Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 November 12 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Zimbabwe Metro

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

Defunct media outlet, original author has had similar pages removed in the past through speedy deletion. No secondary sources seem to be available online Whilst there are online sources available, these seem to be only passing mentions and do not on their own prove notability Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 23:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Going defunct is not a reason delete, censor or change history. The article itself has external links to the bbc/reuters which seem online to me in the UK for starters. Secondary about published story at Global Media Journal African Edition 2013 Vol 7(2): P.184 for example. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 11:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the comment Djm-leighpark. I never suggested that a defunct media outlet on its own would not be notable - however, there are clear questions about notability here with the sourcing as its presented. Looking at the BBC and Reuters sources you mention, they are only the briefest of passing mentions which IMHO would not indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 23:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  • @ Cardiffbear88 Your nomination commented on their seeming to be no online secondary sources and it is disproved. Your allegation the article creator, who I make to be Africa Festival and who does not seem to be been informed of this AfD and who you have alleged in your nomination has had similar pages speedily deleted in the past .... Well I see User talk:Africa Festival they have had several images speedied (not similar) and also a speedy for Africa Center for Holistic Management which could only be called similar at a push. So the whole nomination seems flawed. WP:BEFORE seems inadequate. Given apparent problems for the peoples of what was the bread basket of Africa a negative attack on its media seems quite distasteful. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Djm-leighpark whoa, let’s slow down here. You seem to be accusing me on a malicious attack on a whole country’s media which could not be further from the truth. I’m simply trying to clear a backlog here of pages which were already tagged to be factually inaccurate, and in doing my research, I personally could not find any evidence for notability. Let’s take a step back and look at the evidence:
1. My original nomination was badly worded and I have now corrected it. I invite you to look again at the sources and let me know if you think they provide notability.
2. I did not notify Africa Festival because they have not made a single edit since 2009, so appear to be not using Wikipedia any more.
3. RE: Speedy Deletes, this is a genuine mistake on my part. I was referring to another page where several former Zimbabwe media pages were nominated in a short space of time because they were promotional pieces. I have corrected this above.
4. Yes there are online sources, but they still stink. They are the briefest of passing mentions and as such do not prove notability IMHO. I am a new editor and happy to be corrected through consensus.
Please to not scummer those sources ... the writers were in good faith and they are suited for WP:V. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 11:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
5. Please assume that all of this is done in good faith, as you appear to be accusing me of a malicious attack. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 10:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
It's a mess, though you should probably look at feet before you put your shoes on methinks and then your might be righteous but seems you didn't. 11:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
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) 00:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Marcus Hale

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

This person is not a notable songwriter. None of the sources in the article meet the reliability requirement, and I could not find any other sources. This article was recreated after having been deleted under A11 and G3. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 22:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 22:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All the references in the article at present are generally trivial mentions of the person having written a song, no in-depth coverage to demonstrate meeting notability guidelines. I also believe this article is incorrectly named, during the history of the page the person has been variously called "Blair Gormal" (also deleted at this location), "Phoenix Decker" and the current "Marcus Hale". The only name I can see to be correct is "Blair Gormal". FDW777 ( talk) 23:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Agree with nom. he does not show significant RS to be notable. Alex-h ( talk) 08:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is a narrow but emerging consensus that the article can (and should) be cleaned up, not deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Raven & Kreyn

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

No significant coverage. A majority of sources found only cover their songs. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Last AfD was closed with a weak no consensus on a single delete vote. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Hi JalenFolf, I agree with you about criteria 2, i couldn't find anything about national charts. However it is stated that they debuted radio broadcasting on the national french radio Fun Radio, which is one of the biggest national radios in France. There's also a video, and official content from Fun Radio linked in the sources. Still, they meet more than 1 criteria, so they don't fail WP:MUSICBIO. FlangerDude ( talk) 02:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 22:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The current version of the article has way too many unreliable sources to prop up minor events and associations with other people (see WP:CITEBOMB), but the act has achieved a small amount of notability in France and some notice in the genre press. The article should be cleaned up and reduced to verifiable facts, but that is a different process than deletion. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 20:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: not the genre of club dance music I like at all, but these guys are pretty well known in their genre of dance music and I would think it's very likely that there are features on them in the major dance music magazines... but as ever, because these are not available online, this can't be verified. Richard3120 ( talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep They count more than 100+ millions streams and have been signed by the biggest labels of the industry such as Spinnin' Records, Universal Music, Warner, Atlantic Records etc. They even made some shows on Tomorrowland (2019). I don't think there are many arguments to make this article deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.221.109.136 ( talk) 21:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Richie Stephens (actor)

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

UPE from indeffed editor. Non notable bit part actor. Does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Claim from last afd of significant parts failed to identify any. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 660. Views are split between deleting, keeping / improving and merging; this should be a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

660 in Japan

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

Page barely has any information, just who the monarch was and a single birth, only country to have one of these pages for 660. Helloimahumanbeing ( talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Helloimahumanbeing ( talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Helloimahumanbeing ( talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

*Keep, nominator has not given any valid reasons for deletion, appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, should have been discussed on the talkpage, anyway improvements made show that it is a wikinotable year in Japan. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Question? Why not have this at 660? Do we need each nation to have their own separate short article? Dream Focus 04:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete: merge (without leaving redirect) to 7th century in Japan. At such a distant date, it is rare for a national article on a single year to be warranted. The same applies to the two other annual article 684 and 646. They at least have the merit of one exactly dated event. This one has none at all. Converting it to 660s in Japan might conceivably be feasible, but even so it is unlikely to get beyond a terse stub. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect/delete to 660 or Asuka period. No reason that Year articles should automatically be kept because something happened then, we don't need 2000 years * 150 countries = 300,000 of these articles or whatever. Content can be preserved in the global article for that year or in the regional article for a longer time period. Reywas92 Talk 23:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to 660, have struck out my above "keep", as 660 article is short enough to easily accommodate all of the info about Japan (as it presently does for other regions/countries), agree with above editors that there is really no need to have a separate "660 in Japan" article. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Essentially, nobody except the nominator and one minor comment suggested the article should be deleted. The sources supplied during the debate strengthen the argument towards keeping. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Carla Denyer

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NPOL. A lot of the citations are local media describing local politics, or just passing mentions. Awards are not notable. Fails WP:GNG. There's discussion on the Talk page. Bondegezou ( talk) 20:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Probably best, as you imply, to bring the discussion here rather than continuing on the talk page. Thanks for finding that extra story too. For context, should anyone be reading, the articles that Tom Morris refers to are national coverage that I suggested might meet the general notability guideline that Denyer "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject":
But (developing a point I made on the talk page) I think these pieces in local news also meet the GNG criteria:
These sit alongside a broad range of briefer mentions in local and national media (cited in the article). So that's my case for Denyer's notability! (For now :-) ) Alarichall ( talk) 00:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The Matthew Taylor piece in The Guardian is not about Denyer: it's about Bristol's plans to go carbon neutral. If Wikipedia wants to talk about city plans to go carbon neutral, it can do that in appropriate articles if it wants to. The whole thing looks WP:NOTNEWS to me. The Fiona Harvey piece in The Guardian is not about Denyer: there is one sentence that is actually about Denyer, the rest is election coverage and can be covered on election articles. The Greg Dawson BBC News thing is not about Denyer: it's about climate emergencies and Extinction Rebellion: again, that can be covered in articles on those things. The Bristol Post article is routine election coverage that can be found for large number of candidates who fail WP:NPOL: we don't create articles for candidates. Yes, you can thread together lots of citations in which Denyer is quoted, but none of these are significant coverage of Denyer. Bristol declaring a climate emergency is somewhat noteworthy, but WP:BLP1E. Routine election coverage is covered by election articles. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks for these considered views. I look forward to picking this up properly, but just to note that WP:BLP1E is a red herring here: it applies 'If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event' (clearly not the case); 'if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual' (Denyer is clearly a public figure); 'if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented' (if you're thinking here of Bristol's climate emergency declaration, that event is significant and Denyer's role both substantial and well documented). Alarichall ( talk) 22:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
My error: I meant WP:1E. I quote, "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." Bondegezou ( talk) 22:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This individual meets GNG, even if as a local politician she would not normally meet NPOL. There are extensive sources, including significant national coverage, including the Gurpardian articles linked above. The movement that began with her efforts puts her beyond 1E as well. Montanabw (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Neither Guardian piece is about Denyer: she is mentioned in both, but I fail to see how they meet WP:GNG requirements of being significant coverage of Denyer. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:POLOUTCOMES. Another discussion led me to have a look at the WP:POLOUTCOMES section linked from WP:NPOL. This paragraph strikes me as pertinent to Denyer's article: 'Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. For example, a small-town mayor or city councillor who was the first LGBT person ever elected to office in their country, or who emerged as a significant national spokesperson for a political issue, may be considered notable on that basis. Note that this distinction may not simply be asserted or sourced to exclusively local media; to claim notability on this basis, the coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized well beyond their own local area alone.' Denyer seems a neat match for this in relation to the climate emergency declaration. Alarichall ( talk) 23:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Yves Sansoucy

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

Poorly sourced BLP of a sailboat designer, and an equally poorly sourced article about his company. They've basically been lashed together into a self-fulfilling notability loop, because the only notability claim even being attempted in either article is its topic's association with the other topic (i.e. "this company is notable because it's owned by a guy who's notable because he owns this company") — and neither article shows even the first hint of any reliable source coverage, with the only "sources" being the company's own self-published website about itself and the organizational blog for the non-notable fan club of his company's products. Which means there are no reliable or notability-making sources present in either article, and nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to get over WP:GNG and/or WP:CORPDEPTH on the sourcing. Bearcat ( talk) 19:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All I could find was a couple of trademark entries. No SIGCOV. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 20:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Does not meet notability criteria. Netherzone ( talk) 12:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Improve - Surely there is some kind of Canadian, boating, or historical interest group who this article could be passed to to identify further sources? I added this article in good faith, along with many others, during a period of interest in multihull boat research. So much of that information was hard to find, and of course hard to source. Much of the literature is offline due to its popular literature nature (local boat magazines, etc.) and pre-internet. It would be a better result to pass the article on to interested / motivated people to extend instead of just throwing it out. But throw it out if you will. I think it is such a shame that so much of Wikipedia is falling away to this sort of policy. What is the benefit? Essentially there is none. No cost to host a page and wait for an interested soul. Deletion should be a last resort. prat ( talk)
We happily host pages who meet the WP:N notability requirement. We do not host pages that do not meet the notability requirement. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
While articles can be kept and flagged for referencing improvement if better, more notability-supporting sources are demonstrated to exist to improve it with, we do not keep poorly sourced articles just because somebody speculates that maybe better sources might exist even though nobody has actually found them. You have to show hard evidence that the article is improvable, by searching for better sources and showing what you found, before improvability becomes a valid argument against deletion. Bearcat ( talk) 15:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Kevin Hutchinson

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

Biography of a make-up artist and special effects technician, neither making nor reliably sourcing any credible claim of notability. The only notability claim even being attempted here is that he had film credits, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie for film crew in the absence of reliable source media coverage about the significance of their work -- and the only source being shown here at all is his paid-inclusion death notice on legacy.com. But that's not a notability-making source in and of itself, because everybody who dies gets one of those if their own family deigns to place one. There's simply nothing stated here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have some actual media coverage about him and his work. Bearcat ( talk) 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Drive!Drive!

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

I am unable to find references that show how this group meets WP:NBAND. There is nothing charted, their releases are independent, and the coverage isn't significant. CNMall41 ( talk) 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 ( talk) 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 ( talk) 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Wrong venue. ( non-admin closure) -- Finngall talk 19:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Draft:Olivia Swann

Draft:Olivia Swann (  | [[Talk:Draft:Olivia Swann|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable sources, lead copied from the one existing source, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SINGER. Article is extremely promotional in tone TheOneWorkingAccount ( talk) 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheOneWorkingAccount ( talk) 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 07:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Rafah Nanjeba Torsa

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

I don't see any kind of notability on this subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The references for this are written on the same topic. She just won Miss World Bangladesh 2019, that doesn't mean she is notable. WP:BLP fail. Xain36 { talk} 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xain36 { talk} 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Xain36 { talk} 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 18:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The nomination has raised suspicion; the other "delete" !vote is WP:JNN, and the intended nominator has agreed to close with this result. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Akram Habib

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

Non-notable person. 113.150.100.49 ( talk) 06:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Meatsgains: Why should the article be deleted? Aren't the references enough? -- CaeserKaiser ( talk) 17:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 07:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Tiger versus lion

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

Non-encyclopaedic topic, non-encyclopaedic content – this is a more or less perfect example of what Wikipedia should not be. This nomination follows recent discussion of the page here. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Feels like a very large stretch to call this a notable topic. The bulk of the article appears to be synthesizing the comparison by using sources that cover only tigers or only lions, and then trying to put those sources on the same pedestal, which is pretty much the definition of synth. If there is a notable topic, TNT and start over with sources that specific compare and contrast the two animals. -- Masem ( t) 17:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: utterly unencyclopaedic. - Tom |  Thomas.W talk 17:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nomination is based on the shallow argument to avoid of WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. It utterly fails to address the previous nomination which took place just last year and was a clear Keep. This is therefore a disruptive nomination per WP:DELAFD which explains that it's "disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The topic has a high readership and has persisted for many years. That's because the topic is very notable and so there are numerous sources. The topic passes WP:GNG and any difficulties are just an ordinary matter of editing and dispute resolution per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment I agree with you about what you said, Andrew Davidson, particularly that it passes WP:GNG, but the way I see it now, I don't need it to be in Wiki now, because the information that's in this article now exists outside Wiki, so the deletion of this article within Wiki won't necessarily delete the information that's in the article, because like I said to another user, there's more to the Internet than what Wiki can have. Leo1pard ( talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC); edited 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
From DELAFD: "It can be disruptive" to renominate articles for deletion. Not "is" disruptive, the difference between a good-faith nomination and a bad-faith nomination. Please stay clear of making accusations of disruption - subjects do repeatedly get nominated for deletion. Acroterion (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
WP:BEFORE lists the steps which nominator should take before nominating. They include "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.". It doesn't appear that this was done as the nominator only mentions the recent ANI discussion. Likewise, there's no coherent policy-based argument for deletion; just a vague WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. It is obviously disruptive for repeat nominations to be made in such a hasty way as it wastes our time in repetition of the same issues and arguments. Fresh nominations require fresh reasoning or evidence. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Then stick to that point, and leave "disruptive" out of it. Acroterion (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I note that thankfully it's not been brought up in this nomination, but as per the previous ANI discussion, I suspect that several people are still being motivated by the lamentable attractiveness of this article for the... less competent editor demographic. Sorry, that sucks, but it's not the topic's fault that it is a magnet for fanboy wankery. We have tools to deal with that. Put in place some "Discretionary sanctions: Cat fights", if necessary... -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
DIscretionary sanctions aren't applicable to this one, not in the formal sense, and I'm not sure that anybody wants to take on the role of resident killjoy - apart from the problem with using administrative tools to effectively dictate content. I've done some blocking of obviously problematic editors, but there are limits. When I brought it up an ANI, it was primarily user conduct and OR that I was concerned with. I wasn't convinced that deletion was the answer, but some form of TNT (which can be a valid outcome of a deletion discussion if not made into a regular means of forcing change) may be useful. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I went ahead and removed the readdition to at least cut down on the bloat while this AfD is going on. I stayed out of this topic because of the situation you're describing awhile ago, but it seems like it's been getting worse and attracting more of the same with the WP:COATRACK issues. Maybe WP:TNT is the only way to stop the disruption behavior or content-wise short of ArbCom/DS. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 16:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Over 100 reliable sources listed on the article proves that the subject easily meets WP:GNG. I find this article and subject more sensible and familiar than a number of articles listed on main page right now. D4iNa4 ( talk) 02:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and cut down Part of the problem is that the name attracts misguided partisanship - we actually have editors on the talkpage accusing others of wanting to shoot all lions, and I've encountered editors in the past who have effectively adopted an "I like lions" or "tigers are the best" position and then proceeded to mess with the article and to abuse the talkpage. I think the topic, sadly, passes GNG, but it needs ruthless editing to cut out OR and hearsay sources. To get away from the whole Alien vs. Predator schtick, I'd suggest something anodyne along the lines of Tiger-lion comparison. It's a more accurate description of what the article ought to be, rather than implying that it's a running account of every time lions and tigers were pitted against each other, and which one lived through it. The present title can redirect to that. I'm not sure it will keep the morbidly curious from editing quite so enthusiastically, but it might help if we scale back the emphasis on which felid will kill the other in the title. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    I think it's at the right title. The fact that it garners attention kind of proves that. It doesn't improve the encyclopedia to move it to a less interesting title IMO. Most of the comparisons, outside of the field of biology, are about "who would win in a fight". In art, for example, it's lions and tigers fighting. In political science, it's used as a metaphor for two equally-fierce opponents. "Versus" is the most accurate preposition. But a title change and TNT should be discussed at the article's talk page and not at an AfD. Protection and blocks may be needed to quell disruption, but that's also not a matter for AfD. – Leviv ich 03:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    A title change isn't a matter for AfD... unless the title is so vague it's impossible to tell what the article's really about, because without a clear topic there's no way to evaluate sources. E Eng 08:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article seems to "pick and choose" any historical account involving lions and tigers, instead of focusing on any other animals the lions or tigers may have fought. The fact is, one could make such an article for a wide variety of animal combinations, but it doesn't make it any less WP:SYNTH. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 08:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Compared for centuries and notable. Most animal pairs aren't compared by sources, this particular pair of the two largest cats is. Eostrix ( talk) 12:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Levivich's sources clearly demonstrate the topic meets WP:N, and there's no argument presented here other than personal dislike of the article for deletion. Note it was advertised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tiger_versus_lion that this AfD would be started for reasons that amount to largely personal dislike among the editors. Wily D 12:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above, and the title should stay the same for now (per precedent of its last RM, should be changed only through an RM). ISUREDONTLIKEIT seems to guide the deletion reasoning here. When an established well-sourced page goes on the deletion block it should always be ushered off the stage quickly and handed a bus ticket home. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and split I agree that the current title leaves the article scope unclear and is a magnet for Batman vs. Ninja Turtles–type cruft. I suggest splitting down the middle: Comparison of lions and tigers for the biology material and Lion–tiger fights for the historical and cultural-depiction material. (And cutting the "opinions" material altogether.) Cheers, gnu 57 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    Seems like a great idea. E Eng 20:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    I like the split suggestion. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Oh, lordy... may I note that the recent full-on re-bloating of the article by Andrew Davidson does it absolutely no favours. (That stuff was absent until today, Genericusername57) Now it's a synthesis fest all right. There was a reason that the previous resting place of that material, when split off, was deleted at AfD. Now most of it is back like a one-year-old zombie shambling out of the basement, pretty much destroying what tenous hold this article has on staying on topic. Actions like this really make me wonder if it's worth arguing for its continued existence. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT. The article is...a jungle. Sure, it's a notable topic, but is that a reason to keep it? The article is something that is not something that should be kept in this encyclopedia because it is, at this stage at least, quite unsuitable for this project; does GNG justify unencyclopedic articles? | abequinn fourteen 21:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/TNT Absurd amount of synthesis here. The entire Physical and behavioral comparison section needs to go. Just because you can juxtapose a citation about male lions being X size, a citation about female lions being Y size, a citation about male tigers being Z size, and a citation about female tigers being Q size does not mean this is a notable topic. I could imagine an article discussing lions and tigers living or fighting together, but such disconnected content merely makes this a WP:REFBOMB: the sources refer to each cat individually or with respect to the rest of the big cats too. Elephants and rhinoceroses both have ivory and thick skin, but just because you could make detailed comparisons between their sizes and behaviors does not mean it's an encyclopedic topic. Or hell, just makes List of felids ten times bigger because we can compare tigers and leopards or lions and cheetahs too (that's what many of the sources do)! A rename to perhaps Interaction between lions and tigers could work, but not the current state. As the AFD mentioned by Elmidae says, the physical comparison would be "a very limited merger" so Andrew D's addition of the entire thing here is inappropriate. Reywas92 Talk 22:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
You're not right about Andrew D, as you're ignoring the references that do compare the 2 (which is WP:IDONTLIKEIT), but anyways, I said what I said above. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Actually I am right that the AFD closed to be "a very limited merger", and I am right that the majority of the sources there are either about only one of the animals or discuss several big cats together. Yes there are some references that are about the two, but they do not warrant such a detailed, out-of-proportion section. It's not that hard to read Tiger#Characteristics and Lion#Description, this is absurd. Reywas92 Talk 17:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
138 references divided by 2 is 69, anything less than that cannot constitute a "majority", and anything more than that cannot amount to "some". Did you really go through all of the references before saying "majority of the sources there are either about only one of the animals or discuss several big cats together" or "there are some references that are about the two"? Leo1pard ( talk) 07:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
WP:TNT is very valid in this case despite those saying mistakenly saying AfD shouldn't be used for cleanup. That doesn't look apt to happen right now though. One thing AfD can do to try to clean things up is change the title away from an unencyclopedic title of tiger vs. lion. That would help the scope and maybe stop some coatracking. Per previous AfD conversation, the physical comparison part (or what tends to happen is the article is a section about what lions look like, and one about tigers) is most subject to coatracking and should be very limited, so maybe that name change would help focus things. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
May I ask what is the point of saying that you "served time in prison for manslaughter"? Another user here could have a tough mindset that allowed him / her to confront even those senior to himself / herself. Leo1pard ( talk) 07:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
EEng is just joking around with me for making a pun. He gets a little jealous sometimes when my puns are better than his. Once, EEng made a pun that was so bad, an administrator actually blocked him for it. True story. The block was quickly overturned on appeal (I think because it was deemed to be a punitive block.) Anyway, serving time in prison for manslaughter just means EEng wasn't very good at it and got caught and convincted. I, on the other hand, have never served time in prison for kidnapping or torture. Your underlying point is entirely valid, of course: I am tough, and EEng is senior. – Leviv ich 19:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Pun-ative block. Gotta remember that. E Eng 19:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
It is nice to see this discussion is being treated with all the seriousness it deserves. -- JBL ( talk) 22:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I did my homework and posted my serious contributions right at the beginning. Then I moved onto puns. Next, lolcat pictures. – Leviv ich 22:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Tone on the internet is difficult to judge, so to be clear: my previous comment is entirely in earnest, and is not meant to criticize or chastise anyone. -- JBL ( talk) 23:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Vivekanand Palavali

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a surgeon, author and filmmaker, not referenced to any hint of reliable source media coverage to verify that he has a credible notability claim at all. The attempted notability claims here are that he won an internal staff award from his own employer and that he's made films that have won unspecified film awards, but there's not a single reference supporting any of those claims -- there's just a bunch of his own self-publised primary sources getting linkfarmed under external links, which is not evidence of notability. Merely saying that somebody won just any random award that exists is not a free pass over WP:ANYBIO — some awards count as notability claims and some awards do not, so making a person notable for awards requires both (a) naming the award, and (b) supporting the claim with a reliable media source to demonstrate that the award itself is significant enough to make its winners notable for winning it. And otherwise, this is written more like somebody tried to convert his résumé into prose than like a proper encyclopedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 16:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 16:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 16:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 16:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject passes WP:GEOFEAT. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 22:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Ilsenburg Factory

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

No evidence of notability. A Google search yields little more info than its existence and age; nothing describes it in detail. As none of the article's details can be substantiated, I recommend deletion as non-notable. ComplexRational ( talk) 15:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational ( talk) 15:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 15:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The present article is a translation of the equivalent de.wikipedia article which I have now linked. I also added a couple of references, though I agree with the nominator that these do little more than confirm the age of the building. My "keep" opinion rests on its designation as a cultural monument (see [45]), though I am unfamiliar with the process for designating historic buildings in Germany so would be ok about changing that opinion if someone shows this to be a trivial status. AllyD ( talk) 16:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Heritage-listed building. It is true that Sachsen-Anhalt seems to list a lot of buildings (as can be seen from the large number in this small town alone) and I wouldn't advocate writing an article on every single listed house, but significant standalone buildings like this one are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. I agree with Necrothesp above. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 00:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above discussion. NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 19:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Why Is Yellow the Middle of the Rainbow?

Why Is Yellow the Middle of the Rainbow? (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can find no professional reviews or reliable media coverage about this film. Note that the present footnote #1 is about the real-life events that inspired the film, and some of the others are about festivals at which the film was played but with no precise commentary on the film itself. All that can be found otherwise are the typical retail listings and IMDB-like directories. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The film has been discussed at length in scholarly articles such as Christopher Pavsek's "Kidlat Tahimik's 'Third World Projector'" (2013) and Patrick Campos' "Kidlat Tahimik and the Determination of a Native Filmmaker" (2015), with both authors regarding it as Tahimik's greatest work. Pavsek emphasized Kidlat's unique mode-of-production for the film ("cups of gas" filmmaking) and the spaces depicted in it in how they indicate Tahimik's perspective, while Campos honed in on its central themes of independence, identity, and what "third world" means, along with Tahimik's eventual focus on Ifugao culture being an actualization of his own cinema (the achievable freedom from neocolonialism). LionFosset ( talk) 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Found more reliable sources (BFI, Harvard Film Archive, TIFF & Time Out) Espngeek ( talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from Nominator - I must point out the " there must be sources" fallacy. The first commenter (LionFosset) listed professional journal articles but is wrong about "discussed at length." The first by Pavsek analyzes three other films by the same filmmaker, and the second by Campos only mentions this film once as an example of the filmmaker's work. So those sources are valid for the Kidlat Tahimik article but do little for this film article. Meanwhile, the second commenter (Espngeek) has added a new source that is also about the filmmaker and not the film, and added some sources that are about the festivals at which the film was played but again are not about the film itself. As the nominator I am willing to improve the film's article in light of sources that I may have missed at the time, but the folks in this discussion have only provided evidence of festival appearances and discussion of the filmmaker's larger career. There are sources that can improve Kidlat Tahimik but this particular film is the item of discussion here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for the advice, DOOMSDAYER520, though Campos mentioning the film "once" is a bit of a stretch, as he does focus on the film in his article (but yes, as an example of his cinema). Maybe you searched for "Why Is Yellow...", even though Campos refers to it more as "Bakit Dilaw" or "Bakit Yellow". LionFosset ( talk) 14:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 15:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I stumbled upon on this film (well, the director actually) mentioned in a book but sadly I forgot about the title and it was also a public library that I read during 2011. Was it written by his German wife? I am not so sure now so not much to contribute here though. — Allenjambalaya ( talk) 12:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Cairokee. Standard practice to redirect non-notable albums to the artist. No prejudice against restoration as an article if sources are located. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

El Sekka Shemal

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

Album fails WP:NALBUM Ceethekreator ( talk) 10:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 10:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 10:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  雲 水 15:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Turkvision Song Contest 2019

Turkvision Song Contest 2019 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly this contest is not going to happen. The last edition took place in 2015 and the 2016 edition was 'postponed' and ever since this article has been renamed the following year. We now are four years since the last contest. There are no sources more recent than 2017 talking about this competition. There is no indication anywhere that the Turkvision Song Contest will ever re-emerge. So it is time to delete this article. Takk ( talk) 10:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

John Davenport (actor)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: The two current references are a directory entry and an award listing. The award doesn't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for new sources and found no significant coverage in reliable sources, only a namedrop in a book about pornography [47], plus brief pornographic film reviews/advertisements in the Bay Area Reporter [48] [49] [50] and an adult magazine [51]. (This is mainly trivial coverage along the lines of "Davenport appears in a scene".) Cheers, gnu 57 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Servilia (mother of Brutus)#Television and film. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Servilia of the Junii

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

Non-notable topic. One primary source and OR. TTN ( talk) 14:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 14:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 14:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

HiVOLT

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

This is a non-notable highly speculative proposal of dubious credibility. All sources are now deadlinks with the exception of http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/751746/posts which is nothing more than an internet forum. Cheers, Polyamorph ( talk) 14:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 14:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 14:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

W!Games

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

Unnotable, now-defunct company. There are a few sources concerning the company (as seen in the present state of the article, and probably many duplicates of news items on other websites) but no substantial coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV exists. The topic also fails WP:NCORP. Lordtobi ( ✉) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi ( ✉) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi ( ✉) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Vanguard Games

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

Unnotable, now-defunct company. There are a few sources concerning the company (as seen in the present state of the article, and probably many duplicates of news items on other websites) but no substantial coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV exists. The topic also fails WP:NCORP. Lordtobi ( ✉) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi ( ✉) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi ( ✉) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 07:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Anna Darius Ishaku

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

Fails WP:GNG and no provision for inclusion in Wikipedia for spouse of elected persons in WP:POLITICIAN. Just being the wife of a notable politician does not establish notability. Since the husband of the said person has a Wikipedia article here, it should be included in the article and there's no need creating a separate article for her. NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment. She is not simply the spouse of someone who has a Wikipedia article, She is highly educated and is the founder and CEO of a NGO. IMHO, the focus should be if her work there is wiki worthy. I am not familiar enough with the subject to have an opinion on keep or delete but I strongly feel the discussion should focus on her accomplishments regardless of who her spouse is. Postcard Cathy ( talk) 12:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment. Anna Darius Ishaku is not just a wife of a notable politician, she is notable in her own lane as she is the founder of a Non-governmental organization "Hope Afresh Foundation", which is widely recognized in Nigeria. She is also a well educated Barrister and a member of the Nigerian Bar Association, and has held few appointments on her own even before becoming the wife of a governor, among which are; Solicitor-General and Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice Kaduna State, Chancellor of Anglican Diocese Kaduna State. I will plead with you to kindly check her work "Hope Afresh Foundation" to see more insights on the discussed person.

Moshswacide ( talk) 18:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Moshswacide, Hope Afresh Foundation is a pure Taraba State government initiative and not necessarily the initiative of the governor's wife. It was created and operated from the Governor's wife office as soon as the tenure of the Governor started, as seen in 1 and 2. Until you convince me otherwise that she's really a notable figure, I don't find her passing either WP:GNG or WP:BIO just yet. NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 21:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply


Nnadigoodluck, Hope Afresh Foundation is not a Taraba State government initiative but purely her initiative. In Nigeria, a governor and his family are under the state government, as seen here 1. I will refer you to the foundation official website here 2. You will notice that everything on her here begins with Barr. Anna Darius Ishaku and not as the wife of the governor. And again here 3, as a Non-governmental organization, support from any legit source is acceptable, so any government can as well support the foundation. Even Toyin Saraki's foundation was financial supported by Kwara State government when her husband Bukola Saraki was the governor. My point is, this is a foundation founded by Anna Darius Ishaku, not by Taraba State government and this foundation will not stop functioning even at the end of this government.

Kind regards. Moshswacide ( talk) 15:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply


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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Rashid Khan (Nepali cricketer)

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

Cricket player who fails WP:NCRIC having played no major matches and no sigcov to pass WP:GNG Spike 'em ( talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em ( talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em ( talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em ( talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

(Comment copied from talk page) This is a T20 match that he recently played against the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), and I believe it is a notable enough senior T20 match. [52] Sadbhav Adhikari ( talk) 12:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

This match is a friendly, and has not been awarded full T20 status, so does not meet the requirements at WP:NCRIC. The fuller explanation at WP:CRIN says or in any senior domestic competition or match Spike 'em ( talk) 13:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:FILMMAKER. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 22:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Bader Alhomoud

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

Was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bader Alhomoud. Toghrul Rahimli ( talk) 11:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toghrul Rahimli ( talk) 11:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toghrul Rahimli ( talk) 11:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Besides other sources of the article, I found Arabic sources about his films and awards but these 3 sources are directly talking about subject as a film director; [53], [54], [55]. Subject meets WP:FILMMAKER. صدیق صبري ( talk) 11:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete This article has been deleted before. Now it has being re-created it still does not show that the subject of the article has been significantly discussed in reliable press, a WP:BEFORE shows subject fails basic WP:GNG woefully. Celestina007 ( talk) 00:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Since the article was deleted one time in past, it's Not a reliable reason to delete this time! Because last time may be creator of that article, didn't provide reliable sources or enough content or the article was short and many other reasons. But this article was written about a award-winning film director that if you check the sources you perceive context is supported by solid sources in English and too many sources in Arabic. For film directors, awards and festivals are notable events in their professional career. In this case you can see awards and entries to film festivals. In my idea subject clearly passes WP:FILMMAKER. Mousafaeq ( talk) 09:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ferns N Petals. After a re-list, no desire to Keep, and a consensus to Redirect to Ferns N Petals (non-admin closure) Britishfinance ( talk) 19:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Vikaas Gutgutia

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

This page has been tagged since 2015 for COI and notability issues. The article was created by the BLP (per username). I do not believe this person is independently notable or passes WP:GNG. I think it should be merged with Ferns N Petals. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) IntoThinAir ( talk) 22:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Peder Mortensen

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

No evidence of notability. Three refs are simply genealogical sites which show that he existed but not that he was notable. The article also appears to conflate two people of the same name, one who was working in 1974 and one who died in 1866. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   10:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions.   Velella   Velella Talk   10:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.   Velella   Velella Talk   10:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I think the English-language equivalent of adjungeret professor is more honorary professor than adjunct professor. –  Joe ( talk) 11:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 11:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

List of diagnoses from House (TV series)

List of diagnoses from House (TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the most part, this list could also be named List of episode resolutions of House (TV series), and it appears to be a strange mix of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTPLOT. We don't keep lists for CSI-like resolutions (Who was the murderer?), and I fail to see how House is different. – sgeureka t• c 09:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) – sgeureka t• c 09:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t• c 09:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Konstantin Baranov (footballer)

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

Considering that the RPFL is now not a WP:FPL based league, this mean that this player is now not notable due to that reason.

I will also add these players due to the new system.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 07:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 07:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 07:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete they still could be notable per WP:GNG, but we're nowhere close in all three instances. SportingFlyer T· C 10:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Wait, I thought we agreed the third division wasn't fully pro, not the second division. Some of these players have played in the national second division, which I think would count toward WP:NFOOTY as the Russian leagues do receive some pretty comprehensive coverage? SportingFlyer T· C 10:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment I checked it and all three do indeed have only played in the third tier of Russian football. I did have two other players on the list that survive due to playing in the tier above. HawkAussie ( talk) 01:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Upon further investigation (and a check of a Russian-language stats site) you are correct - delete. I thought Khabibullin had played in the second division, but the team he played for wasn't in the second league at that time. SportingFlyer T· C 01:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Guest host

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

This article was tagged for not citing any sources back in January 2009. If much-needed sources are added while avoiding the article becoming a pure WP:FANCRUFT & WP:JUNK article for several TV and radio programs, could the article avoid being deleted? Or would deletion either through the normal process or even going nuclear with WP:SPEEDY be right for this article? Pahiy ( talk) 03:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 04:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 04:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 04:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No support for deletion, though it needs improvement so have added tag for BLP references. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Jacqueline King

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

This article feels more like a resume and not a Wikipedia article, As I said with Mary Scheer’s article, if deletion is not an option, I want to see solid evidence this article meets WP:NACTOR or even possibly WP:BLOWITUP and start fresh from there. Pahiy ( talk) 02:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The trend of the discussion is Keep, but some indication of sources to support notability would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 04:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 23:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Night King

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

So... what makes this fictional character notable? Sure, GoT was very popular those last few years, but its characters still have to pass WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. And there is very little about this one out there. Few mentions in passing, a good amount of episode summaries he appears in/fictional characters bios, but... I don't think that's enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep There are a huge amount of online news articles about the Night King. Granted, a lot of it is just paraphrasing various interviews or speculation, but they are in reliable sources, showing it's a character of note and there are not just a "few mentions in passing". As a primary villain of the show, he seems like a strange choice to choose to delete first. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easy keep. The character was the main protagonist in the series and as such appeared throughout the nearly decade long series. And there is SIGCOV. We keep these articles because they are a net positive for our readers. Lightburst ( talk) 15:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect based on current sourcing provided in the article. It currently doesn't establish notability, and the assertion that sources exist is currently unproven. TTN ( talk) 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Sherrard Harrington

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

This seems to fail both WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:PROMO, and WP:GNG. He never even appeared in a game for Colorado due to injury as far as I can tell (searched sports-reference.com) and there's only one article on his business career I would categorise as non-promotional. It feels as if this article was created to highlight his (unfortunately, due to injuries) non-existent college career in order to promote the business side. SportingFlyer T· C 03:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I understand that as a creator of the page, I probably have less weight in this discussion. Nevertheless, I’d like to mention a few important (in my humble opinion) things:

1) The former player appears on the Wikipedia page of his team as a defensive player because he had played a few games and had been a significant player before he was hurt: /info/en/?search=2011_Colorado_Buffaloes_football_team

2) The nature of the sportspeople biographies indicates that their achievements are mostly mentioned during the description of the games along with the other players, which means they are mostly “mentioned”. This is exactly the reason why I found so many links but only 3-4 comprehensive articles.

3) Yet, Harrington still has for at least 2 comprehensive stories where he is told about in detail: https://www.denverpost.com/2013/07/19/former-cu-cornerback-and-current-student-moves-from-field-to-boardroom/ https://www.dailycamera.com/2012/08/13/football-cu-buffs-harrington-working-his-way-back/

I believe that it is possible to find 2-3 more sources in detail and I can try to do so.

4) Regarding promotional info: I haven’t found anything in particular but if you indicate what is promotional, I’m ready to remove it.

5) Generally speaking, I propose to cut and make this article “a stub” (if possible) and leave the most relevant references. If it becomes a stub, I’m ready to work on the article and improve it according to the reviewers suggestions in the coming 3-4 months. I just need more time for it as I have many other things to do in my life. This person’s career seems to be dynamic and evolving and to leave it is as “a stub” is probably a more constructive way to deal with it than to completely eliminating the page. Overall, I’m a rather new user here and these things discourage to do anything else after so much work.-- Rosinant de Lamancha ( talk) 20:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Response - 1. He appears on the page because that is a list of everyone on the roster.
See WP:NCOLLATH
2 - this is the reason the individual needs significant coverage, as just being on the team does not indicate notability.
3 - I don't see multiple published, just the two and they seem more like fluff feel good local hero type and not significant coverage.
4 - I would need to re-read the article to determine if and where promotional is, and I don't want to do that right now so I won't be adding anything to that.
5 - I don't agree with making it a stub, as the individual does not seem to be notable based on Wikipedia's requirements so a stub would be inappropriate. VViking Talk Edits 20:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply


  • Keep. I found two sources that are good (Denver Post and Daily Camera) and I agree that many sportsmen are mentioned during the games and less likely to have more comprehensive articles. It is the same with scientists or prominent doctors who can have a lot of publications but rarely get a comprehensive article.

I think that this article deserves to stay as a stub under condition that someone improves it. We have many stubs on Wikipedia with one source or even with no sources at all, yet they exist as stubs and can be expanded in the future. Deleting is always easier than creating but it is not always the best way to deal with new articles on Wikipedia. Vlahorba ( talk) 02:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Institute for Sustainable Energy

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

This subject does not appear to be notable. Also, many different universities host similar organisations that have the same name. ― Susmuffin  Talk 03:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Tone 07:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Amaunator

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

Fails WP:NFICTION/ WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. Might consider soft delete by redirecting to List of human deities in Dungeons & Dragons. It does have a reception here, so I am skipping prod stage, might as well make sure we have a consensus for any action here. Being listed on a kotaku list of 'strange D&D deities' is IMHO not sufficient to keeping this as a stand-alone articles, but perhaps some will feel different. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article in its current form is a WP:POVFORK of the Satanic ritual abuse article. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Ritual Violence

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

This article appears to be a POV-fork of Satanic ritual abuse, and the sources are mostly pushing a fringe viewpoint centered on discredited theories about repressed memories. I've found some passing mentions of the term " ritual violence" in anthropology, but I can't find enough material to assemble a decent stub. If that exists then that would be the logical basis for an article under this title. Nblund talk 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Can you find good sources for other forms? It's possible that Satanic ritual abuse may need to be extended to cover other alleged forms of ritualized abuse, but claims of widespread ritual child abuse — Satanic or otherwise — are generally not considered credible. So what we have here is a standalone article discussing a minor variant on an urban myth. Nblund talk 18:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I am not sure that the credibility argument convinces me. We are not talking about facts, but what people believe. Also We are not only talking about children, as the Report of the Ritual Abuse Task Force Los Angeles County Commission for Women source makes clear. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
You mean "ritual abuse and mind control", which was produced by a group whose members later claimed to have been poisoned by Satanists? I don't think that should be cited, especially since the host url appears to be on the spam blacklist. The claims in that report are not substantially distinct from what we've already covered at the other article. We need credible sources that discuss this as a discrete claim.
Speaking of pov-forks, it looks like the main reason this page is titled Ritual Violence rather than Ritual abuse is that that redirect was indefinitely EC-protected to prevent... POV forks just like this one. Nblund talk 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Try this [ [71]] or this [ [72]], now it may well be cult rather than Satanic. But that then means we need to rename the other article before adding any material not about satanism. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Are you presenting these as reliable sources? The SRA article already explains this: some advocates tried rebrand the idea using alternative terms like "sadistic ritual abuse", "ritual abuse" etc. but ( as Mary de Young explains here) they were all essentially the same claims from the same groups under reworked titles. I don't see what more there is to say if you can't find sources that discuss this as a distinct phenomenon. Nblund talk 19:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
No I am saying I am seeing enough to tell me this may in fact be a separate subject, that not all ritual, abuse is satanic. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
What you're proposing sounds like an argument for renaming Satanic ritual abuse to something broader. If we want to have a separate article on non-Satanic ritual violence, we need to provide reliable sources that discuss it as a distinct phenomenon. If those don't exist, then how are we supposed to have an article? Nblund talk 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I think I said explicilty that any merge must bbe based on the premise that the page is renamed. Slatersteven ( talk) 20:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Tone 07:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Ilmater

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

Fails WP:NFICTION/ WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. Might consider soft delete by redirecting to List of human deities in Dungeons & Dragons. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of recurring Futurama characters. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Zapp Brannigan

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

No indication this fictional character passes WP:NFICTION/ WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE reveals only mentions in passing and summaries of fictional character biography. The closest sources get to discussing his real world significance is a sentence or so in the vein 'a parody of Star Trek character'. That is not sufficient to warrant an independent article. Referenced content could be merged to List of Futurama characters, but let's face it, https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Zapp_Brannigan is already better and any reader is better served going there than to our article/list anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Josh Christopher

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

Obviously meets neither WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 TT me 12:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 18:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 02:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Anti-nationalism

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

It is unclear that there are any reliable sources that discuss "anti-nationalism" as a general phenomenon beyond particular contexts. Therefore it is far from clear that the term "anti-nationalism" or "anti-nationalist" is being used to designate the same phenomenon -- or even a closely related set of phenomena - when it is being applied. Such ambiguity would be quite acceptable if there were reliable sources that discussed the nature of the construct, and the degree to which generalizations about it can be made. But when no such reliable sources exist, the mere existence of the article seems to be a standing invitation to engage in WP:SYNTH. The lack of RS's about the nature of the construct also renders the list of notable people who are all supposedly anti-nationalist virtually meaningless, except that each may have said something critical about nationalism in some sort of context, however circumscribed or minor, that once upon a time made someone describe them as "anti-nationalist". Pretending that Wikipedia can meaningfully put these people into a single category -- when we appear to lack the needed reliable sources -- would seem to be a standing invitation to engage in WP:SYNTH, if not an actual example of WP:SYNTH. Presearch ( talk) 19:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Yes, it's a synth, in practice a concept without an extension irl that has survived as an article to this point. There is ofc opposition to nationalism and to the nation state and most of that will fall under international socialism but there are other currents, pan arabism, various religions, etc.. Additionally the article is justly tagged for being low quality. If it has any salvagable content merge to Bourgeois nationalism as criticism/opposition is suggested. 98.4.103.219 ( talk) 04:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 02:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I think the IP's suggestion about potential mergers makes sense. If no one steps forward to defend the existence of this article in another week or two, then I anticipate that I'll do whatever merger looks sensible, and then put in a request for deletion. -- Presearch ( talk) 05:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Euthanasia device. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Suicide booth

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

This survived two AfDs 10 years ago when Google hits were sufficient. It is a mostly unreferenced list of this device appearances in various media (sometimes under different names). Real world discussion of it is rather sparse.A few mentions in passing. One recent book has a short chapter entitled 'suicide booth' but having read it I am afraid it is not an in-depth coverage of this; it is mostly focused on philosophy and just mentions Futurama's suicide's booth in passing as an example (and uses it for a 'cool' title). I see nothing else out there except few mentions in passing, and short descriptions mostly limited to lists of Futurama's gadgets. Perhaps a few referenced sentences could be merged to Euthanasia device where a section 'in popular culture' could be created, and it could be then soft deleted and redirected? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Lea Sunshine

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

She doesn't appear notable outside of appearing on Lil' Flip's song "Sunshine"; and it doesn't seem right to redirect the article to the song's article or to Flip's article. And the only apparent solo single she released doesn't appear to have charted anywhere. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rationale: The !votes to keep the article are greater both in number and strength; one editor suggested a merge, which gained insufficient traction for consensus, and the only voice calling for deletion other than the nominator did so unconvincingly. (non-admin closure) —— SN 54129 12:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism

Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant and insufficiently notable. We already have an article called Swami Vivekananda at the Parliament of the World's Religions (1893). Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That is not sufficient for a notable event. The subject doesn't meet WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE. Though the Swami's contributions to the parliament as a whole may have some impact beyond India, I don't see this particular speech as having any such international impact, let alone a lasting international impact. All i see is a clear case of blatant WP:SOAPBOXING. Though I have already removed some unsourced content in the article, the problems remains that the subject is misleading in that it claims importance for merely a particular lecture given on one particular conference, with the only evidence of impact being four words in a Bengali scholar's book published by a religious organisation.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Expanded.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment coverage in multiple books Only two of which are secondary, reliable sources, that is, King 2013 and Amore 1979. The rest of the references used in the article are all primary.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge as above. Has at least 2 decent academic RS, & gets an avge 11 views a day, which isn't bad for a lecture from 1897, so I don't agree with the nom (which was foolish not to mention a merge). Johnbod ( talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't much mind. But there's a decent case for a merge rather than keep, and no case for a straight delete. Johnbod ( talk) 22:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Johnbod, then would you mind changing your vote to merge? Thanks.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Yes, I would. Johnbod ( talk) 11:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this article as Swami Vivekananda was one of the most famous spiritual leader/poet of India, and one of the greatest historical figures of the 20th century. This talk was one of the most historical event for the Indian diaspora, as the first person of Indian origin making a religious discourse in the US, let alone outside of India. However, I would suggest improving the article instead to articulate better for readers and users. Additionally, references or links could be included. Hari147 ( talk) 15:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this article. The premise is false. Make another page for tthe Swami. The title has it backward. Buddhism predates Hinduism. Buddha lived some 4,600 years ago, probably in the Indus Valley where a civilization arose which traded with the Sumerians across the western mountains. Hindu arose a few hundred years later, about 4,300 years ago. Hpfeil ( talk) 03:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Whether his arguments in the lecture are correct is not at all relevant. And all modern historians use dates different to those by 2,000 years or so. Johnbod ( talk) 05:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Sarang

Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Sarang (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) ( talk) 17:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. University-level institutions are usually notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Degree-awarding tertiary institution. When I see these institutions listed for deletion, my rule of thumb is always: would a similar institution in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, etc, ever be likely to be deleted? If the answer is no, then I do not think there is good reason for deletion (see WP:SYSTEMIC). That is, I think, the case here and indeed the case with pretty much every accredited degree-awarding institution around the world. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I added text and a reference to indicate that this Institute attained autonomous status in 2017. There is also recent news coverage concerning on-campus conflict [79] and concerns over performance [80], [81], but my opinion relies more on the UGC classification. AllyD ( talk) 07:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Pretenders (Transformers)

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

Non-notable toy line/fictional race/character list. There are some reception bits about one particular character, but that seems covered by Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Regardless, it doesn't help with the general topic of this fictional race. TTN ( talk) 01:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 01:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 01:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 01:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Transformers: Robot Masters

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

Non-notable toy line TTN ( talk) 01:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 01:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 01:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 01:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per criterion WP:G5: created by a banned paid editing operation. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Ronald E. Stewart

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

Notability concerns. No independent references, and WP:NSOLDIER is not met. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nominator fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 13:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

WTSD-CA

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

Cheers! Central Time 301 01:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cheers! Central Time 301 01:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Tyler Hill Camp

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

Non-notable summer camp with no reliable sources. The article also fails WP:NPOV. AmericanAir88( talk) 00:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 00:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Source 1: Directory
  • Source 2: Trivial source about prices of camp (it is about how expensive camps are)
  • Source 3: Not even for the camp, its a city description
  • Source 4: SPS Directory
  • Source 5: Local news with no indication of notability for the article
  • Source 6: A former sports player visited the camp which is a common occurrence); I knew people who had Celebrities, Sports Players, and even government executives come to their schools, hospitals, and other locations. This does not indicate notability.
  • Source 7: A review site for a multi-purpose building. Any place can be a wedding venue from hotels, local parks, beaches, etc.
  • Source 8: Primary source.
In conclusion, none of these sources pass the WP:ORG policy. They are trivial and non-encyclopedic. AmericanAir88( talk) 01:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Lightburst, according to the policy you cited the article needs suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article which the camp does not have. AmericanAir88( talk) 18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Dragonlance deities. Tone 07:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Paladine

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

One of two surviving Dragonlance deities that didn't yet get merged to List of Dragonlance deities. This one has a reference to a Tolkien work, but as far as I can tell it's not an in-depth analysis. Still, figure it may be worth discussing this here, through I expect that merge and redirect is the only viable outcome given that there pretty much no in-depth sources, so this fails WP:GNG/ WP:NFICTION. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Diversity of views but a lean to a Redirect or Merge to List of Dragonlance deities; try a re-list to get a final consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance ( talk) 00:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

David Poltorak

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

Not well-known. The article was created in 2005 and the last update that came an actual user and not a bot was in 2017. Don't know if any of the material would be salvageable for the Australian Sale Of The Century article. Pahiy ( talk) 19:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As a Sale of the Century (Australian game show) winner and a question/script writer he has coverage spanning over a decade. Articles such as Oliver, Robin (30 September 1991), "QUIZ CHAMP SOLD ON SALE", Sydney Morning Herald and Cockington, James (17 June 1996), "Sold On The Sale", Sydney Morning Herald and Nicholson, Sarah (27 October 2005), "Master knows best", The Courier-Mail focus primarily on him. He was also before Sale a script writer, co writing the notable film Emoh Ruo. duffbeerforme ( talk) 20:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Duffbeerforme and Utopes. Bookscale ( talk) 11:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete winning a game show does not make one notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. Winning a game show doesn't make him notable. It's possible his work as a screenwriter does make hims notable, but the article does not discuss this work and therefore lacks a proper assertion of notability. Unless someone wants to rescue it by adding content, best to delete per WP:TNT. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - I'll repeat my comment above - have you read Duffbeerforme's comment? There are sources (on his scriptwriting) that exist and there are sources spanning a decade, the fact that they are not on the article (yet) does not make him not notable, notability is determined outside of the state of an article. It gets really frustrating sometimes when editors don't read other peoples' comments and misunderstand GNG. Bookscale ( talk) 10:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I did, and did you read mine? This article could be speedy deleted because it lacks a credible assertion of notability in the text of the live article. We only keep articles where there is a credible text in the live article asserting notability. That text can be unreferenced, but it needs to be there. In other words its not a sourcing issue, but a much more basic issue of notability assertion. 4meter4 ( talk) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - It's complete nonsense that the article could be speedy deleted - how does it meet any of the relevant criteria, it quite clearly does not. Notability is not dependent on the status of the article (and whether the sources are there), it's dependent on there being sources at all (which there are). Bookscale ( talk) 11:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 13:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Borderline case that has gone cold since re-list; try one more re-list to see if anything else emerges
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance ( talk) 00:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on my keep. I guess I might not have fully elaborated on my vote. See Category:Game show contestants. Poltorak has a record winning streak for the Australian game show Sale, and held the record for the most money earned on a game show for that time in 1992, says the article and [82]. Now, there are 209 articles about game show contestants, and not all of them have one. IF somebody feels obligated to mass AfD these, go ahead. The presence of other similar articles is not my rationale for keeping mind anybody, but just a point to show that there are many articles about game show contestants that have been left alone. The problem here is that there are no set guidelines for "what makes a game show contestant" notable as far as I'm aware. The nearest solution is WP:ENT. Regardless, this person is a known contestant on a game show who has set various records for said show and earned a large amount of winnings. Utopes ( talk) 05:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - @Utopes and they have notability as a script writer as well. Bookscale ( talk) 10:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete this article, and more of a lean towards keeping it, after much-extended time for discussion. Neither BLP concerns nor disruptive editing are concerns of weight to the question of encyclopedic notability. If disruption persists, the article may be edit-protected. BD2412 T 19:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Science of Identity Foundation

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), because it has not been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Apparently it was active with 20 or so members in the 1970s, and has been mentioned in passing several times in news media. There are insufficient reliable sources to write an informative and neutral article. TFD ( talk) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Meets WP:N due to numerous secondary sources. The article is still a stub and we are in the process of building it out (as noted in early-October AfD attempt). No RS suggests "20 or so members" in the 1970s; on the contrary, RS suggest 1000+ members at that time, including notable politicians in the 1980s. Other WP articles reference this article. Samp4ngeles ( talk) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Samp4ngelesCan you point to a single article in a reliable secondary source about the foundation or any source that says they had 1,000 members? TFD ( talk) 05:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
What was your own source for claiming (in the deletion rationale) that it was only "active with 20 or so members in the 1970s", and for implying that this was the maximum of its extension? And doesn't the article already cite a source claiming they had 1,000 members? Regards, HaeB ( talk) 07:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
It was just a response to TFD's unsubstantiated claim that the organization consisted of 20 or so members. As you have pointed out, that claims is refuted by multiple RS. In any case, a focus on the exact number of followers is a bit misguided given other notability. Samp4ngeles ( talk) 13:02, 4 November 2019
I was relying on a source used in the article, "About 20 straggly haired young people between 18 and perhaps 22 live in an old, green quonset hut." ("one man rules Haiku Krishnaites," The Honolulu Advertiser. 28 Jul 1970.) There are no other reliable sources that provide any indication of its membership. TFD ( talk) 19:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The Haiku Krishnaites and article you are referring to describe the very early days of Butler's following -- seven years before he even founded the Science of Identity Foundation. "Older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light" ( WP:AGE MATTERS), and Butler spent the last 40 years building the SIF. RS in the late 1970s and 1980s, through present day, suggest a much bigger and global network. Samp4ngeles ( talk) 02:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply
TFD, I'm more and more confused by your argumentation here. Didn't you earlier argue yourself - eloquently and correctly - that a source published in 1970 can't be used for statement about a group founded in 1977? And contrary to what is implied by your above comment, the article currently cites a RS for the statement "In 1977, Butler estimated the group had 1,000 devotees throughout the world". If your argument is that you disagree with the RS in giving credence to that estimate, then state that directly. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 14:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
As noted above, the nomination is based on a misleading claim about the organization's size, which also makes one wonder about the accuracy of its assertion that the coverage in the state's largest and (previously) second-largest newpapers - repeatedly over several decades - which is cited in the current article revision was only "in passing". TFD, have you actually verified that for all these offline/paywalled citations before making that claim? Regards, HaeB ( talk) 07:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
PS: Also, several paragraphs in New York Magazine ( 2019). Regards, HaeB ( talk) 08:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Saw this referenced in a Tulsi Gabbard RfC, which suggests to me that an AfD may be premature. Sourcing is not great. I suggest keeping it for now. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is being misused to perpetuate political and other disputes in violation of WP:BLPCOI. The material herein that is compliant with WP:BLP is already covered in ISKCON guru system#Siddhaswarupa. There will be no loss if this separate SIF article — which has been a magnet for defamation and dispute propagation — is deleted.
Sources including NYT [1] and Hawaii Civil Beat [2] have noted a concerted effort by a small group who seek to generate negative viral media attention to harm Chris Butler (founder of the SIF) and others who can be associated with the SIF (in particular, Mike Gabbard and Tulsi Gabbard).
The interlinked smear campaigns generated by these adversaries – widely available on the net and even repeated in tabloid 'human interest' pieces – range from incitement of racism and religious bigotry by 'othering' non-mainstream religious practices, to vague implications of sinister interconnections among people who follow those religious practices, to explicit allegations of criminal activity involving the CIA and Satanism. [2] [3] [4]
Despite years of effort by the "cottage industry of researchers" (see NYT [1]) dedicated to digging up dirt, all legal actions related to the smears have in fact gone in favor of the victims (damages, settlements, injunctions, and at least one restraining order). That has not stopped the smear activity, and now Wikipedia is being used as a grapevine broadcast vehicle contrary to WP:NOTSCANDAL.
Whether those inserting the inappropriate material are working in concert with the known adversaries or are merely picking up material from the web to use for disputes per their own biases, they are repeatedly failing to act in accord with WP policy. This hurts not only the victims of the smears, but it is wasteful of other editors' time and highly damaging to Wikipedia's status as a credible encyclopedia. Humanengr ( talk) 00:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ a b Lerer, Lisa (2019-10-12). "What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?". The New York Times. ISSN  0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
  2. ^ a b "Krishna Cult Rumors Still Dog Tulsi Gabbard". Honolulu Civil Beat. 2015-03-16. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
  3. ^ "Did Tulsi Gabbard's National Ambitions Just Suffer a Political Hit?". www.honolulumagazine.com. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
  4. ^ "Rama Ranson vs the cult". Rama Ranson vs the cult. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
Frankly your list of sourcing is dispositive on notability. If articles have BLP issues that is no concern here. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Per WP:N: “A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." WP:NOT includes WP:NOTSCANDAL, cited above. Humanengr ( talk) 22:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Like Coretheapple said, these wide-ranging accusations of alleged smear campaigns etc. (without any concrete reference to supposedly problematic content in this article) are irrelevant here.
As for ISKCON guru system, that article would seem ill-suited as the main location for covering the present subject, considering that the organization was founded precisely as part of breaking away from that system (and has remained outside it for the last four decades). Regards, HaeB ( talk) 14:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
@ HaeB, re "wide-ranging accusations of alleged smear campaigns etc. (without any concrete reference to supposedly problematic content in this article)": There is documentary evidence of coordinated defamatory activity smearing Chris Butler and the SIF, which is then being used for political purposes against Tulsi and Mike Gabbard. Such material can be provided if the admin here requests it, but it goes beyond the scope of this discussion. To provide just one example of improper use of the WP SIF article for continuation of disputes, harm to individuals, and scandalmongering, see this edit removing inadequately sourced inflammatory claims regarding islamophobic and homophobic statements attributed to Butler from over a decade ago. Inclusion of this cited source in the references, "Islamophobic World View of Tulsi Gabbard's Guru Revealed in Unearthed Recordings – Can she Still Run for President?", is sufficient to show that the goal is political rather than encyclopedic. Humanengr ( talk) 23:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Tulsi Gabbard; similar to WP:BLP1E, this group seems to be a GRP1P (i.e. a group notable for 1 person). I can find almost no references for the group that don't mention them in relation to Gabbard. They don't seem to have any direct coverage in RS. Seems like a merge to me.... NickCT ( talk) 12:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Actually the Encyclopedia of Hinduism reference doesn't mention Tulsi Gabbard, and while I haven't reviewed them myself, we can be pretty certain (considering her age) that neither do the newspaper articles from the 1970s and 1980s that are currently cited in the article. What's more, even if it was correct that the only aspects of the topic that were ever covered concerned its relation to Gabbard, considering the breadth of this coverage alone (multiple independent RS over several years), that would still merit a separate article per WP:SUMMARY. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 18:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
So we've got passing mention in the "Encyclopedia" of Hinduism, then a few articles from local Honolulu press from the 70's and 80's? Seems like thin gruel if you ask me. Is there any non-local coverage from the past decade that doesn't mention Gabbard? NickCT ( talk) 05:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The presence of a city name in a newspaper's name does not mean it is "local"; The Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin were the largest and second-largest newspaper in the entire state. The Encyclopedia of Hinduism entry is not trivial coverage. And regarding the wealth of other sources, you still haven't explained why "source mentions Gabbard" means "article must merged into the Gabbard article". (I do agree that it should contain a summary of those aspects that are most relevant to her biography.) Regards, HaeB ( talk) 20:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The fact that the "good" sources (i.e. the national sources from the past decade) all cover this group in relation to Gabbard, clearly suggests that the group is only notable b/c of Gabbard; hence a merge seems appropriate.
The EoH entry strikes me as very trivial. You didn't answer my question about coverage from the past decade. NickCT ( talk) 01:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Comment: My concern is that the article is a magnet for vandalism. One solution is to leaving it IF the separate SIF article can be locked to neutral factual content appropriate under WP policies. There have not been ANY events by SIF that warrant updating of the WP content since the profile was first included in the ISKCON article in 2010. There is no reason for continuous editing of the SIF article other than adding inflammatory elaborations to continue disputes and harm reputations for political purposes. Editors should not be burdened with chasing edits that violate WP:NOT. Humanengr ( talk) 23:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Humanengr: you already !voted above, so please strikethrough your vote here so that you don't confuse whoever closes the discussion. I think WP:EASYTARGET is relevant here: if editors violate neutrality guidelines, we deal with that through other means. Deletion discussions are about the notability of an article topic. Nblund talk 16:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance ( talk) 00:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
@ NickCT: I admit I also find the name a bit off-putting, but it appears they operate a good chunk of the respected print media outlets in New Zealand, and the story appears well-reported. I guess it's not any worse of a name than Buzzfeed. Nblund talk 01:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Stuff.conz are cited 11,889 times @en.wp. The author is claimed ( §) to be the news editor of a Stuff-related tabloid ( §) called Sunday News. The correction and apology note at the bottom of the article shows they have editors. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Nblund and SashiRolls: - For the record, I'm not saying it's not a RS. Just that it's not the highest quality RS. After all, who trusts a Kiwi?
Regardless, this group still doesn't have a huge amount of non-local or recent and non-Gabbard-related coverage in RS. NickCT ( talk) 03:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Peter Doyle (actor)

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

I don't think this actor meets WP:NACTOR, WP:WHYN and WP:GNG. Sk8erPrince ( talk) 22:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC) - User has been site banned by Arbcom. (This may or may not change the final result based on consensus already established so far) reply

  • Tentative Keep. I understand the argument for deletion, but its always better to err on the side of caution in these cases. While the significant number of wiki-type sources on him aren't necessarily the standard for reliability, the number I found with just an initial search does indicate his impact. I think any voice actor, no matter how marginal the audience, with 26 roles over 24 works can be justified an appropriate subject for an article to keep. I guess it's open to discussion, though. ƒin ( talk) 23:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    Where is the WP:SIGCOV on the actor in question? Sk8erPrince ( talk) 00:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince ( talk) 22:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 18:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The reception for Doyle shows he has at least two major roles that were critically reviewed but with a minor sentence or two that doesn't really explain his career, so I can't count it as significant coverage. I just can't find any background on this person beyond that, so even if the critiques are added, it is likely to end up as a WP:PERMASTUB. It wouldn't be missed if it were deleted. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    Permastub is just an essay, a personal opinion not supported by enough people to become a guideline, so meaningless in any deletion discussion. WP:NOTABILITY is the guideline that determines things, and it says an article must meet the General Notability Guidelines, OR the subject specific guidelines such as WP:ENTERTAINER, never had to meet both since then the subject specific ones wouldn't have a reason to exist. Dream Focus 02:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article's subject neither meets WP:GNG nor WP:ENT.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance ( talk) 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A redirect can be created independently of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Blackgate Penitentiary

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

Another Batman-related fictional location that appears in a lot of media, but fails WP:GNG/ WP:NFICTION since there is nothing about it outside of the occasional primary-source description. Not sure if there is a valid merge target... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, non-notable. The most mention it gets is in The Essential Batman Encyclopedia, a primary source. It gets little mention in secondary sources, not enough to pass GNG. It's Wikia material. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 11:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
See Wp:imperfect and wp:PERX. Jhenderson 777 16:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • When the topic has no non-primary sources, that is a sufficient summary for deletion. In response to below, the comic space is full of thousands of non-notable articles, and nobody wants to do anything with them. If projects or communities actually cared, then this would be unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 16:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I don’t know about you but we have been merging countless articles. Granted there is more Marvel fictional stuff than DC that gets looked on to get merged. But it is not fair to say we are not doing anything. I bet I can find a lot of sources for this article at least in name-drop. But I am focusing on sandbox edits related to Superman more than finding articles to save. Jhenderson 777 16:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I must have merged some 50-100 Marvel super minor characters several years ago, and more than half were undone in the interim. I'm sure merging happens, but it's not at great enough of a rate that it helps with the overarching problem. It also doesn't help that there are several holdover users who really should just move to Fandom or another wiki. It's not like there aren't hundreds of notable characters and topics between DC and Marvel, but there are thousands more that have been sitting and will continue to sit without action. TTN ( talk) 16:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Per Wp:imperfect This is getting ridiculous. This is a major location from the Batman mythos. Just because notability isn’t proven doesn’t meant it’s not. Getting tired of the same editors voting delete on related stuff they they don’t like it. This is coming from someone who likes to merge constantly when he don’t feel it’s notable. Next time why don’t tag the actual editors /WikiProjecters who likes to fix these articles . I hardly noticed these AFD if it wasn’t for a certain concern about other articles being deleted regarding the same users. Also one AFD at a time would be nice so we don’t have to multitask. Jhenderson 777 16:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I would but I am busy with another article and a sandbox. I guess you foiled me as I am not as concerned with this article than the other ones for now. I wish this AFD purge would calm down though. I was editing an sandbox and then suddenly I am trying to save some articles. It’s stressing. Jhenderson 777 02:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Jhenderson777: No need to get stressed. This can always be soft deleted by redirecting to List of locations of the DC Universe (probably a better result than outright normal delete). You or any other interested editor can merge it in due time, or even restore it if you find sufficient sources for that. It is just that so far nobody has found a single source suggesting this can be more than WP:PLOT. Hence, delete, or soft delete & redurect, seem like the policy-justified choices. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Not stressed on this AFD. Stressed one a different one where I tried my best to prove GNG. Jhenderson 777 11:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance ( talk) 00:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Fiona Lazareff

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

Most of the references are about the death of her son. The ones about her are either promotional interviews or notices about an award she founded. DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator ( talk) 21:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A speedy deletion attempt was contested, so it would be best to get a consensus on this rather than soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 00:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The coverage related to prizes, her litigants in person campaign, and her campaign to make it easier to track relatives abroad is (just) enough to save this article in my view. Particularly, this is a WP:BASIC pass based on at least the following references: 1 2 3. FOARP ( talk) 12:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_November_11&oldid=1142613255"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE