The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Carly Gold (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Although she has a famous sister, Carly Gold is not notable herself. She does not meet any of the criteria at WP:NSKATE. Hergilei ( talk) 19:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable figure skater. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-notable figure skater. Although there are independent sources about her achievements and retirement, they are not strong enough to grant her an article in Wiki - Jay ( talk) 06:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Essentially, nobody else agreed that the sources produced showed by the sole "keep" vote demonstrated that a suitable article can be written on this topic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Lap circle (  | 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 was kept (well, closed as no consensus) in the glorious days of 2006 when mere existence could be a sufficient grounds for voting keep. We've come a long way since then, so it's high time to re-evaluate this.

I was not able to find any in-depth reliable sources about this concept, and I searched reasonably thoroughly - I checked "lap circle" and "lap sit" on their own, then with +team, +game, and +trust. The most I found were primary sources providing rules - books with titles like "82 Games to Play With Your Kids" and similar things. These are not in-depth and are not secondary sources, considering that they merely provide instructions on how to perform a lap circle, without any analysis or commentary on the concept of a lap circle (which would make them secondary). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep referred to as Lap Sit or lap game or Human Chair. This is a team building exercise to foster trust and cooperation. Used in business setting or as a youth activity. I added sources and improved the intro, along with layout and added references, including formatting the existing reference. Lightburst ( talk) 02:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The refs you added are hardly in-depth reliable secondary sources. The Game Gal is a self-published blog so it's not reliable for notability claims, the Ability Magazine article spends about three sentences discussing the concept while the rest of the article is substantially about something else, and the Jubed page is another primary-source instructional on how to do the game. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

This is a simple team building/icebreaker used in retreats for business people. Used by teachers, camp directors or facilitators to foster cooperation or to break the ice among participants. There will not be any in-depth coverage on this subject - just as there is not in depth coverage of other such activities ie Human knot, Two truths, one lie, etc. I find that this is a relevant and notable team building exercise. Reasonable editors may disagree and !vote accordingly. Lightburst ( talk) 02:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

And look! One of those articles you linked is a redirect to a different article, and one of them is tagged as "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline". ApLundell ( talk) 03:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

It is merged. I can link to many more as I did below: I have already spent too much time on this but I accept your challenge. There is no in depth coverage for these team building games so perhaps you can AfD or redirect them as well? Hot potato, Hunt the Thimble, Dizzy bat, Questions (game), Musical chairs, Would you rather, Pass the parcel Lightburst ( talk) 04:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. Surely, as veteran of deletion discussions you're aware of that?

But to answer your question : Yes. If there's no useful sources, there's no justification for an article. ApLundell ( talk) 09:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

There will not be any in-depth coverage on this subject - that is effectively an admission that we should not have an article. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a non-notable game. Redirect to "Icebreaker" (as was done with a similar article Lightburst links to above.) None of the sources establish notability, and none seem likely to be found. ApLundell ( talk) 03:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

What you describe is actually more of a merge since the "Two truths, one lie" is explained on the Icebreakers article. We have room for such articles. WP:NOTPAPER here are two more such games.

1. Egg tossing
2. Show and Tell Lightburst ( talk) 03:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Big difference - there are in-depth sources abundantly available about show and tell. JSTOR returns 3458 hits about show and tell from all kinds of reliable academic sources focused on childrens' education. Even if we limit ourselves to the first page alone, we're well clear of GNG with plenty of critical analysis and commentary. The same simply cannot be said of the lap game (4 hits, all trivial), circle (2 hits, all trivial), sit (25 hits, all trivial). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

You cherry picked Look at totality and see the rule instead of the exception. Lightburst ( talk) 04:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

What exactly did I cherry pick? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

No results found. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

This is a silly game - in practice it takes about five minutes. This is not War and Peace with academic interpretation and secondary sources. I think we have managed to spend too much time on this. I did my best in the article. I leave it to the other editors who find their way. Lightburst ( talk) 04:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. I've actually noticed this one before while patrolling orphaned articles, and was never able to actually find any in-depth sources that would actually indicate notability. There is certainly stuff out there that shows that WP:ITEXISTS, but that is not a valid reason to keep an article. Even the sources introduced in this AFD are nothing more than instructions for how to do it. Rorshacma ( talk) 04:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 16:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that there is enough sustained coverage to overcome BLP1E concerns. RL0919 ( talk) 05:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Eugenia Cooney (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP issues. This article is about a Youtuber of borderline notability, whose main claim to fame seems to be being anorexic. Essentially the entire article is about her weight and mental health issues. This article was previously deleted at AFD last year, then restored in September 2019 following a deletion review, as more sources had been found. I'm bringing it back here as it's a complete BLP trainwreck. I'm prepared to accept that this article might possibly pass WP:BIO, due to the number of sources; although most of them are not particularly reliable, with much of it cited to random blogs and self-published sources like YouTube itself. But even if she is technically notable, I'd say this is a case where we should WP:IAR and delete the article. A 'biography' of a microcelebrity that essentially exists to track their weight and mental health is an abomination we're better off without. Robofish ( talk) 22:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Notifying participants in previous AFD and DRV: User:Mz7, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Expertwikiguy, User:Andise1, User:Eventhorizon51, User:Jovanmilic97, User:Hobit. Robofish ( talk) 22:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Article is largely sourced to Youtube videos and no-name clickbait sites like these [1] [2] [3], which is not acceptable for a BLP, especially one involving these sorts of issues. This from Paper Magazine is a good source, and there are a few ok-ish sources that are not in the article such as [4] and [5], but the RS coverage is sparse and usually brief, and I would argue that this still falls under WP:BLP1E, which is what the article was deleted for in 2018. All of the coverage is related to her health issues and recovery - there's very little about what she actually does as a Youtuber. This is a piece of internet drama that has attracted some cursory media attention but it doesn't justify an invasively detailed BLP on a young woman. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 23:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep- As much as I hate to say it, youtube stars are the new tv stars. Their self indulgent rubbish is notable because the viewers say it is by watching/subscribing. Eugenia Cooney has 2.4 million followers on Youtube and that is a significant number. Her videos get 5-9 million views - and that is a career. BLP1E is not an issue here: she is notable for her self reported condition, and then also notable for having 2.4 million followers. So a WP:BLP2E designation is not any disqualifier and is in fact a fallacious argument. Lightburst ( talk) 00:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. While we don't care about subscriber numbers, the media coverage still passes WP:SUSTAINED. ミラ P 01:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - she certainly seems to have attracted a great deal of attention, and that's what notability is. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 18:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep scope_creep ^Talk 12:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep She has received lot of press coverage. Some examples: [6], [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Clovermoss ( talk) 02:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice against refunding to draft if any editor thinks they can fix the article's shortcomings there. BD2412 T 17:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Lorven Public School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Despite the name, this is actually an organization that runs a group of schools. The individual schools appear to be private elementary schools, so they aren't independently inherently notable (and in any case, notability isn't inherited upwards). I'm not finding sufficient sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH that would enable us to keep this article. It's possible there are non-English sources, but since the article doesn't provide a non-English name, I can't even search for any. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete article lacks indepdent sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep for the moment as John says above article lacks indepdent sources- in fact it lacks many other things too! Like content- I feel that is is worth putting a little effort into understanding the subject- there are many important Indian school articles that are getting similar comments, I think it is our fault that we don't know where to look. A school of 2000 that is described as

" A well-known educational institution, Lorven Educational Centre in Chandapura, Bangalore was founded in the year 2001. This Schools takes pride in the holistic and innovative learning methods which have helped them raise the bar in the field of education. The centre follows a well-researched curriculum that is based on the play way method of learning. This school offers education for children in different age groups." "There are a host of other supplementary activities that children can enroll in to enhance their skill set. In a populous suburb of bangalore, this centre is situated near Opposite to Vijaya Bank of Chandapura." "Schools listing Site". just dial. com.. As is sadly common with many schools there have been many name changes as it has grown- Lorven seems common in all the names. It is no longer an orphan- I have added it to List of schools in Bangalore, doing a comparison with other schools on the list it seems to differ only in that it is only 18 years old and being better than most. It is registered with the "CISCE (Council for Indian School Certificate Examinations) - Contact Details & Location". iCBSE. Retrieved 30 November 2019.- and from their self published material appear tto be doing notably well (again no independent source yet?. There is the argument of precedent- that all the other comparable schools qualify so what makes this the exception. cc Kudpung I am tempted to be bold and contact their IT teacher and ask- and ask him for verifiable sources! I am happier doing that than making a deletion decision on absence of knowledge. ClemRutter ( talk) 21:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete or optional Merge/Redirect: Fails any notability criterion. Attempts to rake through the leaves to find sources to prove existence does not advance notability per Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH. Satisfaction of even the barest notability standards requires verification by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Assertions "that all the other comparable schools qualify" is not a good argument and dubious without evidence of a "clear claim to notability" (#1). While listing all schools in the world might be a noble idea, lack of coverage would be evidence the subject might be better located in Chandapura (really in need of expansion and a fantastic place for a "School" section) where a single primary source (shown above) might be sufficient also adding substance to that article. It is my opinion that the creation of thousands of unsourced or poorly sourced forever stubs, possibly just for the sake of inclusion (or maybe even just growing Wikipedia), is not a good goal. If there is already coverage on Wikipedia then expand that article. If the content grows too big we can then consider splitting-off as not every subject in the world qualifies for a stand-alone article. Otr500 ( talk) 12:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment I disagree with your absolutist binary interpretation of WP:notability, particularly when dealing with new unexplored areas. Look at the definitionm of sources, and the footnotes, including footnote 8. In saying there are no sources you must demonstrate you have made a significant attemot to find them. I am not against looking at expanding the Chandapura article- but that is not the question, we have the germ of an good article here- examining their selfpublished material and comparing that with properly WP:RS article it looks as if RS will be there all be it in Hindi! If all else has been tried, one looks for the auditors report on the public company running the organisation. Finding them is the way to go, teaching ourselves in the process of the best places to look when similar cases occur in future. (And it may help with the development of Chandapura!) ClemRutter ( talk) 19:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - non noted school and fails WP:GNG. Besides the article is stubby and there is no effort to expand it - Jay ( talk) 05:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - there doesn't seem to be the depth of sourcing necessary to justify an article on this. Reyk _YO! 07:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 12:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Yevgeni Semyonov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The article fails WP:NFOOTY as the RPFL is not a professional league by WP:FPL standards. HawkAussie ( talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 04:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:42, 27 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Sameer Hassan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

As an amateur boxer, I believe he does not meet the criteria set in WP:NBOX. The link provided for his boxing career says he won the 'All Pakistan National Tournament', but I can’t find any sources to suggest the tournament is affiliated with AIBA, and that is the only final – outside of military competitions – he has reached. Hassan now competes in MMA professionally, but also does not meet the criteria set in WP:MMATIER. He has only competed in PAK Fight Club. ². O. ^Boxing 22:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ². O. ^Boxing 22:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 04:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable boxer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Anime North Texas (  | 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 reliable sources to establish notability. Esw01407 ( talk) 21:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete I can only find this passing mention of the convention in an article about cosplay, but no actual coverage of the event itself. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 18:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I find nothing substantive to suggest that WP:GNG is met. The only coverage appears to be directory listings, passing mentions, etc. -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 19:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Events in general need the coverage to pass WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete not enough to pass GNG Lightburst ( talk) 21:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 05:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (  | 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 virtually the same article as Thanos and I see virtually no difference between the two. I attempted to redirect it as it's the same subject but was inexplicably reverted, so AFDing to delete and redirect. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 20:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 20:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Draft and redirect it to Thanos it until it’s done correctly. Right now it’s just redundant fancruft and there is no rush of it being an article since there is already an article on Thanos. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: When and if this is ready for mainspace. This could be the place to redirect it to until it’s improved on. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Jhenderson777 Why not to Thanos? I feel like I'm missing something here. There's an entire section covered about it there. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

That’s where I said to merge it to for right now. Just commenting that there may be a second option in the future. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Draft per Jhenderson777 - I don't think anyone would argue that this is not a notable topic, but as it stands, there is no reason for this to be WP:SPLIT from the main Thanos article. As stated by the nom, there is currently nothing here that is not already covered there. If the article were to be fleshed out to contain more than a list of appearances and plot summaries, it would be a valid Split article, but until that is done, it should be kept in Draft. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Draftify There was no reason to move this work in progress to mainspace when it's not done. ★Trekker ( talk) 22:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Draftify per the above. There is substantially more that can be said specifically about the MCU character, but despite his in-universe importance, this character also has very few appearances and very little development compared to other MCU characters who have articles that have survived objections like those raised in this process. BD2412 T 02:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Draft It's still a work in progress and should not be in the mainspace; move it there when it's finished. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 14:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete this particular article. I actually agree with everyone on Draftspacing the article, but the draft is actually still there, and there is no attributable history carried over to this "new" article. This looks like a copy/paste job from the incomplete Draft, so it wasn't even properly moved. - 2pou ( talk) 15:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete there is not enough sources to justify a seperate article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Do you mean that there aren't enough sources in the article, or that there aren't enough sources in the world? I'm pretty sure there are quite a few potential sources out there that have not made it into the article. BD2412 T 21:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • There are tons upon tons of articles about the MCU Thanos. Not sure how long you were looking but a Google search gives quite a few hits on major websites. ★Trekker ( talk) 20:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - It is redundant with Thanos. Perhaps some of the data (not too much) in this article can be copied to Thanos but I am not going to vote for "merge". Dont see the value of merging. - Jay ( talk) 05:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Draft Send to draft. WP:PRESERVE. Lightburst ( talk) 21:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Remember, everyone, there is still a Draft already in existence at Draft:Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) which is where this material came from.

Sorry, just trying to emphasize the point. - 2pou ( talk) 21:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Ah I see they didn’t even page move it (which I was probably thinking they were) so that’s taken care of. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 10:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

MolecularLab (  | 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. Störm (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. apparently the major national website in the field. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Looking at it, it seems to be. Worth an article. scope_creep ^Talk 01:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep my hope is that the nominator will slow down and do a proper WP:BEFORE - nom has been sending dozens of article to AfD without researching notability - this causes unnecessary work for editors. Lightburst ( talk) 21:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 05:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Nucleonica (  | 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. Störm (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Could perhaps be redirected to Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart. But unless someone else makes the case for that, as it stands, delete. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart, where it is mentioned. In the journals, I see only primary sources, of which the most highly cited is is an article on the Nuclide Chart. There are independent mentions in two books, [12] and [13], regarding the Nuclide Chart and their decay product calculator. The book mentions are enough verifiability to support a redirect to Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart, their best-known product and where the company is mentioned in context. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 11:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep: (edit conflict Mark viking above and I don't have time to re-jig): Some concern WP:BEFORE was not carried out on this and I was serious mulling if this was not a Frivolous or vexatious worthy of a WP:SCLOSE. Yes the article was lacking in citations and an an orphan seemingly through lack of some simply WP:COMPETENCY and I am desirous of letting ion particles flow till the hair stands on end ... but fundamentally we have a reasonable subject especially as J Bloggs can probably access it if they like. I'd respectfully oppose and suggestion of a merge to Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart (Acks to Headbomb for pointing out the linkage) as Nucleonica and the Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart are fundamentally different animals and the articles developed to different levels of maturity. I am convinced better strategy is to let the Nucleonica article develop on its own to wherever it gets and then consider a merge ... and Nucleonica may then be the prime article into which Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart needs to be merged. Otherwise Nucleonica would have to develop within Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart giving respect to WP:UNDUE ... its an additional constraint and may particularly affect any images that may be added. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 12:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Have worked the article a bit. Obviously Magill et al. (2009) does not count towards WP:RS. Excelsior (2015) & Forschungszentrum Jülich (2017) show satisifaction of the training requirement per subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. at Wikipedia:NSOFT which are sufficient alone for survival. Also per WP:THREE for notability we have, with others available should one fall:

• Cern (2017). "Nucleonica | CERN Scientific Information Service". library.cern. Archived from the original on 13 June 2019. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
• EU Science Hub (9 August 2016) [2013]. "New JRC spin-off company to work on the Nucleonica portal". EU Science Hub - European Commission. Archived from the original on 13 July 2019. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
• Masterson, Robert (2017). Nuclear engineering fundamentals : a practical perspective. OCLC  1048280746. 6.24 Online Decay Engine.

Thankyou Djm-leighpark ( talk) 19:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Re, the merge above, they are entirely different types of entities and bear no relation to each other whatsoever. There is sufficient reference to support an article. scope_creep ^Talk 01:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep WP:NEXIST could have been found with a WP:BEFORE Lightburst ( talk) 21:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Unicru SmartMatch (  | 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. Störm (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 20:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Ican find no sources that would be good enough to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can't find anything about service. Most of it is ready mentioned in the Unicru article, but nothing at all. scope_creep ^Talk 01:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Aljazeera Publishing. RL0919 ( talk) 05:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

AlJazeera Jobs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Website is defunct. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment I do not see what specifically is not met in WP:NWEB. It may be that there is not SIGCOV but regarding the claim that the website is "defunct" - once something is notable it remains notable per WP:NTEMP. Lightburst ( talk) 22:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• redirect. to alJazeera. bordrline refs for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Aljazeera Publishing - Jay ( talk) 06:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep or redirect to Aljazeera Publishing In regard to the site: WP:NTEMP Lightburst ( talk) 21:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 10:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

CareerStructure.com (  | 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:NWEB, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The sourcesseem sufficient to showi tsa major company in the field. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep vexatious nomination. Lightburst ( talk) 21:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Akhtaboot (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete looking at the many sources, almost all of them are notices about specific job fairs; the others are PR. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep ^Talk 01:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

JobServe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Weak delete. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• weak Keep. the sourcesseem a little marginal, but it nonetheless seems to be a major company. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Yes there are problems, but I again find myself at an article where the nominator should have read the previous AfD, looked for at least one stonewall obvious merge, and detected suitable sources exist. I am now too long at WP:AFD for the past couple of days ... but is this WP:COMPETENCY or Frivolous or vexatious? Yes as per the previous AfD the article is WP:UGLY so positively wade in and fix it. Luckily WP:NPP hopefully stops inadequate article coming through. I guess as I'm in the UK I know of the Company better and I'd better declare I've used their website .... Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I can evidence a football connections. [14] indicates sponsorship of Premier League level shirt. Said player also played for Pompey later sponsored by Pompey compeititors Jobsite (loosely connected to a litigation in one of the references I recall and at LTP somewhat close to the National Cycle Route 22 just south of MtK bridge .... Hmmm ...). Anyway the player moved to Colchester where Colchester play and Jobserve now sponsor the Colchester Community Stadium. Should be sufficent in itself. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 11:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Again it is on the nominator to do a WP:BEFORE - no compliance is vexatious. Lightburst ( talk) 21:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Jobs in Dubai (  | 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:NWEB, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article was created nearly ten years ago by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the company. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 18:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Agree with above comments. It is not wrong for a recruitment agency to have an article in Wiki provided it is being written as an informative article rather than introduction like this. This article looks more like a promotional site. Unless if someone plan to rewrite it, my vote for now is "delete". - Jay ( talk) 06:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Hyperbolick ( talk) 21:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Ask Me Help Desk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• weak Delete I see two minor 3rd party reviews in joint articles reviewing other sources also, which is usually not quite enough DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete - Stubby article with "weak" independent sources. Unless if someone can expand the article, my vote is delete - Jay ( talk) 06:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that individual instances of New Year's celebrations in a single city do not merit their own article. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Are individual instances of this event notable? To me it feels more like fancruft and trivia. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete — not notable. This even happens fairly regularly. Nothing worthwhile in article.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - what do you mean by "worthwhile"? Something that you like? If so, that's not a reason for deletion. Bookscale ( talk) 11:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment - the event received notable coverage in the mainstream media (ie. more than trivial mentions), and is mentioned in reliable sources which are cited in the article. It does actually meet GNG. What's the issue? Bookscale ( talk) 11:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  Per Wikipedia:Notability (events) this is routine coverage of an individual instance of an annual event. There is no doubt that the event itself as a whole is notable, but individual instances may not necessarily be. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  Except this particular instance (which is the only one nominated) did receive coverage which is cited in the article? Bookscale ( talk) 23:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  I'm not saying the event did not receive coverage at all. I'm saying that nothing especially notable/out of the ordinary happened, and all of the sources covering this specific edition were just routine coverage of it either as an upcoming or completed event. In this situation, routine coverage is not a sufficient basis of a claim of notability. Any notable detail relevant to this particular edition, with citations, could be covered in a table/list of sorts on the article for Sydney New Year's Eve itself. I do not see any other New Year's Eve celebration, or fireworks show, have articles for individual editions like this. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete — This is a difficult case because it did receive notable coverage, but there does not seem to be anything special about this year, over any other year, to deserve such notice. As Jack Upland says, there is nothing worthwhile in the article. -- Bduke ( talk) 01:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - except that "nothing worthwhile" is not Wikipedia policy supporting deletion. It's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What policy does it breach? Bookscale ( talk) 11:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - What we meant by worthwhile is that there was nothing of significance in this specific edition of a routine celebration that makes it separately notable. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply
      • This question was directed to Bduke (and Jack Upland, who hasn't bothered replying). Bookscale ( talk) 10:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Outside of different fireworks theming and performers, generally NYE celebrations usually follow the same template every year; outside of millenium/turn of the century/national centennial celebrations, these usually shouldn't get callout with their own article. The main article already covers it well in summary form. Nate • ( chatter) 08:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - but it has notable coverage supported by reliable sources, it actually meets GNG. Saying "There shouldn't be a separate article" is just saying that you don't like the fact that such an article exists. You need to explain why. Bookscale ( talk) 11:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Didn't say IDLI at all anywhere there; just said we already have a summary of it in the main article. I would support it here but if we can summarize it in another article, then it's much easier to retain than this article. Nate • ( chatter) 01:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - "we already have a summary" is not an argument for deletion. Bookscale ( talk) 05:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• I'm going to say Keep because no real argument of any merit has been put forward to justify deletion. At worst the page should be merged, not deleted. Bookscale ( talk) 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This would have no traffic as a redirect (outside of professional sports seasons, we usually find historically very few "20xx-xy" redirects get any traction), and the 14th anniversary of anything usually doesn't merit much for a redirect. Nate • ( chatter) 04:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - the article is sourced well and the sources can be used on the main article. It would be a waste to just delete the article. And there are other NYE pages as well. Bookscale ( talk) 05:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - Classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The crux of my argument is that yes, there is no doubt Sydney New Year's Eve as an event franchise is notable, and other notable New Year's celebrations have articles. But they don't have individualized articles for each edition like it's a sporting event, since they are very routine and rigidly structured, and they often do not have enough variance to even have distinctive articles (any difference between editions, especially if it a specific tradition such as the bridge effects, can be easily covered in a relevant section of the parent article). The General Notability Guideline (GNG) is only a presumption of notability, and Events have their own specific notability criteria based on consensus. In particular, Notable events "usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle" and must receive "significant or in-depth coverage". It is clear based on other criteria that the event as an annual event meets the notability criteria. However, a specific instance of the event in a specific year does not, because it only receives coverage during the news cycle immediately around New Year's Eve, and this coverage only constitutes "routine" coverage that, alone, is not enough to justify an entirely separate article. It's like how television series often do not have articles for individual episodes unless they have been proven to be critically notable in their own right. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
        • Comment - read GNG - "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". If it meets GNG (which it does), then it does not also need to meet the event page. The sources cited in the article are not routine. The page is notable enough. Your arguments are just pretence that you don't like the article and want to get rid of it, but there's no Wikipedia policy that the article infringes. Bookscale ( talk) 23:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
          • Comment' Once again, neither ViperSnake or I hate this article. It's a fine article if you're really interested in this topic...but that's why Wikia exists. Here, we're describing a run-of-the-mill edition of the ceremony, the fourteenth version. You take out the extraneous information about what song they didn't use (the layman doesn't know this extra information and doesn't care), a modified version of the other (ceremonies have cute entendre versions of songs to go with their shows all the time), and a play-by-play of the telecast and the soundtrack of what played during the fireworks (perfect for a Spotify playlist, not needed here), we don't have a full-length article here. Unless there was some kind of tragic incident, the aftermath section of everyone leaving and going home literally happens after every ceremony in the history of humanity.

I repeat again, this is a paragraph or two of information we need, at most. It is covered in perfect, short and clear detail in Sydney New Year's Eve#2007–09. This entire series of articles needs to go as it is of interest to only a select few people, and is all easily summarized in a number of paragraphs of prose and tables in the main article. This is my last comment here, because you are getting annoyed about something nobody else is. Step back and stop taking every delete vote! as some kind of personal attack against fireworks in Sydney. Nate • ( chatter) 00:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment - I'm not taking this as a personal attack, and I don't care about the article one way or the other, I'm just tired of AfD after AfD which are just articles a particular editor doesn't like, with some poorly-thought out reason to try to justify it. If you think that the article should be merged, that's not a reason for deleting the article, and none of the editors who have posted here have really put forward anything justifying why the article should be deleted. At worst, the consensus is to merge the content into the above article, but that should never have been put forward as an AfD if that was the case. Bookscale ( talk) 00:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 18:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Zimbabwe Telegraph (  | 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, no sign of any notable sources available. Page seems to have been created by someone connected to the organisation, who has previously had similar pages removed through speedy deletion Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 23:28, 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

As stated in for the Zimbabwe Metro, something does not lose its notability if it is defunct. This is a topic that is completely worthwhile of staying in Wikipedia. SuperChris ( talk) 16:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comment SuperChris - never suggested that, in my opinion it doesn’t have notability whether or not it’s defunct. I cannot find evidence of substantial secondary sources. If you can then please can I urge you to add them to the article. Thanks. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 22:40, 13 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 - seems notable enough from a Zimbabwe context MenfesKidus40 ( talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Probably keep. A quick click on the Google books link above indicates that the Zimbabwe Telegraph is cited in quite a few books. Greenshed ( talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - As Greenshed states, the fact that articles from the newspaper are quoted in books shows that it is considered an authentic source. As a national newspaper, I think it is likely to be notable. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 19:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Greenshed. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 00:46, 30 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)} 17:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Icertis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Organization has been around since 2009 and the best sources are still about routine startup funding rounds? There's no demonstration of sustained, in-depth coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep For the purposes of references to establish notability, analyst reports are deemed acceptable. This company has been covered by both Forrester and WBR Insights and has also been written about by Gartner. Topic therefore meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:20, 19 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Barry Bonds (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The article only includes various publications where the artist, its record label, and producers advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability, as all the interviews and reviews talk about the album as a whole, therefore the material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts → bubbling chart and not notable Has won one or more significant awards or honors → no Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. → Only Drake is the notable one.

All of this according to WP:NS. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 20:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment - There are a lot of references in this article, and many are album reviews, but many are not, such as the article on baseball songs and the articles about the collaboration with Lil Wayne... Rlendog ( talk) 12:47, 26 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. Verifiability is not enough, on its own, to avoid deletion. Topic must also be notable and there has been no claim that this topic is notable. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Airdura (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Marketing term. The internetz has multiple copies of this nonsense, but nothing we could use Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• merge into List of fabrics. Verifiable.- Altenmann >talk 03:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete not more than a dicdef. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:11, 30 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) 16:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Ironhide (  | 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 currently fails to establish notability. The reception is trivial. The previous AfD keep rationales were fairly nonsensical. TTN ( talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - When I did a Google search for reliable sources, all I get is unreliable sources. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: No notability, not even a section describing its real-world reception. lullabying ( talk) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non notable. As it was @ Drmies: deleted a large number of unreliable sources that were the basis of the original keep arguments. Some of the keep arguments may have also been a desire to retain information of interest to fans. In the end though.... we are not Wikia. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Yep. It will take us years to get all this Wikia material out. Standards have changed, and that's a good thing, but all the gamers and anime fans and comic fans have really taken advantage of the old anything goes way of doing things. Drmies ( talk) 21:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of Autobots, no? Maybe hundreds of unnotable characters in the franchise, but Ironhide has to be one of the relatively more notable. Hyperbolick ( talk) 15:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• I found a notable review of the toy. [15] That's all I can find right now that is significant coverage in a reliable source. Everywhere else is just brief mentions such as "Ironhide was a fan-favorite of the Michael Bay films" [16]. If that's true I would think somewhere out there is more coverage of the character. Dream Focus 03:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 03:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - yet more fancruft with no interest in passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:52, 30 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) 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

René Artois (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure fan-based article, incorporating biographical information on a fictional character that lacks no sources and is purely Original Research. Lack of proper notability for the character receiving a personal article at all; unlike characters such as Sherlock Holmes, Superman, and Bugs Bunny, all who have extensive backgrounds within their medium of media work, this character is only in one programme and is only notable for being a part of a notable British comedy sitcom. Parts of the information would be better suited to be placed within the respective section detailing the main characters of the programme 'Allo 'Allo, within List of 'Allo 'Allo! characters, but the rest of it should be deleted. GUtt01 ( talk) 15:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 20:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 20:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Notability is not established. TTN ( talk) 17:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not enough WP:SIGCOV to show real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:02, 30 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) 16:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Transformers: Robots in Disguise (toy line) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Trivial list of toys that fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 15:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 15:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 15:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 15:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Poorly sourced and mostly full of WP:FAN with no notability. lullabying ( talk) 00:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Article is pretty much only a toy catalogue. JIP | Talk 10:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per WP:NOTCATALOG. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 12:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: The only sourcing present on this article is a fan forum, not notable in the slightest. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non-notable merchandise. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete very trivial. Orientls ( talk) 05:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Transformers (toy line) where mentioned as one of the groupings. Nothing to merge though (do not merge the specific table entries). AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 19:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 01:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply

List of fictional nannies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced, unfocused, and no evidence that fictional nannies are notable as a group. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 ( talk) 15:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete an unsourced article. There is a topic that would lend itself to an article nannies in fiction. I am less than sure we have adequate third party analysis sources to support such an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Category:Fictional nannies is all we need for this - the list doesn't add anything. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 17:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  WP:NOTDUPE states that having a category already is not a valid reason to delete a list article. Also WP:WEDONTNEEDIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Dream Focus 01:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I have found a few sources that discuss fictional nannies as a group. I am uncertain if it is enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. I agree with John Pack Lambert that this topic lends itself to a " Nannies in fiction" article rather than a list. I could also see this information being placed in the main " Nanny" article in a condensed format. Apologies for the length and I hope this does not come across as spam. Just trying to help with the discussion. Here are the sources I found with an explanation for each. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Nanny Knows Best: The History of the British Nanny has a chapter on nannies in fiction and film. New Boundaries in Political Science Fiction has a brief sentence comparing the title character of " Robbie" to a common nanny type in fiction. A review of The Rise and Fall of the British Nanny says that it includes commentary on fictional nannies, though I admittedly do not have full access to the source to confirm this. This New York Times article talks about "the nanny novel", and this Jezebel source refers to "the nanny film" as its own group. There are quite a few lists on favorite fictional nannies by Barnes and Noble, Sylist.co.uk, and Refinery 29, and this Cleveland.com mentions how real-life nannies were inspired by some fictional nannies. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete We have Nanny#Fictional representations already, so whatever’s analysis from the above sources may be relevant can go there, not a separate page. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• That would seem appropriate to me. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Reywas92. Reyk _YO! 21:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Ten of the blue links have their own article and one is a redirect to a list of characters page. They are notable for being nannies, that is their defining characteristic. Dream Focus 13:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Dream Focus: It's still too short an article regardless. ミラ P 01:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Being short is not a valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 01:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Dream Focus: But it's also a valid reason not to keep. ミラ P 02:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• It was not a reason I gave to keep, I having valid reasons listed above. Dream Focus 03:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. While I acknowledge the above's statement that "being a nanny" is a defining characteristic for these fictional characters, it's still too short an article worth keeping separately. ミラ P 01:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  Then are you suggesting it be MERGED? Not all entries here are listed there. Dream Focus 01:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  @ Dream Focus: We'll just put them at Nanny#Fictional representations. ミラ P 02:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Nanny#Fictional representations already sufficiently covers the topic, and the article is not so long that a WP:SPLIT is necessary. The sources found by Aoba47 above can be added to that article, but as this current list in unsourced, nothing needs to be preserved or merged. Rorshacma ( talk) 03:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge. Hyperbolick ( talk) 21:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:NLIST Lightburst ( talk) 21:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect or merge to Nanny#Fictional_representations - seems like a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

James Sixsmith (  | 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:NHOCKEY Joeykai ( talk) 06:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

 Comment: I found several reputable sources in Slovene language: an article on the portal MMC (by Slovene national TV), and two national newspapers: Dnevnik and Delo, so no need to presume notability. I'm available for translating, if needed. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I am not sure if those articles demonstrate sufficient notability - two are about the fact that he signed for the club and another one that he extended his stay. This sounds rather a routine coverage one could expect for sportspeople. -- Tone 16:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, they do contain data about his career up to the point of signing up. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for hockey players. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Can't find any sources that meet GNG. Just routine trivial passing mentions. Also fails NHOCKEY though he is close only 18 games under the threshold to meet #2. - DJSasso ( talk) 13:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Mixed Media (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a non-notable band. The only source is a simple track listing for one album. No evidence of the multiple, non-trivial, published works required for WP:GNG. Doesn't meet any of the criteria for WP:NMUSIC. Article was WP:PROD-ed but the tag was removed, so coming here for discussion. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 15:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 15:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 15:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I have not been able to find any useful sources in Swedish. That English-language sources are scarce is not odd as they don't seem to have had an international career, but notability could have been shown if there had been significant coverage in Swedish sources. However, there aren't – I found one discussion of their work in a blog [17], and one trivial mention of them in a newspaper article about 70s nostalgia [18], and that's all except for some track listings like the one in the article. -- bonadea contributions talk 21:45, 28 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. RL0919 ( talk) 15:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Nicolas Bourg (  | 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:NBIO, looks like this was written to promote the subject. While there are 13 sources, none are in-depth independent coverage; all are self-published, primary, interviews, passing mentions, etc. MB 14:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - probably enough for WP:A7 at this rate too. — IVORK _Talk
• Delete - promotional piece for non notable person. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:53 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete – Notability not demonstrated; cannot find much, if any, coverage. Eagleash ( talk) 11:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Abdul Jalil Orakzai (  | 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 deprodded with no improvement and the rationale, "Fixed typo". Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Junior officer with a third-level gallantry decoration. Fails WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per reasons given by Necrothesp Mztourist ( talk) 02:59, 27 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. RL0919 ( talk) 15:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Hristak Mitev (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Google search returns zero hits [19]. The name sounds Bulgarian, so I tried searching in Cyrillic script [20], but again nothing. Looks like a hoax. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete (EDIT: in fact, Speedy Delete seems appropriate here per WP:G3) - Whilst the lack of Google Hits is not decisive, the subject is obviously made up in some way, since this name is not included on the list of Mayors of Zurich. A reverse image search using the photo brings up nothing, which is somewhat odd. FOARP ( talk) 14:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per FOARP. -- MaeseLeon ( talk) 00:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Is this the Bulgarian-Swiss Forrest Gump? Agree it looks like a hoax. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 09:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete No RS. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC). reply
• Delete It appears at least the claim of being mayor of Zurich is a hoax. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:29, 30 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. G5. Author's sockpuppet blocked. – bradv 🍁 14:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Vivek Verma (musician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

need to be reviewed Rooptera ( talk) 14:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rooptera ( talk) 14:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Notable but needs cleanup. — Sagotreespirit ( ^talk) 14:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per g5, the sources are puffery and this is a violation of the TOU. Praxidicae ( talk) 14:28, 26 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

FX Group (  | 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:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT. Unsourced since creation 13 years ago, and attempts at speedy deletion and PROD have been reverted. The key claim to notability here is that the company has won an Emmy Award for studio set design [21], but it has been noted before that Emmy Awards are given out for almost everything in the television industry, and not all Emmy Awards are notable. In addition, this doesn't seem to have been noted outside of the industry – other coverage is just press releases [22], [23], [24], [25] and attendance at industry expos [26]. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and my previous nomination of this article for PROD _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:34, 27 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. RL0919 ( talk) 15:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The Diabolical Dominion (  | 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 website. No external references or claim to notability. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Searching for sources turns up nothing substantial. There are a few mentions of it here and there, but these are largely not in reliable sources, and certainly not in depth enough to count towards establishing notability. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete a GSearch turns up nothing at all on my end except for the Wikipedia page and mirrors, and unrelated topics of a similar name. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 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:GNG. Consensus was also that per WP:NOTCLEANUP, the article can stay. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 19:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Raleigh Grifter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Came here from this Help Desk request to delete the page. The request is not reasonable, but I found no sources online so WP:GNG applies.

I am somewhat annoyed because I can find circumstancial evidence that it was somewhat known in the UK, but nothing allowing proper sourcing. For instance this Guardian gallery from 2008 about a local journal says Andy Burnham (...) sold his Raleigh Grifter though the Journal’s classified section (...). It is a passing mention so worth nothing for notability, but the reader is apparently expected to know what a "Raleigh Grifter" is. Tigraan ^{Click here to contact me} 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Tigraan ^{Click here to contact me} 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tigraan ^{Click here to contact me} 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I have added a couple of basic references, but see the nominator's point that there is a shortage of solid information, despite lots of Pinterest / Ebay / childhood memorabilia sites covering this. And a lot of the article detail (e.g. malfunctioning gears) feels like WP:OR needing sourcing. If Raleigh Grifter Forum or any other user has concerns about factual accuracy in an article, Talk:Raleigh Grifter is a good place to raise these and develop a better article. (Alternatively, a massively pruned text could be merged into the article about the manufacturer, at the end of the Raleigh_Bicycle_Company#The_Raleigh_Chopper section.) AllyD ( talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete: The article written is purely fictious and is responsible for spreading false information during its time on the net. As a Encyclopedia, surely information needs to be sourced and referenced correctly? The two added sources are not useable as the first is a picture of a Raleigh Grifter, and it's incorrectly anotated. The second source is a magazine article and it doesn't even mention the Raleigh Grifter? The article written also offends Raleigh Grifter enthusiasts, as the article refers to the Grifter and a bridge between the Raleigh Chopper and the BMX?? Wrong too. It insults the Grifter by referring to it as "Its frame was very similar to the Raleigh Twenty Shopper bicycle, but with a front triangle which resembled an upside down Chopper frame." The rest of the article is also wrong on dates, production models, colours and incorrect terminology. It is guess work at its best and it really does need to be deleted. It's also worth pointing out that the Raleigh Grifter was made by Raleigh of England, Nottingham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raleigh Grifter Forum ( talk • contribs) BLOCKED. Britishfinance ( talk) 18:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Section 3.3.3 of the second reference, entitled "First response to BMX" begins "The next follow-up to the Chopper was the Grifter, launched three years later, in June 1976...". AllyD ( talk) 22:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Oh... ONE reference to the word Grifter. Still not a valid referenced source thou is it? BLOCKED. Britishfinance ( talk) 18:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP it existed, Cycling Weekly. The article needs a trim. But it also needs to stay. WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE. Instead of deletion there can also be a merge discussion with a likely target of Raleigh Bicycle Company Lightburst ( talk) 03:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Can't see the delete rationale here at all. AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  My Google-fu was weak: I searched for "Raleigh Grifter" but this excludes sources that talk about the "Grifter" in the context of Raleigh bikes. Tigraan ^{Click here to contact me} 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Nom changing to keep: looking at the presented sources, I think the DK book plus [27] plus [28] makes it a pass for WP:PRODUCT (a merge would be unwieldy). (OTOH the cyclingweekly source is an ultra-passing mention: The brand is as icon of British engineering, widely known for the glory days of the 1900s which saw it produce bikes like the children’s Chopper and Grifter, plus the Burner BMX bike. and the bike is nowhere discussed later on). Tigraan ^{Click here to contact me} 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• WP:SKCRIT is met: withdrawal of nomination. Lightburst ( talk) 15:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  I could not close as SK because it requires that no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Maybe someone could WP:IAR-SK anyway but I would advise against it; if you read Raleigh Grifter Forum's post beyond the ranting thesaurus, it actually contains a policy-compliant argument (summary: " WP:GNG is not met due to lack of sources other than passing mentions, making it impossible to write a WP:V-compliant article"). Tigraan ^{Click here to contact me} 16:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per above, and also noting that when Raleigh was sold to Accell in 2012, The Daily Telegraph listed (and photographed) the Grifter and the Chopper, as two of Raleigh's most iconic bikes. [29]. Britishfinance ( talk) 16:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete I am sorry to say that i agree with the complaint on this. The article is false and still no usable references that support it staying. All i can see are references to the company that built the bike. There's NO supporting references to the history of the bike e.g. Models, foreign market models, According to the article there's only MK1 and Mk2's Other models that are not Mk2's are grouped with Mk2's. The article needs to be rewritten and correctly sourced. WP:GNG Cotterpins ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC) — Cotterpins ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance ( talk) 18:20, 28 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 moved back to userspace. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Navybearcat2/Inuit religion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be a personal essay for a school project, but not actually in userspace. CoconutOctopus talk 12:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete or move to userspace draft, it appears that's what was intended but the namespace was omitted. Bolding delete as it's my first choice as we already have Inuit religion. SITH (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Opting for draftify given the WikiEd scenario mentioned below. SITH (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I would be happy to move this back to the student's userspace - it's not ready to be live for several reasons. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 14:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Seems fine to me. CoconutOctopus talk 15:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Thanks! Are you OK with me moving the content and closing this out or would you prefer that a non-involved admin or user do the closing out? (I have admin privileges under my main account.) Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 15:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Go for it :) CoconutOctopus talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 W:NOLY and is thereby presumed notable. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 20:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Paul Field (bobsledder) (  | 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 person is notable enough for an article and the handful of citations are self published links. Alligators1974 ( talk) 12:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep: per WP:NOLY athletes are "presumed notable" if they've participated at a Winter Olympics. I agree the sourcing is dire and a copyedit for tone needs to be done but better sources are out there (e.g. 1, 2, 3. SITH (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Update: I've added two different sources but plan on adding the others I referenced in my !vote above, hopefully that, in conjunction with the keep argument is enough to satisfy Heymann. SITH (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:NOLY. He competed in two Winter Olympics in bobsleigh. That falls under the rules. Chris ( talk) 23:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep as above. Competitor in the Olympics. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:26, 27 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. The main arguments in favor of keep were variations of WP:ITSNOTABLE without backup, and that this was a list with a lot of blue links. However, most of the bluelinks are redirects to other lists, some of them up for deletion themselves. – sgeureka ^{t• c} 08:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Forgotten Realms deities (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Mostly "referenced" by primary sources. No independent significance. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - While there is currently the start of an effort to restructure D&D articles, this really has no place on Wikipedia currently. These are simply plot elements without any non-primary context and can constitute game guide information under a certain light. They really provide no greater context to the topic. They simply exist here as part of this 2006 Wikipedia holdover. If notability for the grouping can be established, it severely should be culled similarly to the monster lists. If there are notable articles under this structure, I'd say they definitely number less than five, so a list even for those would be unneeded. TTN ( talk) 12:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• I'd also be fine with a very selective merge to the below-mentioned section, but only in the form of one to three paragraphs of summary style material depending on weight or a very key selection of the most important 5-10 characters to best illustrate the topic. TTN ( talk) 13:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep or selectively merge to Forgotten Realms#Religion. BOZ ( talk) 13:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Selective Merge to Forgotten Realms#Religion - I've heard it be argued that the subject of the overall concept of religions in D&D settings has potential for sourced content, and as the Forgotten Realms article itself is notable and in no danger of being deleted, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and have some of the content here be merged to flesh out the corresponding section. But, as BOZ said, this should be a very selective merging just discussing the overall concept and the most important deities that are unique to this world, as the majority of the content here is just primary sourced plot information. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• TTN, Rorshacma, do you know what this is all about? Drmies ( talk) 04:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• No clue. Anonymous editors on obscure D&D articles is pretty common, especially reviving them. They'll often undo a redirect, update something, and then re-redirect it. I've always assumed it's an active user from the space logging out for whatever reason. TTN ( talk) 05:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Yeah, no idea. Given the dates, I can only assume those edits were prompted by this discussion, but to what purpose, I haven't a clue. As TTN said, anonymous IP editors undoing Redirects for minor D&D articles that had been previously decided in a discussion is fairly common (I run into it all the time when looking at the multitude of non-notable monster articles), but the purpose of this particular set of edits leaves me a bit mystified. Rorshacma ( talk) 14:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep As long as it has that many blue links then its a valid list article. Dream Focus 11:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Valid list from a significant fantasy world. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep A suitable list article for Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 14:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and TTN. Typical WP:ITSNOTABLE comments with absolutely no supporting evidence that it is a notable list. It's just pure WP:GAMECRUFT and the majority of the links are either to other lists or fancruft articles. I honestly do not see any content that can be merged here. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 04:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. List of trivia is not encyclopedic. We have outsourced this stuff to wikias and such. This is already much better covered in https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Deity . Having such lists on Wikipedia is a disservice to the leader. I don't see arguments here that explain how such a list passes WP:LISTN (but I am open to consider them, ping me if you want me to review any new arguments). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete As far as I can tell from the references, no secondary sources exist (I might be wrong, if I am @ me and I'll take a look). I have no idea how this passes WP:LISTN. SportingFlyer T· C 10:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No evidence of real-world notability, just as list of in-universe errata. ValarianB ( talk) 14:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The purpose of this list is to centrally locate and collate the list of Forgotten Realms fictional deities, many of which have either gone through, or are going through, the deletion process already. All of these are legitimately things interested parties might search for, and most if not all of them are things which are not in themselves notable enough to have their own article. Keeping this article provides a legitimate merge and redirect target for all of them, provides an explain of what the subject matter is, and a limited explanation of each entry. Removing the article orphans multiple redirects which currently exist for valid search terms. Vulcan's Forge ( talk) 00:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• That seems to have an initial assumption that any of them are necessary to cover in the first place. There seem to be maybe two or three that are actually notable. TTN ( talk) 00:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply