Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 11 January 13 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 16:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Sai-in (Western Precinct)

Sai-in (Western Precinct) (  | 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 nothing more than a WP:DICDEF Mattg82 ( talk) 23:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 ( talk) 23:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 ( talk) 23:10, 12 January 2020 (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 Chimera in popular culture. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 08:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Chimera (Dungeons & Dragons)

Chimera (Dungeons & Dragons) (  | 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 fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 22:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 22:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 22:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 22:48, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 16:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Srikaran Kandadai

Srikaran Kandadai (  | 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 basic notability criteria for athletes. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep; the source in the article is the only instance of significant coverage (barely, excluding the interview) I can find and that will not push it over the bar, but it does reference his participation at the World Championships. However, he seems to meet WP:ATH by having participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (the Racquetball World Championships) and given he got a silver medal as referenced in the source I think that it is fair to say that he can be presumed to pass our notability standards. Racquetball is not a significant enough sport to have its own notability guideline, but the significance of the silver medal more than makes up for that (even though it's doubles). He barely passes WP:BLP1E as a high-profile individual arguably given this as even though it is only an explanatory supplement it is linked from a policy so it carries some degree of importance. It also states that some subject specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event which would exclude it from WP:BIO1E as well. All in all, I believe that this article is barely notable, and I think that this discussion should have resulted in a demonstration of notability as well. J 947 ( c), at 22:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 22:09, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 16:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien sketches

List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien sketches (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Few sources, no demonstration of notability. Why are these sketches notable and why do we need a list of them? Popcornduff ( talk) 08:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Popcornduff ( talk) 08:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Why are you badgering everybody who votes keep? Also, for this to fail GNG, you have to prove that the COLLECTIVE concept of sketches are not notable. p b p 21:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Purplebackpack89, I'm sorry that I appear to be badgering you, and I was conscious that it might come across that way when I responded. I decided to go ahead anyway because I find the two responses to this nom so far surprising - they don't seem to be responding to the problems I raised (lack of sources and no demonstration of notability). That is why I'm challenging you.
I do not think the burden is on the nominator to prove something is not notable. It's tough to prove a negative. Instead we have to agree that the notability can be demonstrated per WP:GNG. Picking some of the sketches at random, I can't find any independent reliable sources covering them at all, let alone the sketches "as a collective" as you put it. Popcornduff ( talk) 21:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Send it to ConanWiki: this is an inordinate level of detail for Wikipedia, and an excellent level of detail for Wikia. I can add the content to Wikia if needed, with URL attribution (maybe even a list of editors). As for what happens to the page here, well, until someone starts showing us some reviews of individual sketches then it's a delete from me. — Bilorv ( talk) 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Per Gonnym, I'm striking the delete and replacing it with a keep, but I believe the list does need rewriting from scratch, with us only including sketches covered by reliable secondary sources. I also believe the rest of the content is a good fit for Wikia and I'll look at adding it there, whether or not the content is kept here. — Bilorv ( talk) 01:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
      Bilorv, if this article is kept, is anyone who votes keep going to rewrite it from scratch? It's been in a dire state for over a decade, tagged, with no improvement - and in fact since I nominated it for deletion, one of the keep voters has added more original research, which I personally find amazing. I think this is a WP:JUNK situation: Wikipedia lacks articles on a lot of notable subjects. We don't need to keep an article with no merit in itself just because it might, theoretically, be possible to make a good article on the subject. Popcornduff ( talk) 01:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
      Popcornduff, you have really overstepped the line into badgering here. Do not ping me again in this discussion. — Bilorv ( talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
      All right, sorry to have gone too far there. Popcornduff ( talk) 12:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the state of the article isn't good, however I believe this is an essentinal part of the show. I also don't understand the "send to Wikia" argument. If I'd wanted to read something on Wikia and get spammed with ads, I'd go there. There is a reason I and others like me, rather read here. Now for the notability part. It's kind of hard asking to get online(!) sources for something 20 years ago, however here are a few I found in 10 minutes of searching: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Sure, not the best sources, some might not be valid RS, but again, we are talking about a sub-topic of something that was 20 years ago. I'm also sure there are more RS dealing with this subject in print from the time. -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    Gonnym, for this to meet WP:GNG, we have to see that enough individual sketches have had coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. If these sources can be found then great, but you seem to suggest here that they can't. You might find the information personally interesting or useful but WP:INTERESTING isn't a great argument. Popcornduff ( talk) 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    We disagree on how WP:GNG relates to sub-topics as the policy is mute on the topic. See for instance WP:NNC which says that Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Now if this list was part of the main article, your augment about GNG would be irrelevant. However, merging it into the main article will lead to a bad user-experience, which is why we split long articles. I also don't think finding the sources is immpossible, just not something that can be found in AfD. That is probably more serious research and finding actual hard print papers. That said, finding sources which aren't the top of the RS food chain that do talk about it, you can find enough. I'll probably not comment again in this topic, so no point in pining me anymore. Also, while WP:INTERESTING isn't a great argument (and wasn't my primary one either), nor is "send it to Wikia". -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    Gonnym, no problem if you don't want to contribute further. However, I don't think "send it to Wikia" was an argument for deleting it here. Bilorv instead said we should delete it as "this is an inordinate level of detail for Wikipedia". The Wikia idea was just a good-faith suggestion for how this WP:INTERESTING information could be rehomed elsewhere on the web. Popcornduff ( talk) 22:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    I also don't understand the "send to Wikia" argument. If I'd wanted to read something on Wikia and get spammed with ads, I'd go there. You're free to go wherever you want, but my reasoning is that (a) this content is not suitable for Wikipedia and (b) it would be a shame to delete it when it's clearly an enjoyable resource to some. Now you've added some sources, keeping the article looks plausible to me, but it would need to be absolutely blown up per our policies that Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources, and that we're not a place for indiscriminate info (which lists "Summary-only descriptions of works" as its first example, and that's exactly what this list is). — Bilorv ( talk) 23:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    Bilorv, personally, I do not think there are sources out there sufficient to create an article just for these sketches, even post WP:TNT. Yes, there are these bits of coverage like "best sketches" here and there on reliable sources, but they don't add up to a body of work where it's like "we simply cannot cover these sufficiently without their own page". Notable sketches can be covered where appropriate on articles about the shows themselves (such as Late Night with Conan O'Brien). Popcornduff ( talk) 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    I understand your perspective but after a bit of reflection, I disagree. Gonnym has shown to my satisfaction that there are enough sources for a stand-alone list—though the articles about the shows should definitely have critical reception in them—but that list should only cover sketches with secondary source coverage, not the enormous list there is at present. — Bilorv ( talk) 01:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    Bilorv, I getcha, but the problem with that is the article is called "List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien sketches" which implies a degree of comprehensiveness - it would be a bit odd if it only comprised the handful of sketches we can find sources for, when there have been hundreds and hundreds of them - and it invites endless dumping of cruft (see the current article). Popcornduff ( talk) 01:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    Many lists have titles with similar implications e.g. List of Russians. An "endless dumping of cruft" describes the whole of WP:TV, really, but the solution is editor maintenance. — Bilorv ( talk) 01:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    Bilorv, yes, fair enough. I remain skeptical that there is enough meat on the bones of these RSs to justify much coverage of the sketches though. Popcornduff ( talk) 01:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Gonnym. The sources he identified indicate notability, and I suspect they only begin to scratch the surface of what's available upon a wider search. — Hunter Kahn 02:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Comments: WOW! The article has been tagged since 2008-09 which includes an WP:OR tag. The state of the article is horrendous. A problem I have (there are really more than one) is that many of the "Keep" !votes, such as "an important part of Conan O'Brien's former talk shows", or "Plausible content fork of Late Night" are not remotely policy or guideline based. The one argument listing references, so more valid, is provided by Gonnym, that has swayed at least two other editors.
The selection criteria includes "... and supported by reliable sources" and "... it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.". The article was created without using any episodes (only a few tagged with episode needed) and everything from the "Late Night sketches appearing on Tonight" section to the "Coked up Werewolf" subsection of the "Late Night sketches" section is unsourced.
The first source provided here is titled The 20 best Conan O'Brien late-night bits. The top 10 certainly has coverage and the "Masturbating Bear" could likely have a stand alone article. While I tend to think there is notability for "a list" (sub-topic) somewhat like this, "this list" has an issue with notability especially considering the criteria that includes sourcing.
This is not really complicated. The tags from 2008-09 mean that some attention is long overdue. If it is kept, as it appears it could be, will it be on a future AFD list? If it remains as "keep as is" it likely will be. Even if the provided extra sources are vetted and "all" are found reliable, that will not put a dent in the unsourced material. The policy on original research states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research" and that is hard to disprove with the immense unsourced content. At a point something should be done. Currently it appears the list fails Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Citing sources. The "tipping point" may very well be it needs completely rewritten, because "the damage is beyond fixing", and possibly limited to something like the "twenty" that is sourced. I do agree with Gonnym that there maybe more sources "out there" but that is not really a good enough reason to keep such an large mostly unsourced list article (especially considering the tags) that flies in the face of several policies and guidelines.
There is also a fallacy: "...for this to fail GNG, you have to prove that the COLLECTIVE concept of sketches are not notable.", is simply a non-true statement. The "collective concept of sketches" is not even a consideration. WP:GNG is concerning an individual topic, AND-- it is still "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.". Otr500 ( talk) 19:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there are several keep votes, several other folks have commented what seem to be delete votes, without actually stating their position. One should hope an extra week will give them time to write a vote down.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 22:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:36, 13 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 16:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Shane Pinto

Shane Pinto (  | 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. Has not played professionally, and only award is being named to All-Rookie team of the USHL, which is not sufficient to establish notability. If/When he meets the criteria the article can be restored Kaiser matias ( talk) 17:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Lightburst: NORUSH pertains to articles that likely pass GNG. The applicable essay is WP:TOOSOON when it comes to subjects not gaining significant coverage but might one day. Ice hockey specifically has had problems with this in the past for thousands of articles like this getting created, never meeting GNG, and then being forgotten and never updated. It has taken years to clean the mess, so the hockey project may be less forgiving towards ANYBIO (which is specifically vague on the presumption of sources). Only GNG is sufficient here. Yosemiter ( talk) 02:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete He does not meet the actual inclusion criteria for hockey notability. He may be on his way, but we wait until people are notable to create articles. Well, we are supposed to. We actually do not, which is why we have so many articles on people who never made it past an NFL pratice squad up for deletion. This is why we need to force all articles through AfC. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
My question is if he never accomplishes anything else will the awards i mentioned confer notability? Lightburst ( talk) 23:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
No. NHOCKEY does not confer presumptive notability to "all-rookie" teams at any level of play, nor to players in World U18 competition, gold-medal or otherwise. (Many such might meet the GNG, which of course is a different thing.) Make mine Delete. Ravenswing 02:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This seems a little harsh for a guy who missed NHOCKEY inclusion by ONE draft position, and has been covered in some depth by the Guardian and the Athletic. I don't know enough about those two publications to know whether they are local coverage or not though. 18abruce ( talk) 15:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • If he has an in depth article in the Guardian on top of the Athletic article and the Hockey Writers article I think he would pass GNG and then NHOCKEY would be moot. But the Guardian article I am finding is this, and I think I would want a little more before saying definitively that he passes GNG (although it at least brings him to borderline GNG pass). Rlendog ( talk) 13:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Pinto is one of the top scorers for the current #1 ranked NCAA hockey program, North Dakota. And he was the #1 Center for the 2020 World Juniors USA team. That was enough to make me want to look him up on Wikipedia. Also he had a recent mention in the Athletic which is impressive: theathletic.com The Comic Book Guy 18:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Being mentioned in a list of prospects on The Athletic is very common. Here is a similar list of the first 107 picks of 2019. Every team has had about one paragraph written about every pick (eg Tampa Bay's picks go all the way to the 198th overall, Nashville's picks go to 210th, etc). If you go team-by-team on a dedicated sports website you'll find a roughly boilerplate paragraph on every player drafted, and the vast majority of them don't pan out. Citing ( talk) 19:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. Scouting reports for draft picks are extremely common through every round of the NHL draft (basically every player will have a paragraph written here or there regardless of notability) and the ones presented here are no exception . It's very possible he will make it to the pro leagues and meet the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY... but it's also very possible he won't and at the moment we're speculating. Citing ( talk) 17:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 22:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources from Comic Book Guy. Fails NHOCKEY but passes GNG. Smartyllama ( talk) 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - has enough coverage to satisfy GNG, including lots of stories about him in the Grand Forks Herald ( this and this are just 2 of many examples), plus The Hockey News, The Athletic, three paragraphs about him here, and several pieces (though none great by themselves) in the Ottawa Sun. Rlendog ( talk) 22:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC per Rlendog's sources. Also, this nomination shows a major weakness in WP:NHOCKEY #5. The guy drafted ONE spot ahead of him is auto-notable, and would get unanimous "Keep" votes if sent to AfD, but he isn't? Ejgreen77 ( talk) 00:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Ejgreen77: Yes, #5 is a bit arbitrary. But where should the arbitrary line be? Certainly not every second round draft pick meets GNG, something like 60-70% ever play in the NHL. Almost all first round picks get coverage after the fact, mainly due to being the team's top selection (if it was their first pick anyways). No NSPORTS SNG is perfect, but that is why they are written to meet GNG, and the first round is easier to define then "first round draft pick if it was the team's first pick of the draft and then the top couple of spots in the second round..." IMO, this is one of those borderline notables. They have a few decent sources as a prospect, but they are limited to just that: his amateur career. I have no strong opinion on keep or delete at this time. Yosemiter ( talk) 04:17, 19 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 16:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Nommel Place, Arizona

Nommel Place, Arizona (  | 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 GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place. – dlthewave ☎ 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A redirect can be created (and deleted) separately. Sandstein 08:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Midway, La Paz County, Arizona

Midway, La Paz County, Arizona (  | 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 GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place. – dlthewave ☎ 21:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 22:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Bootlegger Crossing, Arizona

Bootlegger Crossing, Arizona (  | 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 GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place. – dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, the name is used to identify the spot where a road crosses the train tracks. No more unusual than millions of names of streets, buildings, etc. where things happen also yet those places don't meet GNG either. MB 14:21, 13 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Bishop Place, Arizona

Bishop Place, Arizona (  | 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 GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 21:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
SportingFlyer Some nominators research... and then list all at once. I did so before I nominated ten or so, and Reywas did so before a bulk nomination. Lightburst ( talk) 00:14, 13 January 2020 (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 Faithful+Gould. RL0919 ( talk) 01:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Confluence Project Management

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

This article has no independent RS, and I am struggling to find one, but that might be because of all the articles about the Atlassian product. I can find directories and namechecks, but nothing else so far. It was written by user:ConfluencePM. Guy ( help!) 21:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 21:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 21:41, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Babbit Winter, Arizona

Babbit Winter, Arizona (  | 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 GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 21:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:30, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Apex, Arizona

Apex, Arizona (  | 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 GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place; satellite view shows a railroad junction. – dlthewave ☎ 21:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
OK, we've got "The U.S. Forest Service deeded Arizona 815 acres of land alongside the Williams-Grand Canyon highway, between Tusayan and Apex, and two years ago Vercellino gave the go-ahead for construction" and "In 1928, he moved to Apex, on the Grand Canyon line of the Santa Fe Railroad, where he continued to log in the Tusayan-Skinner Ridge area until 1936". – dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
You're setting a much higher standard for these than is needed. But it doesn't matter - it was a company town and passes WP:GEOLAND, which is exactly why this bulk deletion concerns me. [21] SportingFlyer T· C 03:51, 13 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 08:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Allan Lake Landing, Arizona

Allan Lake Landing, Arizona (  | 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 GNG due to lack of significant coverage. BEFORE search did not return any evidence that this was ever a populated place. – dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Allister Adel

Allister Adel (  | 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 an article on the INTERIM county attorney for a county in Arizona. All the references in the article, and everything outside it, cover her only in this capacity and seem to be routine. Wolfson5 ( talk) 21:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 ( talk) 21:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 ( talk) 21:16, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Bricksmart

Bricksmart (  | 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 an article on a high school robotics team that briefly appeared in a documentary that had no theatrical release. It doesn't pass the GNG. Wolfson5 ( talk) 21:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 ( talk) 21:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 ( talk) 21:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It would appear that this group has only received coverage is local sources. I attempted to find some more, but was only able to find additional local sources and social media posts. It does not appear to have ever garnered any notability outside of its community. Rorshacma ( talk) 23:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Appears to have some minor local interest story-type coverage, but ultimately most of this article is based on primary and/or non-reliable sources, and WP:GNG does not appear to be satisfied. -- Kinu  t/ c 20:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Eagles  24/7  (C) 01:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Vincent Smith (American football)

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

This is a BLP on a collegiate football player that doesn't pass the standards of either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. All coverage is game reporting on games in which he played and is, therefore, WP:ROUTINE. There is no biographical coverage as such. Wolfson5 ( talk) 21:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 ( talk) 21:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Missvain ( talk) 00:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply

List of United States presidential candidate firsts

List of United States presidential candidate firsts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are so many trivial firsts. List of United States presidential firsts is also under siege. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 19:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Mama Lu's Dumpling House

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

Unremarkable restaurant. No significant coverage other than restaurant reviews in local media. Zanhe ( talk) 19:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zanhe ( talk) 19:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
I'll drop these on the talk page of the article. Missvain ( talk) 01:05, 17 January 2020 (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. Article was deleted through CSD for COPYVIO. (non-admin closure) ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study

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

Non-notable research study (or component thereof). Only substantive editor has COI (declared). The content appears to match that of https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/DSDR/studies/4679?q=toledo&archive=DSDR but it's possible that (due to the connection of the contributor) it is allowed by their employer/license-holder. DMacks ( talk) 18:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete – We need explicitly stated permission from ICPSR Data Holdings, the publisher and copyright owner. Since this was from 2011, that is unlikely to materialize at this time. The editor claiming to work for the organization is not enough. OTRS has to be involved and the permission verified. ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Coffeeandcrumbs: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biodemographic Models for Reproductive Aging Project (another page I nominated yesterday analogous to this one). Looking more, the others created User:DSDR tech seem to be comparable. Should I file a new nom for them, or add them here (and merge that other one here also?), or do you want to tag them for speedy? DMacks ( talk) 04:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
DMacks, the only thing that should stop you is if the material has be significantly edited since creation and then copied to other articles. Even then those infected articles would have to be cleaned for COPYVIO. I do not think that is likely to have happened in these two articles you mentioned. User: Diannaa is an expert on these things. ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
I say WP:NUKE them all. ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
DMacks I tag all but 2 of the articles created by the user for CSD. Here is what remains:
These two are not as clear cut of a COPYVIO but I think they should be deleted as well. You would have to nominate them separately. ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:55, 14 January 2020 (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 Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 12:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Biodemographic Models for Reproductive Aging Project

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

Non-notable research project or dataset. Created by COI account (declared) with no sources other than its own organization. The content appears to match that of https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/DSDR/studies/4452?q=aging&archive=DSDR# but it's possible that (due to the connection of the contributor) it is allowed by their employer/license-holder. DMacks ( talk) 18:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to CD Projekt. Missvain ( talk) 17:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

REDengine

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

Video game engine used by one developer for its games. It has received coverage, but basically only in the context of the (relatively few) games for which it was used. It should be covered in the articles about these games, because all information about the different versions of the engine is specific to one particular game. Separate from the games this is not a notable topic. Sandstein 18:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:30, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

At the Beginning (artwork)

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

non-notable artwork. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No evidence whatsoever of passing WP:GNG. — MarkH21 talk 20:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ThatMontrealIP, before dismissing it wholesale, it might be worth looking a bit closer at the publisher, it:Giorgio Mondadori, and the author it:Paolo Levi of one of the sources, who both seem reputable. (I don't have access to the source, only two libraries hold it) But even if that reference checks out, it is only one and this is a fairly blatant attempt at promoting an artist whose work has received very little critical attention. "pittostruttura" appears to be a neologism invented by Taccon. The Langhkawi International Festival of Arts seems to have evolved into the Lankawi Art Biennale, but I don't think it has anywhere near the importance of some of the more established biennals. Vexations ( talk) 20:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Vexations, I am always happy to consider that someone or an artwork might be notable, but I am not seeing anything good in this article or in a search. The Quadriennale de Roma source used in the article is a listing for a library archive, rather than a work held in a collection. It mentions papers, a catalogue, correspondence and a poster. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 00:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
ThatMontrealIP, It's a fairly obvious notability fail, but I do not wish to dismiss potentially legitimate sources without considering them carefully. Just doing due diligence. Vexations ( talk) 01:08, 13 January 2020 (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 Temper Temper (Bullet for My Valentine album). Missvain ( talk) 17:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

P.O.W (Bullet for My Valentine song)

P.O.W (Bullet for My Valentine 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)

Article tagged for notability issues for over 6 years and makes no claims of notability for this music track. Fails WP:NMUSIC. I suggest at best it should be redirected permanently to Temper Temper (Bullet for My Valentine album) Sionk ( talk) 18:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Soul Merchants

Soul Merchants (  | 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 doesn't indicate anything that would make the band notable per WP:NMUSIC. Looking at the sourcing in the article to see whether they would pass WP:GNG, I'm not seeing any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The 'Colorado New Wave/Punk Rock' article gives them a couple of passing mentions (and I'm not sure about its reliability); the Midheaven site is selling their record (not independent); The 'Exclaim! Exclaim' review is significant coverage, but I'm doubtful as to its reliability - I can't find an 'About' section on the website, but it looks like it's written by contributors so likely a WP:UGC review; Discogs and Allmusic are directory listings with no significant content; the Smooch Records site is their record label - not independent. I looked for better sourcing, but didn't find anything better - just more UGC reviews and the like. (Watch out when searching for sourcing - there is at least one other band with this name). So, this doesn't appear to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. GirthSummit (blether) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The Exclaim! source is fine, and I found a review in The Marquee ( [23]). There's likely to be coverage from the 80s that won't be online. -- Michig ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Thank you, Michig. I remember there were other reputable sources that mentioned this group more than 10 years ago, however, it seems like those webpages/websites don't exist anymore. Also I agree, there were probably more coverage about this band from the 1980s that haven't been mentioned online as well. I've also added sources such as the Daily Camera newspaper and Westword online newspaper into this article. Ninmacer20 ( talk) 23:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Michig Would you mind expanding on why the Exlaim! source is fine? I'm not familiar with it, so could be speaking out of turn here, but their website says that they accept contributions from the public ('Get Published'), and I'm not seeing the author of that review on their staff list - that's why I was suspicious that this was WP:UGC with uncertain editorial oversight - not the sort of thing we should be using to establish notability. The Marquee review you found is three sentences long - can we really call that in-depth treatment? The Daily Camera piece gives even less coverage - a passing mention in a single sentence. The Westword one looks like the best of the bunch actually - that's a decent length, and written by someone who appears to be a staff writer, but on its own it doesn't establish notability, and I'd still lean towards delete unless you can set me straight on the Exclaim ref. GirthSummit (blether) 17:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Exclaim! is a printed magazine based in Canada and distributed worldwide, its in my local shop in Scotland, it obviously has an editorial team and has a good reputation for music subjects. The website is an extension of the magazine, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    Atlantic306, can't we say the same for Forbes though? Printed magazine, reliable source for staff-written content, but they also have a website that accepts stuff written by just about anyone, with minimal editorial oversight. We do not accept articles by Forbes contributors as RS, or as establishing notability - is this site any different? GirthSummit (blether) 10:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Unless there is evidence they've printed anything unreliable we can't criticise their editorial oversight, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw Per this thread on RSN, it seems that the community is not urgently concerned about the use of Exclaim! as a source, and so on the strength of that review, and the Westword one, this band probably makes it through GNG, and so I am happy to withdraw the nomination, with apologies to Ninmacer20. I'd close this myself, but haven't gotten around to learning how to use those buttons yet. GirthSummit (blether) 19:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Teen Titans. Missvain ( talk) 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Young Frankenstein (character)

Young Frankenstein (character) (  | 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 fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Redirect - There are virtually no non-primary sources regarding the character. That, along with the fact that the character was extremely minor, making only a small handful appearances, makes merging to the main Teen Titans article inappropriate. If anything, it could be, instead, redirected to List of Teen Titans members, where he is already covered, but if that is to be done, I agree with CaptainEek that it should probably be re-named. Rorshacma ( talk) 23:56, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Andrew Dold

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

WP:ARTIST fail. Now and then I think it is important to enforce the higher standard of WP:ARTIST, as if we accept this artist is notable we are going to have thousands of articles on people who do good drawings with coloured pencils. This particular artist has has some minor success, but it is nothing to write home about as they say. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:34, 12 January 2020 (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 Pickering Nuclear Generating Station#2020 nuclear incident alert. Tone 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

2020 Ontario nuclear incident alert

2020 Ontario nuclear incident alert (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a false alarm , nobody died, not a major event. It just happened WP:NOTNEWS. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 15:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 15:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (and redirect to Pickering Nuclear Generating Station#2020 nuclear incident alert). Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this incident has no clear established notability warranting its own page yet. If it reaches that point then a new page can easily be created, but because this is already being covered under the Incidents section of the plant’s page and there’s insufficient material to justify its own page yet, that’s the best way to handle for now. Shelbystripes ( talk) 20:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Unlikely to have a lasting effect and you can't subscribe to Wikipedia. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for the moment as political response is taking place... then either keep altogether or redirect to Pickering Nuclear Generating Station#2020 nuclear incident alert. As mentioned above, "large-scale false alarms have precedent to be notable (see 2005 Connecticut false evacuation alert, 2018 Hawaii false missile alert, &c.)" Spyder212 ( talk) 20:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - This is getting notability backwards, though. Sure, this event has the potential to become notable and warrant its own page in the future, but this AfD is over whether it’s notable now. If it’s not notable enough to have its own page now, this should be deleted. If notability is established later, then it would be appropriate to re-create a standalone article at that time (potentially using content off the Pickering Station page, if it continues to be updated about this incident). That is how notability works. If your argument is that maybe it could become notable later, that is a sign you agree the page meets the policy criteria for deletion. Shelbystripes ( talk) 20:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Or draftify, if we're feeling generous, on the off chance that this generates sustained coverage. But I highly doubt this is going to have a lasting impact. I live in Ontario and people have mostly forgotten about it a few hours later. The Hawaii and Connecticut false alarms caused panic because they stated that there was imminent danger and urged residents to evacuate. In this case the emergency alert stated There has been no abnormal release of radioactivity from the station... People DO NOT need to take any protective actions at this time. People turned it off, went back to sleep and maybe made a joke about it on Twitter. Not a notable event. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 20:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Premature to delete, has citations to reliable sources. Notability is not about being "notable", it is about there existing reliable citable sources. The topic can be subsequently incorporated into an article on the facility if nothing further comes of the event.
    -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 02:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. This did happen, and is obviously notable enough to warrant mention somewhere in Wikipedia — but it doesn't clear the high bar needed to warrant its own standalone article separately from being discussed in the article on Pickering itself. Apart from possibly an internal adjustment of the emergency alert procedures to reduce the likelihood of a repeat occurence, this is not going to have any enduring long-term effects for the purposes of needing its own dedicated article. If the existence of sources automatically exempted a topic from having to have a reason why an encyclopedia article was warranted, we would have to keep an article about every house fire that ever happened. Bearcat ( talk) 17:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS, words at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station is enough, of concern are some of the above words - "the event happened less than four hours ago", exactly why the article shouldn't have been created, and "Premature to delete", no, this was premature to create. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: How on earth is this notable? It was just a test! Minecrafter0271 ( talk) 04:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 17:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Stacey Donovan

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

Giving evidence in a trial is poor gruel for a blp. Needs much better sourcing than this Spartaz Humbug! 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:12, 12 January 2020 (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) 17:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Midori (actress)

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

Sources offered fail gng and lack necessary depth and independence to support a blp Spartaz Humbug! 14:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Yes, I know, I just wanted to gauge others thoughts before. I have decided to focus on women pornographic-focused bios for a while, and I'm still getting my feelers out there regarding the subject. I'm so excited that the guidelines for WP:PORN have been deprecated. I didn't even know that was happening last Spring and I just think it's way better, and way more supportive, of women in the industry - and those who want, perhaps, disappear into obscurity. Missvain ( talk) 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
We should not ignore here the fact that, whether or not the biography of a living person stays up is typically not decided by that person, especially if that person is widely known. (The related policies can be found in WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, WP:BIODELETE, and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.) And there is always the resort of subjects who have legal or other serious concerns about material they find about themselves on a Wikipedia page to apply to have the material removed. (See WP:BIOSELF.) Cheers. - The Gnome ( talk) 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)- The Gnome ( talk) 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I rewrote Midori's article. Sourcing is very interesting sometimes for pornographic actors, not always your typical mainstream coverage. While a few sources are interviews, I do think her historical significant is valuable in porn, women's history, and black history. Also she's consistent with her stories in multiple interviews, when I use oral history (and I do regularly, including when I was Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian) that is something I look for - consistency. Oral history is invaluable in subjects where mainstream media might not be covering the subject. Also see WP:BASIC regarding the plethora of reliable secondary sources that we combined to create a substantial piece about her. Anyway, I hope Midori is kept! Missvain ( talk) 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Sincere congratulations on your work on oral history, as you testify above, Missvain. Two points, if I may: One, women's history and African-American (black) history, as you know, contain the stories/biographies of myriads of persons, as well as the transcripts of the many oral testimonies that have been saved. Wikipedia has a special focus on education, as we know, but oral history in thw context of Wikipedia cannot but be treated as every other source, i.e. on the basis of verifiability. For this purpose, interviews are useful in Wikipedia to support an event or something else of note - but as far the person's own Wikinotability is concerned, which typically translates to inclusion of an article about them, an interview is of little use. (See note c in WP:PRIMARY.) We cannot be the ones who establish our own notibility in Wikipedia! And, two, the fact that Midori is "consistent," as you put it, across her interviews amounts to very little, as far as, again, Wikinotability is concerned. - The Gnome ( talk) 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
-Repeated citations of an offline advertorial in the Black Video Illustrated porn video guide.
- Interviews such as this or this on blogs and "adult" websites (where every porn performer who can be reached is interviewed),
-Interviews of her sister, Jody Watley, such as this on Ebony, in which our subject is name dropped.
-Author David Foster Wallace visited the 2005 AVN event for his short story "Big Red Son" (which later appeared in the collection Consider the Lobster) and mentions there that our subject got a porn award.
-A list from a website of "top" African American porn stars (where our subject ranks 11th)
-A quite respectable British newspaper, The Guardian, is summoned to give evidence but all we get is a mention in its TV listings of the documentary Glamour Girlz about "black girls in porn", in which Midori is briefly mentioned & shown.
-After the Guardian we get the New York Daily News where a small article appeared in 1997 about "Jody's sister doing porn" and how both girls' careers are "on the rise."
-Hopes for a serious citation are rekindled with the link to the Los Angeles Times but the report is actually a movie review, and specifically about an "entertaining documentary on three exotic dancers," among whom is "Michele Watley."
-The "sex & music" magazine Blender contains an article that describes Midori's claim to fame rather accurately: "Eagle-eyed fans can spot Midori among a trio of half-naked girls pleasuring Andrew Dice Clay on the cover of the Dice Man's 2000 album."
- National Post had a 1999 article about our subject, adorned with an eye-candy photo, focusing on the porn-to-music angle. (The newspaper did not show any subsequent interest whatsoever. Neither did the other non-porn sources.)
-In the very lengthy Spin article "The 100 Sleaziest Moments in Rock", we encounter Midori in "moment #44", which is about Kid Rock's "ode to fellatio". We learn incidentally that Kid Rock also "dated and then dumped" our subject. And there's yet another Spin piece dedicated to Kid Rock, where the inevitable (name drop of our subject) happens again.
-Mentions in routine listings, such as this, of music concerts.
- CMJ New Music Monthly ran a piece in 1999 about the fad of rock bands getting porn stars in their videos "to portray that old rock and roll image". Our subject is mentioned among them.
-The rest of the references are porn awards, listings, and write ups. But we have already and firmly established that our subject existed and worked for a time in the porn sector. (She probably would have failed WP:PORNBIO too, were it still in place.)
In sum: What we have here, in all honesty, is a person who did not make any notable waves as a porn performer and then made a very little noticed attempt at a career in singing. The latter would have gone entirely unnoticed were it not for two facts: (a) she was previously in porn, and (b) she has a famous sister. The large quantity hides a dearth of quality. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per expansion by Missvain and WP:BASIC where coverage can be combined to demonstrate notability, especially with the National Post article, Blender, and the documentaries, The Unveiling and Glamour Girlz, themselves. Oh and this source has more coverage about that documentary than the Guardian. [24] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 07:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • For the record, the above new reference is, once again, not about our subject at all but about the documentary Glamour Girlz, which, as already stated, also contains footage of her. And merely asserting that some sources are worthy will not do. No matter how many nothings we may "combine" or add up we still get nothing. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
I'm saying the documentaries themselves are sources about the subject. [25] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Agree. It pays to revisit WP:BASIC when we talk about "multiple references" and particulary about "combining" them. That guideline is quite clear: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability, i.e. no matter what one tries in combinatorics. I demonstrated above that all the sources cited are far from "substantial" and are actually (possibly lower than) "trivial." But enough is enough. - The Gnome ( talk) 18:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've read both Gnome and Morbidthoughts evaluation of the sources and find the latter more persuasive. Props to Missvain for rescuing this article. If I'd ever encountered this article before her rescue work, I would have been a slam-dunk delete !voter. David in DC ( talk) 18:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the kind words David in DC - excited to report the article is now rated as a B level article! Missvain ( talk) 18:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 17:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Shauna O'Brien

Shauna O'Brien (  | 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 bio blp sourcing requirements and the gng Spartaz Humbug! 14:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:19, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Ulugbekhon Yusuphonovich Maksumov

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

Non-notable businessman. 5 of the 8 references are about Inkas business unit. Fails WP:BIO. Previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulugbekhon Maksumov under a slightly different name. scope_creep Talk 14:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 14:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 14:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 14:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He is a notable Business magnate, he has also received significant honor's from the like's of UAE Ambassador of Russian "Efimov Alexander" and His Highness Sheikh Zayed Bin Maktoum Bin Rashid Al Maktoum. He is recognized for his contribution to the armored field in Dubai; which eventually means he meets WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 and 2. He has also been published on reliable sources both in English and Russian, and here are few reliable sources independent of the subject bellow.
English Russian
[30] The Punch [31] Sputnik
[32] Defence [33] Kabar
[34] Vanguard News [35] Russian Emirates
[36] TheNewsGuru -

The previously deleted article fails WP:BIO, but presently he meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG criteria for notability. -- Qamar645 ( talk) 21:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  • He doesn't pass ANYBIO by a long shot. He is a businessman with a business trying to promote it on here and you are the promoter. scope_creep Talk 23:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ scope_creep, I understand what Wikipedia is not and what it is. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise business personalities, but an online encyclopedia. So I don't understand why I would come here to promote an article which clearly meets the criteria and written on WP:NPOV as wikipedia articles should be addressed not like the Draft:Ulugbekhon Maksumov which is written as WP:PROMOTION which I believe is the reason for the first AfD made on the subject.
Honestly, I don't know what we are looking at to establish notability again, even after meeting 
WP:GNG and 
WP:ANYBIO criteria.

Like you said "He is a businessman with a business trying to promote it on here", why on earth would United Arab Emirates business magnate choose Wikipedia as a place to promote his business when we have social media or news media to promote his business. Also if you have done your research according to the media INKAS Vehicles revenue is 300 USD yearly even bigger than what INKAS last recorded. If you also look closely on the media, INKAS has been calling out for help from other countries to help shut down INKAS Vehicles which is founded by Ulugbekhon Maksumov, an working in connection with United Nation and I don't see him passing WP:ANYBIO as a long shot in anyway, it clear he passes the criteria. I understand as an editor/admin we might go on and on, and might never come to a conclusion. Also, he's verified on Instagram with over 1.9M followers and his company is verified with 334k followers, which is almost half a million. I know I shouldn't be pointing at this direction about a significant cult following but because I want to prove a point, INKAS himself is not verified with half of the number of followers they got and they the only verified INKAS company. -- Qamar645 ( talk) 06:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Even with the supposedly large number of followers it doesn't make him notable. There must be some coverage that satisfies WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 18:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While the article cites a number of sources, the subject himself does not seem have accrued sufficient in-depth coverage in said sources and as such fails WP:NBIO. For example, many of the sources mention the subject (in his function as a businessman) but are ultimately concerned with other topics, an issue given that notability is not inherited. Once you separate Maksumov from the notable companies he is affiliated with, there is not much left to establish notability, and that little is almost all WP:PRIMARY (such as interviews or brief comments). SamHolt6 ( talk) 23:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agree with SamHolt6. There is no in-depth coverage of the person. Not clear what exactly he did to be notable. My very best wishes ( talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete His company might possibly be notable, but there is no indication that he is, independently of the company. . The article. is clearly promotional -- and the combination fo promotionalism and dubious or borderline notability is an excellent reason for deletion. If anything , the promotionalism is more important--we do not accept promotional articles no matter how notable the subject. DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 15 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

C.J. Jackson

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

PROD removed by an IP without explanation. The subject fails WP:NBASKETBALL, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. A Google search only turns up basic stats and coverage from Jackson's college, such as this and this. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:20, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Skilling (online trading company)

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

Non-notable trading business. Was G11, then SPA came in and removed. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGCRIT. scope_creep Talk 13:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:55, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Sayantan Basu

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

Losing candidate in election. Fails WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 12:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 12:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
"General Secretary of the State of X of Y political party" is not a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to get over WP:GNG on the sources. Doesn't matter whether it's the biggest party or the smallest party or the middlest party — it's never an "inherently" notable role at all. Bearcat ( talk) 02:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note to closing admin: Pinakpani ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 09:13, 15 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Midway City (DC Comics)

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

Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG/ WP:NFICTION. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a PRIMARY source of a WP:PLOT-like fictional bio summary. Deproded with an invalid argument ( WP:ITSNOTABLE). So here we go again. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 03:58, 15 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Rond Vidar

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

Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG/ WP:NFICTION. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a PRIMARY source of a WP:PLOT-like fictional bio summary. Deproded with no rationale. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 03:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 ( talk) 20:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Gibraltar Petanque Association

Gibraltar Petanque Association (  | 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:NORG and WP:GNG. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J 947 ( c), at 02:19, 13 January 2020 (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. Missvain ( talk) 17:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

LJ Music

LJ Music (  | 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 GNG and NMUSIC. No appearances in any charts that I could find, nor is there SIGCOV about her. Would not satisfy any other notability criteria. PK650 ( talk) 06:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 ( talk) 06:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If not deleted, needs to be at a better title, perhaps LJ (singer), and the entry at dab page LJ (to which I've just added her) needs to be updated. Would have moved the page, but it's not helpful to do so during an AfD. Pam D 10:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from article author

Hi PK650, I created this Wikipedia article for LJ Music. Please accept my apologies if there is something wrong with the page or I did not follow a specific Wikipedia rule or process. I've been an avid Wikipedia contributor for almost 10 years and have made hundreds of contributions and have created a bunch of pages for all types of people and organizations in the arts. I really hope this page does not get deleted because I feel it does warrant having its own page.

I read through your reasons for deleting her page. Thank you for taking the time to go through Wikipedia articles to ensure they are accurate and warranted! As a 10-year Wikipedia contributor, I strongly believe in ensuring Wikipedia is as accurate as possible :)

For your comments, are you suggesting that if a musician does not have an appearance in a chart that he or she should not be able to have a Wikipedia page? I don't necessarily agree with that requirement. I felt a Wikipedia article is justified for her for three key reasons.

First, LJ Music, from what I have found, is signed to a well-known record label/publishing company (RED Creative Group) that work with many reputable artists, which to me helps prove her reputation.

Second, from what I found, she has worked with, and appears to be currently working with, a bunch of well-known producers and songwriters who have been in the music industry a long time and have won many industry awards (such as Jeremy Stover, Paul DiGiovanni, Deana Carter, Monty Criswell, Kelly Archer, Sarah Buxton, and the Warren Brothers.)

And third, she has a bunch of credible third-party industry websites that have written about her, or mention her work, that satisfied Wikipedia's requirement to have verifiable sources. I felt these three reasons made her legit enough to have her own Wikipedia article, especially since she has songs that are live from those known individuals in the music industry. I don't think that just because she doesn't have a hit song that she should be disqualified for having a page?

Regarding PamD's comment, I can totally change the title. The only reason I chose "musician" rather than "singer" is because I have seen "musician" used in parenthesis all the time for musicians throughout my years contributing to Wikipedia. I was just trying to follow the same format and use the same verbiage I've seen other musicians used.

Do you agree with any of my reasonings? Would you feel more comfortable keeping the page if I found more information about her that increased her credibility? I understand anyone has the right to suggest a page for deletion on Wikipedia, but I was hoping my 10 years as a contributor, and the facts I've made hundreds of contributions over the years would help prove my credibility. During my daily browsing of the world wide web, when I come across an artist, musician, or other kind of enthusiast, if I see enough about that person, I try to create or contribute to a Wikipedia page. So that's why I decided to create hers, after seeing all the information about being signed, published, working with award winning songwriters and producers, and seeing so many third-party websites mentioning her and her music career.

Happy to talk more. And thank you again for bringing this to my attention! Hoping this page can stay. Salvatore42 ( talk) 20:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Salvatore42: Please look at WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC which were mentioned, but unfortunately not linked, in the nomination. Then make sure that the article has sources which satisfy the requirements of one of these, and make a "Keep" argument on this page pointing out how LJ satisfies those criteria. Thanks. Pam D 00:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 12 January 2020 (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) 11:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hellier (documentary series)

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

The last AFD was closed for procedural reasons, but it isn't any more notable now than it was previously. The main "sources" that were identified in the previous review are Richmond Register and Vice, which both are derived from press releases without significant original content, and these two obscure non-RS websites which have reviewed it. Does not meet WP:NFILM, WP:GNG, or anything else. The content is based on junk sources and needs to be scrapped. b uidh e 05:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. b uidh e 05:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. b uidh e 05:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Here is a copy of the last discussion:
TheMemeMonarch ( talk) 06:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
thanks. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Excuse me, Coolabahapple, but what Buidhe said is not confirmed. If MJL could comment, that would clear up any misunderstands as to why the first AFD discussion was closed. TheMemeMonarch ( talk) 07:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
@ TheMemeMonarch: Thank you for the ping. I closed the last AFD for procedural reasons as was mentioned. The logic behind it was Buidhe suggested it be merged with another article, and AFD is generally not supposed to be used to suggest mergers (see WP:MERGE). When that happens, generally the result is either keep or merge per speedy keep ( example).
Theoretically, SKCRIT applies to suggestions that a page be redirected as well, but I will leave that to another potential closer.
Either way, to answer Coolabahapple's question, the logic behind WP:SKCRIT is to prevent AFD from having discussions where everyone agrees the content should be kept. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 17:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. As just a commentator, I don't see how the Vice and Richmond Register sources are at all based from Press Releases. They seem pretty significant to me, and both give every indication that they're original reporting. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 17:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 12 January 2020 (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 George Galloway#Other developments (2015–19). The delete/redirect camp has made valid arguments that notability criteria are not satisfied and that we can't prognosticate on notability, while the keep camp hasn't really cited any evidence of notability beyond a deprecated source. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Workers Party of Britain

Workers Party of Britain (  | 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 political party does not meet notability requirements. No organisation is inherently notable, including political parties. No organisation inherits notability from associated people, so the notability of George Galloway does not grant any notability to the party.

The current referencing includes primary sources and a blog source that do not contribute to notability. The only secondary source is a local newspaper article which I don't think counts as significant coverage. More than half of the article is text copied from the party's own website. It's a routine announcement that counts as dependent coverage. This article does not meet WP:NORG. Ralbegen ( talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen ( talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen ( talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen ( talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Namiba: Click. ミラ P 04:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes—for the GNG and WP:NORG, coverage has to come from reliable sources amongst the other criteria. The Daily Mail explicitly fails that requirement. Ralbegen ( talk) 10:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Too soon to decide. If it turns out to be just a front for Galloway it can be merged into his article. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to George Galloway#Other developments (2015–19). The party lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. In the absence of those sources there's no basis to write an encyclopaedia article rather than a summary of a few news stories. Nonetheless, it's plausible that a better claim for notability might be made in the coming months or years, and it's not unreasonable to expect that some people will be looking for information about it on Wikipedia. As such, preserving the search term and the history is likely to be useful. (I don't think, however, that much if anything needs to be merged – the two sentences in the Galloway article are sufficient for now.) –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 20:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
That could work! Ralbegen ( talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Whether an organisation will get coverage in the future doesn't confer notability. Ralbegen ( talk) 17:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Rebecca Buck (journalist)

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

Jouranlists are not default notable. The sources are all either about her dad, routine society coverage, employer job changes postings, or PR postings, none are substantial, indepdent 3rd party coverage about her. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 00:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources added by AuthorAuthor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Other than the name mentions in event announcements in publications (obit, wedding party, etc. for references 1, 2, 3, 4). Others are primary sources (references 6, 8, 9, 10). References 5 and 7 are duplicated leading to the same passing mention. Ergo, subject lacks significant secondary source coverage. Lorelai1335 ( talk) 13:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Lorelai1335 reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Finlay Pringle

Finlay Pringle (  | 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 boy is popularized for just one single event, for calling out Bear grylls, that happened in 2018, more than a year ago. There is nothing enough to pass GNG that happened after that. Daiyusha ( talk) 09:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 10:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 10:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Likely to remain a WP:LPI so not notable as per WP:BLP1E. WP:GNG doesn't ask for being well-known for more than one event, e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald is only known for JFK's assasination. This article has significant coverage: multiple articles about him in detail. The articles also discuss things other than him calling out Bear Grylls, e.g. he was one of the first Britons to go on a climate strike and he was named young campaigner of the year [1]. It also uses reliable sources: it refers to published articles, and WP:GNG also says the existence of secondary sources is a good test for notability - the sources do exist, so the article passes WP:GNG. BobEret ( talk) 16:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
BobEret ( talk · contribs) a bunch of schoolkids are protesting, he's not the only one. For a country like UK, i doubt that someone protesting against climate change in 2018 is considered one of the first. any major source wrote about him is only because of him commenting on bear grylls, or else he wouldn't be written about. I still believe this should be deleted as per WP:BLP1E Daiyusha ( talk) 16:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Daiyusha ( talk · contribs) Actually, you're right, I agree he is likely to remain a WP:LPI. I have adjusted my vote accordingly.
  1. ^ "'You have a voice': Meet Finlay Pringle, 12, who is our answer to Greta Thunberg". inews.co.uk. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Copterline Oy. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Copterline

Copterline (  | 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 seems to be a duplicate of Copterline Oy. Not a very active user ( talk) 08:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 08:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 08:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 08:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 08:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge This is quite confusing, but apparently this article was split by @ Vuo: in 2012 because the Finnish company "Copterline Oy" went bankrupt but an Estonian company "Copterline OÜ" continued with the trademark. The Estonian company went bankrupt in 2016 as well. But given that both companies are now bankrupt, they used the same trademark and the histories are intertwined anyway, it should be merged. But care needs to be taken to take this history into account.-- Pudeo ( talk) 11:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge AfD is the wrong tool for this. Merge content from Copterline Oy to Copterline, not vice versa as suggested. Copterline Oy can be left as a redirect to Copterline. This is because Copterline OÜ effectively continued the history of Copterline Oy by serving as a vehicle for Line Support Oy, even if the formal legal identities do not coincide. -- vuo ( talk) 22:19, 13 January 2020 (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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 09:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Massimo Taccon

Massimo Taccon (  | 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 can't find any reliable sources in any language with significant coverage of the subject to pass WP:GNG, and nothing suggests that the subject satisfies any of the WP:ARTIST criteria: only one of his works is hosted by a notable museum, i.e. none are a substantial part of a significant exhibition or represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums (italicization is mine), and thing that would possibly fall under a significant new concept, theory, or technique is a manifesto of his art movement posted on a blog. — MarkH21 talk 08:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 talk 08:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 talk 08:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 talk 08:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
I have nominated the related page At the Beginning (artwork) for deletion. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:24, 12 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 07:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Watcher (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

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

WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:PLOTty article on a fictional organisation, sourced to WP:PRIMARY. A summary is already present in Buffyverse#Watchers, and there is no need for a WP:SPINOUT in such a state. Redirect or delete? – sgeureka t• c 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t• c 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t• c 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is consensus that we should not have this article. Whether and where to redirect this list or individual orcs to is something that can be sorted out at the editorial level. Sandstein 07:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Middle-earth Orc characters

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

We have several different lists of Middle-earth characters. As reflected by the AfD for List of Middle-earth Elves, there seems to be a consensus to delete auxiliary lists like this in favor of the central List of Middle-earth characters. BenKuykendall ( talk) 04:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall ( talk) 04:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall ( talk) 04:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall ( talk) 04:54, 12 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 07:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Telecel Group

Telecel 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)

Promotional organisation article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGCRIT. Checked the first 16 references, press releases, profiles, interviews and app download links. scope_creep Talk 18:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 10:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 04:04, 12 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 07:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Coffeepot, Arizona

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

Another GNIS mass-production failure. GMaps shows a single abandoned ranch. The map provided by the deprodder gives no indication that this "is [or was] an unincorporated community", much less one with notability: the small italicized names (this one at top middle), according to other GNIS searches, are tanks, springs, ranches, or other physical features, in contrast to the communities like Jakes Corner, Arizona that are in larger bold font. Reywas92 Talk 02:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 02:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 02:48, 12 January 2020 (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 Controversy (Prince album). Sandstein 07:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Sexuality (Prince song)

Sexuality (Prince 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)

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Previously redirected; reverted without explanation. SummerPhD v2.0 02:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 02:49, 12 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 07:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Waifu Labs

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

Promotional article for a non notable website. Celestina007 ( talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Furthermore, its 209 pageviews on its first day shows that its somewhat notable. —   Melofors   T C  06:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The only reliable source used, Wired, is about one of the authors and not the site itself ( WP:NOTINHERITED). A search did not bring up any coverage in reliable sources. Opencooper ( talk) 04:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Mainly promotional (such as including the price to buy a body pillow). While there is some coverage because its...well bloody unusual...most of the sources aren't high quality and there is just not enough coverage. I find the reliability of the non-English sources to be questionable, but since I don't speak the langauge I can't fully vet them. The Futurism article is pretty brief. The Medium article is good, but not sufficient by itself. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 22:46, 12 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 07:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Marshall Thundering Herd in the MLS Draft

List of Marshall Thundering Herd in the MLS Draft (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

inappropriate overdetail DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 02:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 02:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC) (Removed 10:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 talk 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 talk 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 talk 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:42, 12 January 2020 (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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Megan Devine

Megan Devine (  | 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 sources to be found about the person that would fulfil WP:NBIO. We have some sources in the article which may mention the author's work, sometimes in passing as in the NYT student assignment, but don't give basic details about the author such as education, birth place or date, etc. ☆ Bri ( talk) 00:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Puddleglum2.0: Sourcing: 1 = author thumbnail, not the greatest source, 2-4 = mentions of subject's work, 5 = interview, which is WP:PRIMARY, 6-7 = mentions of subject's work, 8 = interview, 9 = "growing weed", probably domain hijack, unable to evaluate original source 10 = passing mention/quote of subject, 11 = interview, 12-23 = WP:PRIMARY subject's own works, 24 = advert for subject as conference speaker.
Just expanding a bit on the NYT sources, to show how unsuitable they are, the entirety of the material in #2 is One book, “It’s OK That You’re Not OK,” by Megan Devine of Portland, Ore., has the telling subtitle “Meeting Grief and Loss in a Culture That Doesn’t Understand.” It grew out of the tragic loss of her beloved partner, who drowned at age 39 while the couple was on vacation.; the entirety of the material in #3 merely quotes #2; the entirety of the material in #4 is Not only is that unlikely to boost his mood, it could backfire by reinforcing his sense that you just don’t get it, said Megan Devine, a psychotherapist and the author of “It’s O.K. That You’re Not O.K.
None of this is sufficient for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". ☆ Bri ( talk) 00:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Sorry Bri, didn't get the ping. I still thing the subject is notable enough for her own article, but the sources the author chose are unsuitable for sure. Maybe Move to draftspace and notify the author, so that they can improve sourcing? Thanks! Puddleglum 2.0 15:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:54, 12 January 2020 (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. – sgeureka t• c 08:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Medhai

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

Unknown film that is undersourced. DragoMynaa ( talk) 00:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa ( talk) 00:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to India national racquetball team#Indian team at the world championships. Sandstein 07:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Ashish Mehta

Ashish Mehta (  | 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:NSPORTS. Also lack of sources. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_January_12&oldid=1142612798"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE