the characters in it) has received third party coverage, the article is primarily a hubpage and many of the characters in it have pages of their own, and the Goblin lineage is very prominent in Marvel Comics and the subject is notable to the topic of WP:COMICS. There is definitely a basis for deleting the Goblin (species) section, but no basis for deleting the entire article. At this point, I would advise you to open a larger discussion expressing your concerns against the WikiProject before making anymore nominations. This discussion alone is making me genuinely concerned about the validity of the mass deletion nominations. Dark Knight 2149 22:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Notability is not inherited, from the group to the character or the character to the group. For this article to remain standing, the group itself needs to establish notability. If there are sources, provide enough to show without a shadow of a doubt it's notable. This is why I'm saying you're being pedantic. You're harping on the most minor detail of this and acting like it at all matters in the discussion. There are not enough people related to the project who seem to care about the obvious issue with these hundreds upon hundreds of articles that fail GNG, so I don't think they can help unless they want to enact an actual mass cleanup project to determine notable vs non-notable topics. There are hundreds of notable characters and topics, but there are also many hundreds more that aren't notable. TTN ( talk) 23:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ TTN: First of all, you have been on this site long enough to know what hub pages and disambiguation pages are. Don't play dumb. And no one is being pedantic when you yourself cited "a collection of unrelated topics" as a primary reason for why this article should be deleted (which you have yet to ~~strike~~, despite having been thoroughly proven wrong). The only valid argument you have presented is a section. It's pretty obvious that all you are doing is skimming through articles that you have no familiarity with and boldly marking them for deletion. At this point, multiple users have expressed their exasperation with these haphazard deletion discussions. If you have a problem with the WikiProject, then the onus is on you to open a larger discussion and express your concerns. In fact, there actually have been discussions where groups of users have complained about the WikiProject and claimed that there is some sort of WP:CABAL / ownership conspiracy at WP:COMICS, and the consensus has been against them. These deletion spammings are just a way for you to bypass any discussion and are borderline WP:POINTy.

As for notability, the group as a whole is very prevalent in comic books and the page itself is a hubpage that branches off into other articles. Try pulling this with other hub pages and disambiguation pages, and see how that works out for you. You want sources? Here are some right here: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

Just because an article is Start-Class or the sources haven't been cited yet doesn't mean they don't exist. You need to stop scrolling to the "References" section of articles and indiscriminately tagging them for deletion. Raise your concerns at WT:COMICS or another appropriate venue. Dark Knight 2149 22:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

What is with you people harping on some nonsensical argument? The Goblins, "random people who drank the serum", and Goblins (creatures) are three separate topics. I don't care that the serum drinkers are tangentially related. They are not goblins. That is my point of saying that it's multiple topics on one page. But at the end of the day, that's still irrelevant. If you want to turn this into an actual dab page with just the Goblin names, I'll withdraw this right now, but hub pages are not dab pages. They do not get to exist just because, especially when used to collect a bunch of non-notable topics. Collections of useless sources do not establish notability. TTN ( talk) 22:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

What do you mean, "You people?" BAHAHAHA... ha ha... *sigh* Hilarious! - 2pou ( talk) 01:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

And it has been repeatedly explained to you that they are not "random" or "tangentially related", the serum is what creates the Goblins to begin with. The entire article is the exact same topic except "Goblin (species)" (which doesn't belong). You continue to push a narrative after it has been repeatedly explained to you why you are wrong. The article is one topic, with a single disembodied section that Rtkat3 added much later about the species. That "Characters exposed to the Goblin Formula" section lists a character who tied and failed to turn himself into a goblin (the same supervillain group that this article is about), a test subject for the man who became Hobgoblin, someone who briefly became a goblin, and an off-shoot to the Green Goblin (Norman Osborn). It is on-topic with the rest of the article. The only thing that isn't is "Goblin (species)". 23:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Off-topic bickering. Dark Knight 2149 23:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You mean constantly repeated by you because you really want to focus on something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. TTN ( talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm through with this bickering. It's transparent that you were caught with your pants down and now you are trying to dance around the discussion instead of admitting your mistake. There is no basis for a deletion, nor is the rationale accurate. Dark Knight 2149 23:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

You could have simply let go of it five posts ago when I explained my rationale, but you stubbornly refuse to see my point of view. There are still the notability concerns, which your link dump does noting to assuage. TTN ( talk) 23:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

And again, you you refuse to get the point. I have explained the issues with your erroneous "point of view" multiple times now and you continue to repeat it as if nothing happened. We can only dance in circles for so long. Dark Knight 2149 23:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

No, you just refuse to let go of a trivial talking point that has nothing at all to do with the discussion to continue to acting like I'm somehow invading your space. This is fairly typical behavior of someone getting overly defensive of a topic they think they own. TTN ( talk) 23:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

That has already been addressed and this is exactly what I am talking about. It isn't trivial when your (objectively false) reason for deletion literally reads Collection of several unrelated topics with the same name. Notability for the whole of any of them is not established and you continue to persist with the point. Until there is something to legitimately discuss, I'm done here. Dark Knight 2149 23:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. And as mentioned, those sources do not in any way establish notability for the grouping. Most of those simply confirm the existence of the topic without providing actual significant coverage. TTN ( talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment - Just a comment on the above sources, you have one primary source from Marvel, two Top X lists that provide no commentary on the topic, two articles just listing the characters in general, two minor pop culture articles on two of the singular characters, and one article on a storyline related to the characters. None of them provide significant coverage on the topic. TTN ( talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
keep: These are related characters and characters like the Grey Goblin are merged here. Getting real tired of these frequent mass deletions. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies in its present form. All major characters have their own articles, the minor ones shouldn't even be mentioned, so this is redundant. It just encourages WP:OR by grouping characters with similar "races". – sgeureka ^t•
c 10:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies per Sgeureka. Like they said, the major characters, who have their own articles, are already present on that list. The minor ones and unrelated ones, which don't appear to have much in the way of non-primary coverage, should not be included. When you prune out all of the non-related, minor/barely related, and redundant entries, there really is not much here that would justify this being a standalone article rather than the notable entries being included in the main List of Spider-Man enemies as a navigational tool, which they already are. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - Let this page stay. @ Darkknight2149: and @ Jhenderson777: are right about their claim with it as well as it being a set index for the other Goblin characters. As for the species, they were added to the page since we have to put them somewhere on this website. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 21:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies, fails GNG. Entirely fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 01:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies. The points for this choice make the most sense. — Ched ( talk) 07:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies, per Zxcvbnm and Sgeureka - seriously, Wikia was created for articles like this. Cjhard ( talk) 07:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. I don't see the point of the proposed list, it's more listy fancruft that won't survive very long. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 13:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Piotrus: There is no original research here. In fact, I have already listed off several different sources discussing the Goblins in this discussion alone. If you are supporting a deletion, at least do it for a legitimate reason. Dark Knight 2149 00:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. The only thing they have in common is the word "goblin". Most entries are approximately one line long. JIP | Talk 11:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ JIP: Again, objectively not the case. Dark Knight 2149 23:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Banned sockpuppet talk and old history. – sgeureka ^t•
c 14:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Speedy keep as nomination was made by a single-purpose account previously sanctioned for disruptive and indiscriminate mass nominations of articles concerning fictional characters for deletion. As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Evidence/by_White_Cat#Bot-like_%28automated_looking%29_edits_by_TTN, for example, the time has come to seriously explore this editor's motivations once again, i.e. it is indeed actually possible that his edits are being made by some kind of bot. Moreover, there are pretty much no edits to indicate that he is interested in ever adding sources to or improving articles. -- 199.123.13.2 ( talk) 22:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC) blocked sock reply

Comment: ~~In addition to what 199.123.13.2 said~~ (sock puppet IP, ignore it), I plan on filing an ANI report on TTN within the next few days, per the exchange here, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harley Quinn in other media, and here and here. TTN has also been repeatedly advised to stop blindly spamming deletion nominations and engage in dispute resolution, which he claims is me exhibiting "ownership" because (according to him) there is a secret WP:CABAL that will overrule him if he opens a larger discussion, so he's going to keep spamming deletion nominations no matter who objects. He has also displayed high levels of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality [11], [12], [13]. Dark Knight 2149 23:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

OK, good luck. In all this, you have yet to answer my repeated question as to what supposed consensus I'm breaking. That's the main point where your report is going to fail. TTN ( talk) 23:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I have gone into detail numerous times. You refuse to hear it. Now other users are looking into your behaviour and it turns out that you have been sanctioned in the past for doing exactly what you are doing now. We're done dancing in circles. Dark Knight 2149 23:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Oh, no, I was sanctioned for the mass redirection of episode articles, like probably 500 a day on a good day. That is something I have stopped. My AfDs have never been an issue after that, even when I was peaking at ten to fifteen a day. TTN ( talk) 23:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Nope. You were banned for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. You have graduated from spamming redirects to spamming deletion nominations, which seems to be the only thing you do on Wikipedia these days. With these WP:COMICS articles, all you are doing is finding as many start-class articles as you can, quickly scrolling down to the References section, and then automatically tagging them for deletion without looking into whether sources exist or if there is a way to improve the articles. I'm not yet sure I agree with 199.123.13.2, but I have to ask - Are you even here to contribute to an encyclopedia? Dark Knight 2149 00:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, that was the ultimate result of the mass redirects, but if you look at my AfD history, I made many, many hundreds of AfDs (over 1000 maybe?) after that. That is my main and primary interest, and it has been my general style of editing any time I've been active the last decade. I have not a single block since 2008 despite that. I'd honestly have no idea where to look, but I'm quite sure someone complained about it on ANI but it was dismissed because I'm using official channels seeking out consensus. If you want to undo every single prod I make, feel free. That's within your right. I just do it to save time at AfD. As for BEFORE, you have no idea what I do or don't do. That's always a pointless criticism. My goal is the reduction of non-notable fiction to spur on the creation of notable fiction due to the inherent stagnation that comes with dozens or hundreds of plot articles. The only people who seem to ever really disagree with that end goal (though there have been like minded people who do disagree with my editing style) are extreme inclusionists like the many times banned User:A Nobody (the above IP) and people angry that their space is being invaded. TTN ( talk) 00:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm not familiar with A Nobody by memory, but do you have any evidence that the two are one in the same? Dark Knight 2149 00:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody/Archive - Extremely obsessed inclusionist (beyond the point of reason, to the point where pretty much literally nothing should ever be deleted) who has kept up the same pattern of sockpuppeting and anonymous posting on AfDs for years. Their style of targeting pretty much any AfD with grandstanding and often nonsensical rebuttals is extremely familiar to anyone who knows it, which you can see from many years of those reports. They're particularly obsessed with me, coinciding with my return, so they've been reported and blocked several times recently. TTN ( talk) 00:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Alright, thanks for informing me. Dark Knight 2149 00:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete or redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies per Cjhard - Wikia comment is quite accurate. ~ riley ( talk) 23:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Enrico Hillyer Giglioli. If there's content that is appropriate for Cryptid_whale#Giglioli's_Whale obviously that too can happen but it seems like there slightly stronger backing for Gigioli as the redirect target when the merge is complete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Giglioli's Whale

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

Fails GNG, could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Searches returned only cryptid fansites. The lone source, Coleman, is written from a fringe viewpoint; there are no mainstream sources available that could be used to establish notability or to write a viable article. – dlthewave ☎ 19:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Merge & Redirect to ~~main article on Giglioli~~ Cryptid_whale#Giglioli's_Whale. Google Books does turn up some results, but nothing substantial that I could find (mostly lists of cryptids with a short paragraph of info on each subject). Skeletor3000 ( talk) 20:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Merge & Redirect to Giglioli, for reasons outlined by Skeletor.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 22:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect to Giglioli Lightburst ( talk) 16:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Enrico Hillyer Giglioli. His account of the sighting is reproduced [ here, but most of the discussion that follows is based on ... our article. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect - I do not think an article on the subject could meet encyclopedic standards, but as it is mentioned in the Enrico Hillyer Giglioli article (and a bit more could be added there possibly) I would support the redirect suggestions above. Dunarc ( talk) 23:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Merge and Redirect to Giglioli, which could use more content.-- Auric talk 23:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Merge and Redirect some reliable references, but only one which barely goes beyond Giglioli's own account.— eric 17:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply
A better merge target might be Cryptid_whale#Giglioli's_Whale which is about the whale itself. ApLundell ( talk) 18:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Merge and Redirect Not enough for a stand alone. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Next Azorean regional election

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

Ribeiro2002Rafael ( talk) 18:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Procedural keep No deletion rationale provided. -- Finngall ^talk 04:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Notable second-level election. Number 5 7 12:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment + keep I think there was an error 'round here. The nom moved Next Azorean regional election to 2020 Azorean regional election, but then tagged 2020 Azorean regional election for AfD. I think their purpose is to have Next Azorean regional election (which now serves as a redirect) deleted, but since it redirects to 2020 Azorean regional election it was this page that got tagged instead. Nonetheless, considering that "Next ... election" articles are typically left as redirects until such elections take place, I'd argue against the deletion of the redirect, since the 2020 Azorean election is still nominally the next Azorean election. Impru20^talk 12:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. Notable election. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 14:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 20:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Yugg

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

These creatures have not been discussed by academic or journalists. Honestly, this article has no usable content. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 18:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 18:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 18:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 18:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. As usual, this fancruft belongs at https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Yugg --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 13:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. These were not even invented by Lovecraft, but in fanfic. Fails the basic rules of Wikipedia. Bearian ( talk) 15:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Even if the fanfic met notability thresholds this would fail WP:BKD as an inappropriate split, the author should consider alternative outlets. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 ( talk) 18:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete; I think "fanfic" is unfair (or at least carries some connotations that don't apply here), but I agree that secondary sourcing is lacking. Unless some can be identified, this can't really have its own article. A very selective merge/redirect to Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos wouldn't hurt. Josh Milburn ( talk) 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. There is no requirement that the team owner be independently notable for a team to be notable under our guidelines and there is a consensus that this team is indeed notable. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Lafferty Motorsports

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

Team owner Chris Lafferty doesn't even have a page. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 17:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Almost no high quality secondary sources on the subject, which goes against the notability guidelines. Thatone~~weird~~wikier Say hi 18:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep passes WP:NMOTORSPORT. It was a team in one the 3 major NASCAR series for several years (Truck series). Royal broil 04:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
- @ Royalbroil: Source? Thatone~~weird~~wikier Say hi 06:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment: Royalbroil expanded the page to show notability, in order for me to say "keep", could he please create a page for Chris Lafferty? NASCARfan0548 ↗ 16:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - This one shows it was in the NASCAR Craftsman Truck. Notability also isn't dependent on the owner having a Wikipedia page. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. The team is notable in terms of the SNG and, given its NASCAR record, there must be enough coverage existing for it to meet GNG. It doesn't matter if Mr Lafferty doesn't have his own article because a member of an organisation is not himself notable just because the organisation is. If Mr Lafferty is notable in his own right, regardless of his association with the team, then he deserves an article. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment: Are there any other sources that can be used aside from the two in the article and CNMall41's example (for the infobox, as an example)? Also, is there any other mention of Lafferty Motorsports we could possibly merge this in to? Just suggesting. Thanks, Thatone~~weird~~wikier Say hi 21:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Society of Free Christians

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

A non-notable organization. I searched for sources under both its original name, as well as its later name of "Religious Society of St Simon", and came up with nothing. Note that there was an older organization with the same name from the 19th century that some results appeared for, but they seem to be completely unrelated to the group that this article is about. I initially PRODed this without realizing that a PROD had already been attempted years back, so it was declined. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment -- This looks like a denomination; and we normally allow articles on denominations. The problems are a lack of sources and That there is no article either on the predecessor or successor. There is thus no indication as to the scale of its membership or anything else. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - while we like to list all denominations, this one is so small that it has not gained significant coverage. Literally it has gotten zero coverage. Bearian ( talk) 15:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Not enough coverage to establish notability. ~ riley ( talk) 23:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Davide Zucchetti

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

Thinly sourced article that does not demonstrate that the subject meets the notability criteria laid out in WP:NPROF. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 16:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 16:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 16:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Instructor at seemingly small and non-notable private school in Italy (where with the exception of Bocconi all the major universities are public), negligible citation record on Google Scholar, no evidence of passing WP:PROF. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. No evidence of WP:NPROF for this instructor at what appears to be something analogous to a community college. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete not all profesoors are notable, and there is no indication of anything making Zucchetti notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. I created the article but I understood this topic is not notable yet. You may delete this article. Thank you. Brianglsui ( talk) 19:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:PROF, and WP:SNOW. Zero independent sources in the article. No hint of passing the prof test. Every !vote, even the creator, has been to delete. Bearian ( talk) 15:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Sydney New Year's Eve. Deletion of the 2008-2009 article is unanimously endorsed at DRV, and the consensus here is that the others are all relevantly similar. The earlier years were created as redirects, so for consistency and preservation of links I will recreate these as redirects after deletion. RL0919 ( talk) 16:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Sydney New Year's Eve 2011–12

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

This nomination also covers all other existing articles in Category:Sydney New Year's Eve shows.

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09 individual instances of this event are not notable. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment - it's improper to nominate a whole bunch of articles in order to go and do particular searches for each one to see whether there was widespread coverage or not. They should be assessed individually. Bookscale ( talk) 03:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment - I've also sought a deletion review of the original article as it was far from clear there was consensus. The arguments for deletion consisted of editors saying they didn't think the article was "worthwhile", which is not a valid argument for deletion. Bookscale ( talk) 03:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Already all summarized in Sydney New Year's Eve in better prose, and unsourced playlists and 'type what I see' rundowns of television broadcasts. Not commenting on the above; my vote! and comments in the 2008-09 nom are 100% based on policy and will withstand proper scrutiny in a deletion review. Nate • ( chatter) 05:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
- Comment - that isn't true, the claim of "100% policy" is not correct. Bookscale ( talk) 05:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete (or replace by redirect). The level of detail in these articles (e.g. "Before Ten went to a commercial break, a recording was done of some of the events that happened in 2007. After the break, Kim Watkins interviewed a man named Richard Watson, a trends forecaster.") is excessive. The head article is sufficient. DexDor^(talk) 07:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete all- Although Sydney New Year's Eve is a notable and worthwhile topic, it dosn't follow that individual editions are. The individual years are already covered in appropriate depth at the main article. These ones are all really really banal trivia, and would only be distracting clutter if merged. Reyk _YO! 06:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete All This all seems like a giant broadcast or tv guide or playlist, it is difficult to imagine just who would think it'd be a good idea to have articles on individual new years' celebrations. Even when something noteworthy happens at one, like Mariah Carey bombing at Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve a few years ago, it is a 2-3 sentence blurb on the main article, not an article on the entire night itself. The "people hail 2011's New Years' Eve celebration a success!" citation is just routine news of the next day. ValarianB ( talk) 18:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete as per conclusion that the individual annual events are not notable. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete all - unless anyone can point out why one in particular has enduring notability. How did these survive so long? Nfitz ( talk) 00:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that this list is not in compliance with our policy on what Wikipedia is not. Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Timeline of first flights by aircraft type

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

Not really of any particulary encyclopedic value as it would need thousands of entries, it duplicates the information in the yearly lists in Category:Aviation by year and also the category tree Category:Aircraft by year of first flight. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete: With about 35,000 aircraft types have been flown, this article is ridiculously incomplete. However if it were completed it would be well beyond unwieldy as to be of no encyclopedic value at all and require splitting by year. Overall this article falls afoul of our policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This sort of thing is much better handled by the existing system of categories. - Ahunt ( talk) 15:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. There is some value in being able to answer questions like "Which order did these planes that interest me fly in?" or "Which planes flew within three months of this one?" so I have some sympathy for the aims of the article creator. But far the best way to achieve that is with a searchable database. A dumb list of every type flown is totally unsuitable: the list of aircraft has had to be divided into nearly 100 pages to make it manageable, in the process creating nearly 99 page breaks which get in the way of answering such questions easily. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete as indiscriminate. When I saw "aircraft type", I was expecting something like the first flight of a biplane, monoplane, pusher, etc., but no. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete as a non-encyclopedic cross categorization ( WP:NOTDIR point 6), especially given the potential scope and inevitable incompleteness. The linked categories should be sufficient. ComplexRational ( talk) 22:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep, because the deletion arguments don't make sense. The deleters pose that the list-article can't work out in the future due to various misplaced fears.
- It is supposed that the list-article will become too large because there exist 35,000 aircraft types, ignoring fact that Duh, if it grew too big, it could be split. Note we have many list-article systems that are larger and which pose no problems (I happen to work mostly on the system of places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, which covers about a million(!) places individually listed or listed in historic districts)
- It is supposed that splitting would have to be done by date of first flight. No, that is simply not the only way to split. Splitting could be done by size of plane, by large types/groupings of plane, by continent/nation/other geographical approach.
- It is supposed that the list will be indiscriminate, but in fact the list is obviously selective, and there are various ways it could be explicitly so.

How is this obvious? Right now, it is not clear how all 35000 entries (for all aircraft) would be selective, nor is it evident how all the entries fulfill WP:CSC (notability for each entry). I am open to more detailed reasoning, so I invite you to elaborate on how it meets these criteria. ComplexRational ( talk) 16:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

- It is complained that the list is incomplete, at the same time as it is complained that being complete would be bad. Hey, please make up your mind!

Not exactly. These are two separate concerns with separate rationales. ComplexRational ( talk) 16:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

- It is supposed that the list will be developed in a dumb way and be unwieldy, so it is better for readers interested to be confronted with unmanaged categories, instead. Hah! Well, all the suggested fears apply worse for categories, which basically are unmanaged/unmanageable. If a list would be indiscriminate, then a category is worse. A list-based approach to presentation allows for management, i.e. selective presentation or intelligent ordering or other editing to make the list work, which can't easily be done by categories.
- "Delete" voters seem unaware of wp:CLNT guideline that points out categories and list-articles are complementary and that essentially if a category exists then usually a list-article is justified and vice versa.

Indeed they do, but it's not a requirement that a category must have an associated list or vice versa. The merit of this list and its associated category must specifically be discussed. ComplexRational ( talk) 16:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I dunno, maybe "Speedy Keep" is justified because there are no valid delete reasons suggested. -- Doncram ( talk) 13:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep does not cover reasons you might disagree with or unsound arguments (if that is the case), only cases in which the nominator does not advance a rationale and no other user !votes delete; it is thus not appropriate here. Considering that there are already four delete !votes with some rationale, it's better (and in process) at this point to let the discussion play out. ComplexRational ( talk) 16:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes enemies. RL0919 ( talk) 16:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Prince Evillo

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 15:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 15:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 15:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep or Merge to List of Legion of Super-Heroes enemies. -- GentlemanGhost (séance) 01:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 13:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - zero real world notability. Redirecting to the list GentlemanGhost suggests would be okay as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Danielle Cohn

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

Majority of the sources are primary, the remainder (except perhaps nzherald) are gossip sources or are sourced on controversial facebook posts about her. Pretty much all of the coverage I see about her in (semi-)reliable sources ends up at a controversy about her real age and whether she and other teen "internet personalities" are being exploited, and again, most of them are either gossip-type sources or end up being sourced to Facebook. Between her notability looking like WP:BLP1E and the low-quality sources talking about controversy involving a minor, I think deletion is appropriate. creffett ( talk) 14:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. creffett ( talk) 14:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. creffett ( talk) 14:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. creffett ( talk) 14:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete As Creffett says, the majority of sources are primary; you take those away and you are not left with much, except pretty tabloidy (scrapings from facebook etc) stuff, not enough to meet GNG. Add in that the articles are mainly about whether she is 13 or 15, and is she being exploited and sexualised means it's all fairly questionable stuff. Curdle ( talk) 10:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Mainly primary-sourced biography of a non-notable teenager who's active on social media. Searches don't find anything compelling to indicate notability. Most of what's not primary is related to her estranged father making a fuss about her age and her alleged sexualisation on social media, which is all a bit WP:BLP1E. Apart from that, reliable sources aren't writing about her, but merely mentioning her as an example of her type. Neiltonks ( talk) 12:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:V. The problem is that so much about this child is not verifiable; not her age, not who her family is, not why she does what she does, or how to respond to allegations of child neglect and sexual abuse. Wikipedia is a charity, not a free web-host or a scandal rag. If we take all the unreliable sources out, there's nothing left for even a stub. Whenever there's been doubt about a child's notability, we have always erred on the side of caution. Bearian ( talk) 15:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete I don't think it's a BLP1E. Other than that, I agree with all of the above. The only independent source AFAICT is Nzherald. Claim: In 2019, she signed a brand deal with energy drink company Bang.; Citation title:"Teen influencer Danielle Cohn exposed by father after lying about age, family story"; Reference text:"Cohn said YouTube, Instagram, Fashion Nova, Buzzfeed, Universal, Target and Bang Energy Drinks were "OK with child exploitation"." Not OK. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't think this changes anything, but the NZ Herald says it's just a news.com.au story, so I've replaced that ref with the original on news.com.au. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comparison of UK election polling 2017 and 2019

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

Article made of purely synthesis material, constituting a self-made compilation of data from several sources in order to reach conclusions not supported by those sources. Fails WP:GNG (no coverage at all in reliable sources about this specific and indiscriminate compilation of 2017 and 2019 polling), WP:NOTOPINION (Wikipedia is not a medium to publish opinion pieces), WP:NOTESSAY (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought), WP:NOTWEBHOST (Wikipedia is not a blog or personal web page), WP:INDISCRIMINATE (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) and WP:MADEUP (Wikipedia is not for things that some people may just think up). Plus, the article seems to have been created to put a reference of it at Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election, only because the author's edit inserting this same content there was reverted precisely out of OR concerns ( diff1 diff2 diff3). Impru20^talk 13:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Impru20^talk 14:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The page has been modified to take account of earlier comments, and the above statements are no longer true. The chart displayed is simply a graphic of data which exists elsewhere in Wikipedia, to show a comparision between the two elections. There is no 'cherry-picking' of data, and there is no calculation of moving averages which might create a window to display synthesis, bias, opinion, write an essay, or make things up. The data cannot be viewed as indiscriminate unless the data in the source Wikipedia pages is deemed indiscriminate. The matter is clearly of public interest, and has been a topic of discussion in, eg, the Telegraph. This page provides data to enable readers to form their own views. RERTwiki ( talk) 14:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The chart displayed is simply a graphic of data which exists elsewhere in Wikipedia You fail to understand that this is the issue itself. No, the fact that some data exists "elsewhere in Wikipedia" does not mean that you can compilate it on your own and presentate it the way you think looks best. That's outright synthesis. You need sources verifying this specific compilation in order for you to be able to justify such presentation and, by extent, the article itself. That The matter is clearly of public interest, and has been a topic of discussion in, eg, the Telegraph (of which, btw, you have still provided no source backing such a claim) does not justify you going around and making your own compilation of data. Plus, this by itself won't even justify the creation of a stand-alone article, since depending on the topic's notability it could be covered in one or two sentences within another article. How is the topic covered in sources? Does it show such a presentation of polling data? Does it merit a whole article? Note Wikipedia's policy on undue prominence, notability guidelines for article creation and so on. Plus the unchanged (and uncontested) fact that you have created the article to override the lack of a consensus at Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election for having your data presented there.

So far, this is just your own compilation of data, and changes conducted haven't changed that (if anything, you're further ellaborating on the fact that this is purely synthesis material). Impru20^talk 14:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Not an article, put the chart in the election articles themselves maybe but it's just synthesis of data. Reywas92^Talk 18:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I would be more than happy to see this chart where I originally put it in the 2019 polling page.

I can take on board that the move to create a new page may have seemed petulant. It may have been to some extent. I wanted to get the data up, but didn't want to engage in an edit war (that worked), and I could see that the idea that the comparison didn't belong in the 2019 or 2017 pages per se actually had some merit. So I was content to see it go elsewhere.

I accept that the first version of the page arguably contained too much original content. I don't think the new version does.

There is a page at the Telegraph titled "Boris leads 12 points polls chart shows entering danger zone" (sadly behind a paywall but with free access on registration) shows that comparison between the two elections is notable. In any case, the fact that the last election saw the Labour party catch up with the Conservatives means that one cannot form an informed opinion on current polling without understanding when in the campaign and how fast that happened. For example, if all of the change was in the last week, and the Labour party is now less far behind than it was at this stage, then the Conservatives might be in a precarious position. Sure, one can flick between the 2017 and 2019 pages to try and get a feel, but we have computers to do that for us. In fact, I spent a few weeks doing exactly that before I created the spreadsheet for my own information.

Lastly, these facts may or may not be common currency. However, that doesn't make them wrong. There is always someone first to notice something.

The facts as presented on the page may make uncomfortable reading for some, but the display of ALL available data cannot be construed as having any political bias, in my view. That is what the page now does. RERTwiki ( talk) 18:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

You seem to have an entirely wrong vision of how Wikipedia works.

I wanted to get the data up, but didn't want to engage in an edit war It doesn't matter how badly you wish to "get the data up". If other people revert you, then that means that you do not have a consensus for your edits and that you must seek one for it. Rather than doing that, you attempted to circumvent such a lack of consensus by creating a brand new article without even caring to previously confirm whether it did meet Wikipedia's criteria for article creation. This was not a good idea at all and could have been considered nigh to disruptive.
I accept that the first version of the page arguably contained too much original content. I don't think the new version does You only changed the chart. It doesn't matter whether you use averages or just compile the polls without any trendline, the issue is not on how you present the data, but on the fact that you cherry-pick this data (i.e. from a specific time period in 2017 and from a specific time period in 2019) and bring it together pretending to show a comparison, while concurrently unilaterally considering yourself that this merits a whole chart, and then a full-fledged article in Wikipedia.
There is a page at the Telegraph titled "Boris leads 12 points polls chart shows entering danger zone" (sadly behind a paywall but with free access on registration) shows that comparison between the two elections is notable So it basically looks like the only source that could somehow justify your action is paywalled. You know, notability is not achieved just because one source makes a limited comparison (which is, btw, unable to be confirmed by users not registered at the Telegraph). Take some time to get you accommodated to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would say that The Telegraph source would, at most, justify a brief mention at either 2019 United Kingdom general election or Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election. Definitely not a full chart and much less a full-fledged article on such a topic, because you don't do such things from a single source making a loose connection that then you re-interpret and compilate on your own.
In any case, the fact that the last election saw the Labour party catch up with the Conservatives means that one cannot form an informed opinion on current polling without understanding when in the campaign and how fast that happened. For example, if all of the change was in the last week, and the Labour party is now less far behind than it was at this stage, then the Conservatives might be in a precarious position. Sure, one can flick between the 2017 and 2019 pages to try and get a feel, but we have computers to do that for us. In fact, I spent a few weeks doing exactly that before I created the spreadsheet for my own information. This is exactly what WP:SYNTH means. No, just because something happened in 2017 does not mean it will happen again in 2019. No, just because you think it is important does not turn it into important. No, just because you see one source saying A and another one saying B does not mean that you should mix it to get conclusion C. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If you want to state that A + B = C, then get sources explicitly making such a connection. If you want to create an article about how A + B = C, make sure to confirm whether such a topic is notable enough to merit an article of its own.
Lastly, these facts may or may not be common currency. However, that doesn't make them wrong. There is always someone first to notice something. And it is nice for someone to be the first at noticing something, but Wikipedia is not for this. Sincerely, you only keep confirming that you did this out of your own invention just because you thought it was a good idea. This is exactly what Wikipedia is NOT for.

If you want to get this data at Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election, get consensus for it. And if you don't get one, well, maybe you have to accept that you can't always get to have a pony. Impru20^talk 19:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Simple. We don't publish original research, ever. Bearian ( talk) 15:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

It is not possible that this is original research. It is a graphic of data which exists elsewhere in Wikipedia. There may be reasons for deletion, but that can't be one of them. RERTwiki ( talk) 14:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Circular referencing is explicitly discouraged under WP:V: Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Taking content from other articles, then making it up in your own way to write your own article without confirming if such a content is reported by sources in the way you present it, IS original research. Impru20^talk 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per Bearian - this is WP:OR. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Nicole Gauthier

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

doesn't seem to pass GNG NAH 13:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. She was a candidate. Candidates for public office do not generally meet the notability guideline. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 14:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no other claim that she has any preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, and is referenced solely to her own party's self-published list of its own candidates rather than any evidence that she has received enough reliable source coverage to claim a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat ( talk) 15:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete It is so obvious. scope_creep^Talk 22:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - we have deleted articles about losing candidates. I don't see consensus changing anytime soon. Bearian ( talk) 15:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES not a notable person. Wm335td ( talk) 22:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Thierry Gourlot

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

doesn't seem to pass GNG NAH 13:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Per the discussion. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 18:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no other claim that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy (serving on a regional council falls under NPOL #2, where the notability test is "has significant press coverage" and not "is verifiable as existing"), and is referenced solely to his own party's self-published list of its own candidates rather than any evidence that he has received enough reliable source coverage to clear the bar for local politicians. Bearcat ( talk) 16:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - we have deleted articles about losing candidates. I don't see consensus changing anytime soon. Bearian ( talk) 15:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES Wm335td ( talk) 22:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Éric Faurot

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

doesn't seem to pass GNG NAH 13:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 14:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete unelected candidates are not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no other claim that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, and is referenced solely to his own party's self-published list of its own candidates rather than any evidence that he has received enough reliable source coverage to claim a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat ( talk) 16:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - we have deleted articles about losing candidates. I don't see consensus changing anytime soon. Bearian ( talk) 15:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Valérie Dupont

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

doesn't seem to pass GNG NAH 13:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: An article on Valérie Dupont was deleted from the French Wikipedia in 2010. AllyD ( talk) 18:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete: The information on the page is insufficient for the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. I note some passing coverage of the subject's 2010 resignation from the FN ( [14]) but that is no better for establishing the subject's notability. AllyD ( talk) 08:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Per the discussion. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 18:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no other claim that she has any preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, and is referenced solely to her own party's self-published list of its own candidates rather than any evidence that she has received enough reliable source coverage to claim a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat ( talk) 16:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - we have deleted articles about losing candidates. I don't see consensus changing anytime soon. Bearian ( talk) 15:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete only elected officials are default notable, candidates are not. We used to accept certain candidates as default notable, but we realized at some point that this just created article clutter with lots of articles that were basically campaign brochures. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Patrick Binder

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

doesn't seem to pass GNG NAH 13:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per my reasonings in this discussion I just started. ミラ P 17:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Per the discussion I was involved in. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 18:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no other claim that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, and is referenced entirely to the party's and council's own self-published content about themselves rather than any evidence that he has received enough reliable source coverage to claim a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat ( talk) 16:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - we have deleted articles about losing candidates. I don't see consensus changing anytime soon. As Bearcat, no relation, notes: the only sources about his party "leadership" are not independent of the subject. He's an ordinary fundraiser for a Rightist party. If he been embroiled in a fundraising scandal or it turns out he took foreign oligarch money then he would deserve inclusion. There's no evidence of that. Bearian ( talk) 15:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Jean-Marc de Lacoste-Lareymondie

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

doesn't seem to pass GNG NAH 13:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Per the discussion. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 06:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no other claim that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, and is referenced solely to his own party's self-published list of its own candidates rather than any evidence that he has received enough reliable source coverage to claim a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat ( talk) 16:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - we have deleted articles about losing candidates. I don't see consensus changing anytime soon. Bearian ( talk) 15:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Darkseid#Fictional character biography. RL0919 ( talk) 16:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Yuga Khan

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

This fails to establish notability. The only secondary source is a trivial mention, so it's useless in the context of this article. TTN ( talk) 13:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 13:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 13:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Darkseid#Fictional character biography Yuga Khan is merely a part of Darkseid's backstory. He is not notable in any other context. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 15:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Darkseid#Fictional character biography per Susmuffin. There are nothing but primary sources being used in the article itself. When searching for secondary sources, the only things that go into anything more than plot summary are generally quick statements reiterating that he was Darkseid's father, and that is it. The coverage of that fact in Darkseid's article is essentially all the coverage there should be on him. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Darkseid#Fictional character biography Lightburst ( talk) 16:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 13:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Bruno Subtil

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

doesn't seem to pass GNG NAH 13:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. He is a local politician and served as a municipal and regional councillor. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 14:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. See this related discussion. ミラ P 17:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no other claim that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, and is referenced solely to his own party's self-published list of its own candidates rather than any evidence that he has received enough reliable source coverage to claim a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat ( talk) 16:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - we have deleted articles about losing candidates. I don't see consensus changing anytime soon. He did get elected to a local office, equivalent to a county commission, but that is run of the mill. Bearian ( talk) 15:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Dr. Sydney Happersen

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

Fails WP:GNG. TTN ( talk) 13:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 13:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 13:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete there are no seconadary sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Michel Ximenes

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

doesn't seem to pass GNG NAH 13:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG (as mentioned in the nomination) and WP:POLITICIAN. Just because he was an unsuccessful candidate, does not qualify him for an article. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 14:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no other claim that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, and is referenced entirely to primary sources rather than any evidence that he has received enough reliable source coverage to claim a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat ( talk) 16:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - we have deleted articles about losing candidates. I don't see consensus changing anytime soon. Since he is still dead, it is quite unlikely, although not impossible, that he shall never get elected. Bearian ( talk) 16:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete unelected candidates for office are not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Basking Ridge, Arizona

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

This is sourced only to the GNIS database, which has proven unreliable for determining populated places. It took me a long time to figure out what this was, wasn't on any topo maps before 1983, but it turns out it's just a housing subdevelopment from the early 1980s (the GNIS database doesn't have many entries after 1984.) It's not a "populated place" per WP:GEOLAND #1 as it's not a standalone town or hamlet (if it's notable under this, then every subdivision in Phoenix would qualify), and it's not a notable neighborhood per WP:GNG, as all I can find are advertisements peddling houses. [15] This is difficult to search for because there is a notable Basking Ridge, New Jersey which dilutes the results - I used "Basking Ridge" "Bell Road" and "Basking Ridge" "Scottsdale" in my WP:BEFORE. SportingFlyer T· C 12:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 12:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 12:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Does not meet WP:GEOLAND bullet-2, NN housing development. GNIS "source" is "Phoenix Housing Guide V. 6 #1. Dallas, Texas: Baker Publish Inc., 1983/1984" which was also the GNIS source in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn Ridge, Arizona and still can't be found. MB 16:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Housing developments/subdivisions require sources to establish notability, which this does not have. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete neighborhoods or subdivisions, are not notable without RS. Lightburst ( talk) 00:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment - just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):

The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.

Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.

The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.

The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Payback India

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

This is a follow up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payback (loyalty card) which was closed as delete back in 2017. This version is a bit more detailed and includes an awards section, but none of them look significant enough to convey notability and not much else is sourced. -- Tavix ^(
talk) 23:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 29#Payback (loyalty card). -- Tavix ^(
talk) 00:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(
c)}}, at 00:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(
c)}}, at 00:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Draftify or Delete - Based on Google queries, Payback India complies with WP:GNG. There are many coverage from independent sources about it. However, this article was written in "Promotional" tone as per WP:PROMOTION. If someone could rewrite it and composed in encyclopedic tone, then it can be kept. Therefore, my vote is to move it to draft. If there is no attempt to improve it, then my vote is Delete - Jay ( talk) 12:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - I looked at the available online references and there is nothing that passes WP:ORGCRIT. There are some articles that look good on their face like this one, but further digging shows is a reprint of a press release. As such, I don't think draftify would work as there is nothing that could be added to make it notable. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/ WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was WP:G5 speedied by @ Bbb23: (non-admin closure) ミラ P 16:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Amin Salahloo

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

Fails WP:ENT, I can't find any independent sources. Andrew Base ( talk) 12:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base ( talk) 12:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base ( talk) 12:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 ( talk) 20:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Poddar Group of Institutions, Jaipur

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

The purpose of the article is promotional as the author tried to add such categories as "Best college in Rajasthan". Fails WP:CORP. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 10:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Also created by an account with a COI name. -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 10:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 10:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 11:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 11:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Sergei Savateev

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

Fails WP:BIO. The architect doesn't have major national or international prizes or significant press coverage. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 09:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 10:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 10:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Agree with nominator. Clearly promotional. Curiocurio ( talk) 12:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of significant coverage or major awards. Bearian ( talk) 16:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Himansh Verma

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

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:BIO. No coverage per WP:SIGCOV. All the reference are press releases or related to company. scope_creep^Talk 09:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 09:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Tangle127 ( talk) 09:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC) LTA vandal NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 10:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - despite this editor's characteristic WP:REFBOMBING of their very likely WP:UPE creations, fails GNG, BIO, non-notable businessman. -- Begoon 10:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment I have no problem Sir. If you think that It is likely WP:UPE then you can delete it. But there is nothing like WP:UPE. I tried to improve the article because I work very hard to make articles. If I have made any mistake, I will take care from here. Virenderthind2019 ( talk) 10:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:GNG. Put aside the conflict issues, and that we are a charity, not a web-host for people to profit from us, dear reader. While there is some coverage of the subject, it's of the look at this up and coming young " entrepreneur" who was born on third base and wants you to be proud that he hit a home run. Bearian ( talk) 16:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
delete the subject is just another businessman that fails notability criteria. Also, is any and every person who has a shop/business is being called as an "entrepreneur" nowadays? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Seanna Leath

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

Fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage at media and minor academic achievements. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 09:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 09:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 11:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 11:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete 2019 PhD + assistant professor makes WP:NPROF unlikely. Citations etc aren't there, and there's no evidence for any other notability provided. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 12:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. New assistant professors almost always have not had enough time for their publications to achieve the impact needed for WP:PROF notability, this article provides no evidence of being an exception, and with low citations on Google Scholar and no published books the two most-likely pathways for academics to become notable are both not yet open. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete No more discussion needed. scope_creep^Talk 12:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment - I'd like to hear from more voices before !voting on, or closing, this discussion. Too early closing may be controversial. I've alerted some Wiki projects to join the discussion (not canvassing). Bearian ( talk) 16:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete, still is an ordinary academic among the hundreds of thousands out there. Geschichte ( talk) 19:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Khabzela

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

Not sure that these 2 sources that I found are enough to establish notability for this book: Foreign Policy, Independent Online. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 09:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 09:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Obviously the current article is meagre, but in addition the mentioned reviews there is enough coverage in academic sources to satisfy WP:NBOOK:

Zulu, N.S. "Challenging Aids Denialism—Khabzela: Life and times of a South African." Journal of Literary Studies 25.1 (2009): 53-63.
Marks, Shula. "Science, Social Science and Pseudo-Science in the HIV/AIDS Debate in Southern Africa." Journal of Southern African Studies 33.4 (2007): 861-74.
Vambe, Maurice Taonezvi, and Chennells, Anthony. "Introduction: The Power of Autobiography in Southern Africa." Journal of Literary Studies 25.1 (2009): 1-7.
... and more ... Alexbrn ( talk) 12:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment Following from the above, I have significantly expanded the article with these (and other) sources. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep I think at this stage the article meets the requirements of an encyclopedia and the five pillars of Wikipedia. Thanks to Alexbrn for working on it while I was offline Bobbyshabangu _talk 21:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Satisfies WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. -- Muhandes ( talk) 12:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 09:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Ingolf of Sweden

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

None of these people are named Ingolf. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

~~Support~~ Delete : This is one of the most embarrassing of all my millions of embarrassing typos, when the page was created. Sorry! The kings have often been called Ingold (never Ingolf!) in older English literature such as here. Referring from such older exonyms, I believe, is one of the most helpful reasons to have disambiguations and redirects, but mega-embarrassing typos won't do the trick. What we have in Ingold of Sweden will suffice. Thank you for catching this! -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 09:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per SergeWoodzing (can we shortcut or snow close as a CSD G7?) Pam D 11:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
delete - we don't create dabs just for typos. Bearian ( talk) 16:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per author's request. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 19:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 09:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Kevin Budden

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only one of the references covers him in detail, and I can't determine from the archived version if it's from a reliable source. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 09:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:NEXIST in RS, like this: National Geographic, Medical History Museum, and Discover Magazine. Notable with an unfortunate and untimely death. Lightburst ( talk) 19:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep While he is primarily notable for one event, and I considered invoking WP:1E, I believe he passes WP:ANYBIO because him catching the taipan and the research it has allowed for "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." The article is also well sourced and currently includes coverage from multiple independent sources. -- SamCordes^talk 19:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep per Lightburst and SamCordes. Bookscale ( talk) 03:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep: I spent quite a bit of time reading several articles on this. Apparently, Kevin Budden's capture of the first live taipan for research was a watershed event in solving the Australian problem of treating people bitten by venomous snakes. And in any and every story about antivenom research (with regards Australian venemous snakes) Kevin Budden is always mentioned. (I also made some edits to the article.) Normal Op ( talk) 18:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep Clearly notable as being thoroughly referenced in reliable sources as follows historically here and per " keith" and here. And then there are the more modern day references too, hence SUSTAINED. Article needs to reflect the mis identification as "Keith". There are more historical references under this incorrect name than there are under the correct name. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Hilton Belgrade

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

Fails WP:GNG. Andrew Base ( talk) 05:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - run of the mill hotel; we are a charity, not a web-host for a for-profit hotel franchise. Bearian ( talk) 16:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete a run of the mill hotel. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Sources added to the article and mentioned in discussion provide support for basic notability. RL0919 ( talk) 05:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Erle Elsworth Clippinger

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

Completely unreferenced biography of a writer, whose only stated notability claim is that he and his work existed. The closest thing to sourcing here is directories of his work on public domain archives -- but as always, the notability test for writers is not just the ability to verify it, but the ability to cite reliable source coverage and analysis about his work to demonstrate its significance. Bearcat ( talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not many sources yet alas. Maybe somebody can find some. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC). reply
Keep. He wouldn't likely meet modern standards for academic notability but I don't think those standards are appropriate for someone who flourished 100 years ago. He appears to have been a major figure in the early history of Ball State University, his books have multiple reviews, and one of them (according to one source) was widely used as a high school textbook. I expanded the article with better sources. I think it's enough now. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Weak keep per David Eppstein. The case would be stronger if we had another reliable source for wide use of his textbook. (Used copies still seem to be available on Amazon, which does suggest significance, but not in a way that we can include in an article here.) Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep per David Eppstein. FWIW, and it's worth a little but not much, here's another article which calls Clippinger an expert. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment. Unfortunately the sources found are only trivial mentions. What is he notable for? Certainly not as a writer of children's books. He does not compare with his contemporaries like Edith Nesbit and Mary Louisa Molesworth (women as it happens) who have scores of sources and have had biographies written about them. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC). reply
- This comment makes no sense. He was not an author of children's books. He was a scholar of children's literature, and wrote *about* children's books. So comparing him to famous authors is irrelevant and inappropriate. Also, several paragraphs of text about him in the Ball State history is not a trivial mention, to take only one example. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

OK, but the sources are still trivial and the Ball State history is small and not very creditable. Critics (and certainly obscure ones) are much less important than creators. If the BIO is kept, his alleged misbehavior, which nowadays would be considered academic misconduct, should be included. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC). reply

Keep passes WP:NACADEMIC#1 Wm335td ( talk) 20:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

On what basis does he pass WP:NACADEMIC#1? Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC). reply

Weak keep per the sources from David Eppstein. Seems to have been important at Ball State back in the day, but his notability is fairly marginal. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 00:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Besides being an author of books that continue to be read and written about, the subject was a scholar and emeritus professor. Several sources show notability. Passes WP:BIO. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 05:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Jason Nelson. Clear consensus not to keep, redirecting as an WP:ATD. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Nine Attempts to Clone a Poem

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

Article about a "digital text", not referenced to any evidence of reliable source coverage about it to establish its notability as a work of literature. This has, further, been tagged as unreferenced since 2010. Bearcat ( talk) 03:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 03:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. This article has no sources, and it never has had any since it was created. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. as per nom. Teraplane ( talk) 21:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Catherine Obianuju Acholonu. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Other Forms of Slaughter

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

One-line stub about a poem, which just states that it exists without stating or reliably sourcing a reason why its existence is noteworthy enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 03:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 03:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect to the author. Although this source has significant coverage, I wasn't able to find any others. b uidh e 03:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Curtain (poem)

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

Article about a poem, "referenced" only to its inclusion in a school textbook rather than any evidence of reliable source analysis about it. As always, a literary work is not "inherently" notable just because it technically metaverifies its own existence; the notability test is reliable source coverage about the work to demonstrate its significance. And in this case, even the poet herself doesn't have a biographical article at all -- and while that isn't a deletion criterion for a writer per se the way it is with albums vis-à-vis musicians, it does suggest that the poem's article is less likely to be repairable than it might have been if the poet were actually demonstrated as notable. Bearcat ( talk) 03:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 03:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject is notable (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 03:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Morris the Cat

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

The fictional character is not independently notable and can be redirected to the product or organization. Lightburst ( talk) 02:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. Lightburst( talk) 02:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. GentlemanGhost (séance) 02:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. GentlemanGhost (séance) 03:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. Morris was a famous advertising character; see this L.A. Times article and this Village Voice article, for example. When Heinz dropped Leo Burnett Company as its advertising agency, the New York Times headlined its article " A Parting of Ways for Heinz And Morris the Cat's Creator". If there isn't support to keep this article, at least redirect it to 9Lives (cat food). -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep, per Metropolitan90. Also, the cat and campaign were famous enough to warrant an obituary in The New York Times when the first Morris died. -- GentlemanGhost (séance) 02:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Merge Could certainly be included in the 9Lives article. Reywas92^Talk 10:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep references found that prove notability. Dream Focus 21:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. Famous mascot. WP:BEFORE. Bearian ( talk) 16:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Merge. I have a slight preference for merging to 9Lives (cat food) over a straight keep as Metropolitan90 and Reywas92 discuss after reading the above sources in this discussion. Since it's all part of an advertising campaign, that's really the better home. Even though the mascot itself has some notability, I'm not seeing that notability being clearly distinguished from the company advertising or advocacy (i.e., the "home" for Morris' notability already exists elsewhere). If there was a very clear delineation, I'd say keep instead, but in such a case, I'd expect content more worthy of a WP:SUMMARY section at 9Lives rather than just the short sentence saying It is best known for its mascot, Morris. I don't see that kind of high-level content coming out even with additional editing. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep, although I understand the impetus of the nom. As GentlemanGhost points out, the fact that the first Morris has a NYT obit tips the scales in my judgement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 05:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Charlie the Tuna

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

Non-notable advertising character which can easily be redirected to the product or organization Lightburst ( talk) 02:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. GentlemanGhost (séance) 02:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. Charlie the Tuna is one of the best-known advertising mascots. There are sources ranging from Adweek [16], to the Wall Street Journal [17], to the Washington Post [18], to CBS News [19]. -- GentlemanGhost (séance) 03:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Merge Could certainly be included in the StarKist article. Reywas92^Talk 10:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. Famous mascot. WP:BEFORE. Bearian ( talk) 16:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject is notable (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 03:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Mr. Whipple

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

The article can easily be redirected to the product. This is a fictional character and the article has been tagged as needing additional citations since 2009 Lightburst ( talk) 01:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. GentlemanGhost (séance) 02:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The article can easily be redirected to the product.
Then do it? Nominators are expected to attempt alternatives to deletion before coming to AfD. (not watching, please {{ ping}}) czar 07:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. Mr. Whipple is an advertising character who has appeared in 500 commercials over the span of 20 years. There are sources estabilishing notability from the Reuters news organization [20] to Adweek [21] to even scholarly journal articles, such as this one at JSTOR [22]. -- GentlemanGhost (séance) 03:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep The references above provided by GentlemanGhost, more than suffice. Nfitz ( talk) 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. Famous mascot. WP:BEFORE. Bearian ( talk) 16:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - work done since article was nominated show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Nay For Media

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

Despite its association with Amr Diab, that seems to be the only artist, and the company doesn't appear to have coverage in its own right that would lead to a finding of notability under WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Largoplazo ( talk) 01:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo ( talk) 01:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo ( talk) 01:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo ( talk) 01:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Michael Tao (The Closer)

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

Bio of a non-notable fictional character from a defunct TV series; no sources provided that establish notability or even verifiability of the fictional details in the article, which are exclusively presented from an in-universe perspective. Michepman ( talk) 00:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note that there are plenty of bios of other characters from this series on Wikipedia; some may be genuinely notable based on real-world coverage of the character but this one doesn't seem to be. Michepman ( talk) 00:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 13:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Lack of real world information needed to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 15:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - no real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Untitled Martin Scorsese project

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

Love this idea on principle, but am unconvinced it actually exists. The first two sources linked to could easily refer to Stone's work in the Scorsese Netflix documentary Rolling Thunder Revue, while the third source which mentions Streep might easily be conflating Rolling Thunder Revue with The Laundromat, a Netflix film that stars Streep and Stone. At the very least, I believe this subject needs more notable sources that verifiably refer to this specific project before it should be allowed in the mainspace. NathanielTheBold ( talk) 21:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan ( talk) 00:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:HAMMER. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete, per WP:NYF and WP:HAMMER. There's no title, we don't know who or what the film is about, when it might come out, etc. Even if reliable sources were added stating that such a project exists, it's hardly worthy of an article given so little information about it. Belinrahs|^talk⁄ _edits 03:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:NFF and was created by a known (and now blocked) sock. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content". -- Pontificalibus 12:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Draft until we know more. It is the least destructive option and if nothing materializes in 6 months it gets deleted. Lightburst ( talk) 19:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:HAMMER, WP:SNOW, and WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian ( talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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