< 14 March	16 March >

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 Draftify. Guy (help!) 13:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic of Christmas (Celtic Woman album)[edit]

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

Everything that's worst about record articles: most of the content is self-sourced to the band, the baloance is sources that are supplied by the band's representation (e.g. AMG). No attempt is made at any assertion of notability other than by inheritance. And the album itself is a seasonal potboiler with nothing novel at all. Guy (help!) 23:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Redirect back to Celtic Woman and speedy close. While I am a fan of this group, I am impartial. This article has gone through at least 3 removal of redirects back to the group's main article, at least 2 being by me. Restore the redirect and remove this notice! Haseo9999 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As noted on talk page, Redirect to group in absence of a couple of reviews - which do not seem to be available. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 00:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine. You can delete it, I moved it to the draft space for now Kay girl 97 (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JzG, Kay girl 97 has copy/pasted the article into draft space so they can continue trying to find sources for it. Might a better solution be to delete that new draft, userfy this article (to retain the history), and then set up a redirect at the article title? If Kay girl 97 can find enough independent sources to satisfy notability requirements, the draft could then be moved back into article space. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:00, 16 March 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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Cirone[edit]

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

A basketball player who only ever played at college, therefore not inherently notable via WP:ATHLETE Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NBASKETBALL by playing in the WNBA. There are also several articles about her that turned up in a small Google search that can be used to improve the article considerably. -- Alvaldi (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Alvaldi - I thought the subject was only on a training contract, did they play a WNBA game? Any sources you could add would be great as I can’t find any substantial secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - She appeared in a few games during the start of the season. I added a few more sources and cleaned the article up a bit. -- Alvaldi (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. The question is, did she play in the WNBA? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes she did. Rikster2 (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to this she played in the WNBA, which meets WP:NBASKETBALL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:37, 19 March 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. — Newslinger talk 06:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Beltway Hockey League[edit]

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

Youth sports leagues are rarely notable and I cannot find any evidence of secondary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, league fails WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be just an average youth league. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:35, 19 March 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 List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Boy (character)[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor character with no notability. Fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. I've made no effort to search for reliable sources on this subject, so it's possible there are some out there. But at the very least it's a searchable term for which the redirect is appropriate. — Hunter Kahn 02:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Apologies for this edit, I mistakenly thought the PROD was simply restored, not that it was taken to AFD... — Hunter Kahn 02:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hunter Kahn. WP:CHEAP, and a perfectly suitable WP:ATD with an existing entry at the target. -2pou (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legion members page per above. In general, I think it's a better idea to redirect or merge these comic book character articles with the team or organization they belong to, rather than outright deletion (unless notability can be established). Rhino131 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 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 no consensus. Merge can be discussed outside of AfD. Consensus to delete is unlikely at this point. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PrivatBank (Latvia)[edit]

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

No evidence this small bank passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Recent sources don't help much, all coverage I am seeing is from press releases, their rewrites, and yellow page-like catalogues. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. PS. This was redirected to PrivatBank, but the redirect was challenged and the stub restored, so we are here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to PrivatBank. There is some brief coverage by Reuters ([1], [2]) that is probably noteworthy but not enough for a standalone article. --MarioGom (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another WP:POINTy AfD after a PROD is shot down. Nominator even removed part of the sourced information provided, clearly mixing up bank (Latvian) with the shareholder (Ukranian). The source clearly stated "the Italian branch of Latvian lender AS PrivatBank ". The German article provides enough info to improve the article but I guess the nominator did his WP:BEFORE that well that he overlooked the interwikis. The Banner talk 23:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The German version is not better referenced. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. One or two minor scandals are not sufficient for an article to be kept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - A minor scandal? With the Italian Central Bank actually closing a bank? The Banner talk 18:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per available sources. If needed, please use "merge to" to discuss a possible merger. gidonb (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to PrivatBank. There is not enough for an article on this specific bank, but it is appropriate to merge. Naomi.piquette (talk) 15:53, 17 March 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 due to lack of reliable sourcing. General consensus is that training to go to space, and not going, is not sufficient to warrant an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Nikolayevich Belousov[edit]

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

This man trained as a cosmonaut but never went into space. I couldn't confirm that he is notable. Boleyn (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search gives a large amount of relevant hits in Russian (example).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of notability. I would imagine that any member of the Soviet space program would receive a certain amount of run of the mill coverage; fact remains that attempting to get into the Guiness Book of Recors as the oldest spaceman is not a claim to notability; it is rather a desperate attempt for it.TheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The concern seems to be 'is someone who trained as an astronaut/cosmonaut, but never flew, notable?' Up to now the answer to that seems to be yes, given we have articles on those in the US space programme who were in the same position, such as John S. Bull, Edward Givens, Brian O'Leary, Donald Holmquest, Philip K. Chapman, etc. Many of their post training careers followed the same trajectory as Belousov's, who went on to work as a senior researcher in scientific and military developments, and as a senior editor in a publishing house. The Soviet/Russian cosmonauts should not be held to a different standard. His career is noted in both Russian and English language works, like Hall, David & Vis' Russia's Cosmonauts: Inside the Yuri Gagarin Training Center, Zigunenko's 100 Great Secrets of Cosmonautics, Zheleznyakov's Secrets of Rocket Disasters. The Price of Space Breakthroughs, Slavin's The Secrets of Military Cosmonautics, and in the Military Encyclopedia of Belarus, etc etc. The latter should qualify for the WP:GNG under WP:ANYBIO in itself. The article is in need of clean up and expansion, but as the Russian entry shows, a full and complete article can definitely be written, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Spokoyni (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comment by user Spokoyni. He is actually well known. One can find RS about him, for example [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom, User:TheLongTone, and the editor that has moved the article to a non-notable title, without discussion here or on the talk page, without consensus, and removed the maintenance tags without discussion. As a (cosmonaut) this subject is certainly not notable. Making "comparisons to other articles to show there is bias might be in good faith but is invalid. I am making no decision based on the nationality nor ethnicity of the subject. A 2017 tag called into question the notability of the subject, which has not been resolved, even though the tag has now been improperly removed. When notability is an issue then "keep" comments like "He is actually well known. One can find any number of RS about him." is not a credible rationale. NPOSSIBLE states, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. The criteria for inclusion is based on multiple reliable and independent sources. The reason we have sourcing guidelines is to be able to "prove" notability exists. A problem is that being a cosmonaut (or astronaut) is not a valid criteria for automatic inclusion. A search of The Secrets of Military Cosmonautics (Google books) did not bring up anything I could source to the subject. Any wishing to show notability for inclusion should provide more than a name, like a page number (proper sourcing), so a possible inline citation can be used. Just listing the names of works, that are likely not about the subject, does not satisfy GNG or any other notability criteria. I mean this in the nicest of ways but I don't know anything about the Russian encyclopedia, the "Russian entry" there, or the sourcing criteria. If we are going to translate articles from there to here there should be more than a pseudo biography, dictionary entry or a name with primary sources. We are not required to assume an entry is notable because it is covered somewhere else. On the English Wikipedia the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life., and this is evidenced by our sourcing criteria. Otr500 (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Russian article includes three sources: astronaut.ru, hobby.ru and evg-rumjantsev.ru. All three sites appear to be user-generated content and therefore not WP:RS. Narky Blert (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, I have given a reliable source above.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject doesn't meet the GNG guidelines. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The example source (Why don't people fly) has been brought up twice as well as mention of bias("...Soviet/Russian cosmonauts should not be held to a different standard"). I am 100% for inclusion of notable subjects across Wikipedia platforms. We apparently have unlimited space and need to limit any bias as much as possible. The English Wikipedia, reportedly having more stringent sourcing requirements, does not in itself create a bias that we should overlook or watered down by exceptions. If there are astronauts or cosmonauts that are not independently notable there should not be a stand alone article on that individual. If an individual is deemed to be non-notable that is a reason to examine this and not use it as a reason to try to include other like articles as a reason to keep or consider it bias.

The article List of cosmonauts shows the vast majority of the names have blue links. The "example" source lists names that are included and some that are not. Valentin Bondarenko is surely notable.

Valery Beloborodov may have been missed along with Vladimir Benderov, Valentin Ershov, Leonid Ivanov, Leonid Kadenyuk, Eduard Kugno, Mars Rafikov, Alexander Schukin, and Rimantas Stankevicius. If they were cosmonauts they should probably be included. I will leave a note at List of cosmonauts for examination.

Ivan Anikeev (from the source), apparently Ivan Anikeyev (one source), Valentin Filatyev (one source), and Grigory Nelyubov, were "members of the original 20 cosmonauts", and were expelled for drunk and disorderly conduct. Filatiev became a teacher. Nelyubov, ended up being killed by a train while drunk. Possibly being one of the original 20 cosmonauts selected can be seen as stand alone status notable. If so then surely a member of the "Sochi Six" would be. This source indicates that Russian politics is a cause of a lack of sources. Are some of these actually "notable" for stand alone biographical coverage?

Gherman Titov (listed as German Titov) and Yuri Gagarin are in the source and certainly notable. Sergei Vozovikov died in service and has sourcing. Konstantin Valkov is not on the list but was selected as a Russian cosmonaut. Exclusion may not be biased just a lack of editing.

The point is that "just" being a member of Lists of astronauts, List of astronauts by year of selection, List of astronauts by name, List of cosmonauts, or any of the other lists, or any mentioned in a source, does not mean an individual article should be created on that criteria alone but we all know that happens. I don't see a "different standard" but maybe non-notable astronaut/cosmonaut articles. If a subject is notable then include it, if not then merge or delete. Otr500 (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone being included (or not included) in WP lists is not a proof of anything. What we need here are RS telling something about this person to establish his notability and check other information about him. Such sources have been provided in comments by user Spokoyny and me. Here is an additional source used in ruwiki: [4]. This is a database about Russian astronauts. In my opinion, this is a sufficiently reliable source for non-contentious claims, and it does establish the significant involvement of this person in the Soviet space exploration programs. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: I do not understand the comments "WP lists is not a proof of anything". A subject may not be notable enough to warrant a stand alone encyclopedia article, but be a member of a more broad notable subject, so in the interests of preserving any important and encyclopedic content, we include it there. I do not just argue deletion for the fun of it. If a subject is notable for a stand alone article, as provided by our notability, sourcing, and inclusion policies and guidelines, it should have an article. I consider the evidence without any "bias" and if there is evidence of notability I am more than happy to jump ship for inclusion.
The source, astronaut.ru, is a database that states at the top "He has no space flight experience." It appears to be more of a resume since the "Space training" section "provides nothing" advancing notability. The "about" section of that database states it is maintained by five editors and proof read by an additional three. A problem is that it states, "The information presented on our website is collected from various print and Internet sources, if necessary translated by the authors into Russian, and also taken from the personal e-mail correspondence of the authors of the Encyclopedia with astronauts and astronauts from Russia, Europe and America and other persons involved to astronautics.", and further states, "The history of astronautics continues, the site is constantly evolving, and, for sure, this is not the latest version. And you, too, can help in the development of the project by simply sharing interesting information with us or even becoming one of the authors of the site.".
While possibly acceptable at ruwiki, maybe for even for "non-contentious claims" here, the editorial process is questionable, especially as a reliable source concerning notability. Otr500 (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not have notable achievements. Also WP:ONEEVENT. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not seeing any good sources in my searching. Mostly I'm seeing indiscriminate lists (who was born on July 24th, famous people with the initials BB, etc), and rehashes of wikipedia articles, including things like this which masquerade as books. The problem with all this (and why I added the weak qualifier) is that good sources are more likely to be found in Russian, which I'm not qualified to search or evaluate. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I got bupkis running a Google search for the name in Russian, both with full name and patronymic and with just initials. I then went to the Russian WP page, which has no footnotes whatsoever, but links to THIS in the external links section — seemingly imported in full as the whole of the Russian WP article. This appears to be a blog. The second external link is to THIS biographical piece at www.space.hobby.ru — also a blog. Third link is to THIS biography. None of these three biographical internet sources point to footnotes; all seem to be derivative of one another. In my opinion, this fails GNG for an article at English WP, but I would not be adverse to flipping my opinion if someone can point to some actual news coverage of the subject. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piyasiri Gunaratne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO/WP:NCREATIVE lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GNG. Analog Horror, (Speak) 02:47, 16 March 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) 21:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Franklinville Abductions[edit]

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

Occurred hours ago (at the time of writing this). Not every amber alert issued qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Maybe in the future, but WP:TOOSOON for now. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since Wikipedia is not news, nor is it an Amber Alert system. Pichpich (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS the situation resolved already. Amber alerts for abductions involving parents is not for an encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose closing this as WP:SNOW delete now that the situation has been resolved. Pichpich (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. I probably should've put it at PROD in the first place, now that I think of it. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not even news, let alone alone a meaningful article. Alansohn (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is almost nothing in the article. Also it doesn't pass WP:NOTNEWS. Analog Horror, (Speak) 18:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kids found, kidnapper arrested, Amber Alerts work, this isn't news. Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete CSD material Alpateya (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock for User:Dorama285. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Updated article.StrayBolt (talk) 03:50, 22 March 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) 21:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano De Nardis[edit]

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

There's not a single piece of in-depth coverage among the sources - it's 29 pieces of passing mention. Previousy rejected twice at AfC for that reason, now the editor has decided to bypass that annoying hurdle. Insufficient personal notability. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikcord (talk • contribs) 23:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A hundred passing mentions doth not notability make. WP:NOTINHERITED--working on notable projects doesn't necessarily confer notability. Has the creator divulged WP:COI yet? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot of page link it.Nikcord (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see, the "lots of nothing much" approach is exactly why your article does not fulfill sourcing requirements... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a good example of meaningless references: [5]. Among other things, this is a bit of a WP:CIR issue. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked about a dozen of the refs; all passing mentions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Long article for non-notable subject Alpateya (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock for User:Dorama285. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. I was unable to find anything that substantiates notability. No significant coverage. Netherzone (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what we need is indepth sourcing about him. The format of listing every film in which he was involved in making a costume as the main part of the article, and basically trying to latch onto others notability is a default sign of promotionalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 21 March 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) 21:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Thaker[edit]

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

He was the president of his party's youth young. He is the secretary of his party's state wing. And he holds a post of his party's affiliate organization's state wing. These are not enough for passing WP:NPOL. The sources are presentd in the article are not enough for passing WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or alternate Merge to Bharatiya Janata Party. This article is more about a party that involves the subject than a WP:BLP so is a pseudo biography. This is evidenced by the 5 sources from "The Hindu", one from "One India" (out of 6 sources), so only two sources advancing notability, and only one (The India Times: "Amit Thaker takes over BJP Yuva chief") is predominantly about the subject and still in relation to BJP. Otr500 (talk) 09:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it severaly lacks citations for the claims made in the article. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 21:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made a comment and the article has no improvements since then. Based on my findgings the subject fails WP:NPOL. Coverages are WP:ROUTINE. KartikeyaS (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist - would like a little more commentary on delete or merge as a suitable target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are WP:ROUTINE and he doesn't have any coverage or notability to pass WP:NPOL. No meaning to merge as there are 100's of such leaders of a large political party in India. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. He is not an elected politician.DMySon 11:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL Alpateya (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock for User:Dorama285. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:24, 18 March 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) 21:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnacle Petroleum[edit]

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

no apparent evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, the fact that it has no citations, and the facts that it reads like a promotion. Analog Horror, (Speak) 04:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No citations and the only thing I could find about them on Google News is that they have a branded credit card with US Bank. Sigh.... --Adamant1 (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Open and shut case. Dorama285 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 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) 21:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cortney Grixby[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally and receiving no significant coverage. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Champions Indoor Football connection does not create notability. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment will look into his college career for potential coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet even our ludicrously permissive notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced by their application here, there is nothing "ludicrously permissive" about our notability guidelines for football players. Cbl62 (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH and the coverage I found (e.g., this, this, this) doesn't appear to be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 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. Some editors have noted that the artist is close to achieving notability. Any editor is free to request undeletion of this article into draft space, and continue working on it until notability is established. — Newslinger talk 06:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Robertson[edit]

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

A visual artist with some really neat artwork, but frankly I'm not seeing the required coverage. By my count, there's one solid review [6], four exhibition catalogues, and six passing mentions. I'm not getting the impression that the exhibitions were "significant" or are a permanent part of "notable galleries" sensu WP:NARTIST. One more solid review might push it over the threshold, but I can't find that, and currently I'd say we are just about on the wrong side of notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm adding this comment in the correct place, but additional resources have been added, including 3 critical reviews of Robertson's work, taken from The Tyee [7], Galleries West [8], and the UBC Undergraduate Journal of Art History & Visual Culture [9]. --FriDaInformation (talk) 17:00 PST March 15, 2020.

Erk, you are not making this easy... the first strikes me as a mention. The second may be more what's needed because it discusses the individual artists a bit more. The third is a specific review, but I'm not sure to what extent the UBC Undergraduate Journal of Art History & Visual Culture counts as solid coverage. Still, I may be too picky. Let's hear what people say. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would tend to say she is notable in a weak way, although I have not checked the sources. The problem was that this was so hard to see, given the huge swaths of descriptive text for every tiny little show she has done. I have trimmed those. This is a very early career artist, so this discussion seems relevant.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done an independent search; I would say weak delete based on the fact that the coverage is pretty superficial. There is an obvious effort here to puff up a very young artist whose accomplishments are fairly average for an artist. WP:TOOSOON.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. <rant> Why is it that we HAVE to delete completely harmless articles on women artists with just too little coverage, but we leave the hundreds of articles on soccer players with no coverage beyond an entry in some sports database alone. How is it that on a given day last week, 855 articles were created: 240 biographies of men, 155 of those on (male) sportspeople and 50 biographies of women. And yet, we feel compelled to delete the bios of women where it's just a little bit too soon. Yes, it's too early for this emerging artist to have an encyclopedic article, but can we get our priorities right, please?</rant> Vexations (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not wrong... I'd also like to have easier notability thresholds for academics, who at this time basically have to put in a lifetime of stellar work to qualify, whereas Chad A. Ballkicker just has to take a dive in one national game to become Notable^(tm) (that is, gain the patronage of WP's most pile-on-capable Wikiproject). - However, as an NPPer who at least aspires to impartiality, for the time being I'm trying to follow our guidelines. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree that it is harmless. For an artist at such an early stage of their career it is essentially using Wikipedia for promotion. I think this is about keeping the quality up. That said, we could keep all article on artists if we got as many editors interested in artists as there are interested in football, which apparently has a much lower standard for inclusion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As important as it is to improve our coverage of underrepresented groups, we can't do that by creating special lowered notability standards for women (or people of colour, LGBTs, etc.), so that they basically get articles just for existing while only straight white men actually have to clear any objective standard of notability or sourceability. The key is to identify the women who do pass our notability standards but have been getting overlooked, not to waive our notability standards just because the subject happens to be a woman.

Also, it isn't useful to compare apples to oranges. The notability standards in sports are based on how sports works, and the notability standards in visual arts are based on how visual arts works — so it's not useful to compare an artist to an athlete as evidence that the artist is being treated unfairly. If you want to make a gender-based argument that a female artist is being railroaded, you need to compare her to male artists, not to soccer players of any gender. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability standards. I am the first to say our current sports notability criteria are rubbish. I am currently limited to one deletion nomination a day and if you look at how that came about it was because I nominated lots of soccer players for deletion, that is the proximate cause. The enthusiasm with which empty articles on soccer players are created and preserved is very distressing. This is no reason though to have other unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A really interesting, timely artist, but the article is lacking and seems like it might be a case of TOOSOON. However I did look at her CV on her website (which I know does not count toward notability) and there seem to be some awards and possibly some SIGCOV that are not in the article. Will try to take a deeper look into these before casting an !vote to see if any are worth adding to the article. Seems there are no collections, tho, but I'll see if any turn up. Netherzone (talk) 14:59, 21 March 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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auddia[edit]

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

Mostly marketing blather. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Doesn't seem to have much of in-depth covering in reliable sources. —Wasell^(T) 20:32, 15 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Korra Obidi[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NMODEL. The references cited in the article are primary sources and are not independent of the subject. A Google search of the subject doesn't show coverage independent of her. The article was also created by a sock user and was written in a promotional tone. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep First of all let me start by saying this article deserve to be in wikipedia as long as my evidence will be concern, it 100 percent pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, let me start by proving the person who tag this article wrong, he or she says; google search does not show independent coverage of her, I will provide references that are independent and reliable.

There are two news report that she was called professional dancer and actress according to the report, here: https://naijapalaba.com/nigerian-dancer-korra-obidi-hubby-celebrate-wedding-anniversary/ and here also a professional dancer 💃 and actress; https://www.pmnewsnigeria.com/2019/07/10/korra-obidi-hubby-welcomes-baby-girl/

Another news 📰 report, by Olayemi oladotun he report her as famous Nigerian dancer 💃 here; https://www.informationng.com/2020/01/marriage-is-not-success-dancer-korra-obidi.html

Another report by Mobola sadiq, where she said to be living in Lagos before, and she was reported as a singer and a dancer, here; https://punchng.com/i-enjoy-criticism-korra-obidi/

As a singer she holds a singled which was given a titled 50/50, starring her baby 👶 in the video, so she is not even a local dancer 💃; https://www.bellanaija.com/2020/01/korra-obidi-50-50-2/ She is also said to be famous Nigerian dancer 💃 when she experienced hardships in her marriage. https://newzandar.com/2020/01/13/marriage-is-not-success-dancer-korra-obidi/

Another report here by Amaka odozi in December 19 2019, korra obidi attends a concert hold by Zlatan Ibile in lagos, when performing on stage trying to do "Gbese" dance she falls, and she was the main subject not pass by, So here she is in the news 📰, so the video circulated online according to the report. https://www.informationng.com/2019/12/korra-obidis-wig-falls-off-on-stage-while-attempting-to-do-gbese-video.html

Another report by Temitope Alabi, in December 4 2019, korra celebrate wedding 💒 anniversary with her husband Dr Austin Jean, a picture of two of them was provided kissing, If she is not notable her wedding 💒 annivery will not be on news 📰 , because it is of no use. here; https://www.informationng.com/2019/12/korra-obidi-husband-celebrate-their-wedding-anniversary.html Another report by tobiloba July 24 2019, she shares her photos with her newborn. https://www.36ng.ng/2019/07/24/kora-obidi-shares-cute-photos-of-herself-with-newborn-daughter/

Another report by oladimeji in 12 February 2020 korra's child was signed as international modelling agency. In this report korra has an official social media page under LA modelling, where she has 72k followers , to be known by over 72 people is surely a notability. and here https://www.36ng.ng/2020/02/12/korra-obidis-daughter-signed-to-international-modelling-agency/

All the sites are news sites not local blog or gossip sites, so I advise you to look into the links and read the news report carefully, it only takes me 30 minutes to find this references.

I am sorry to say some people are just tagging article for deletion without deep search in google or elsewhere, and some are just voting delete without making inquiry, there are even alot of more news site that I left behind, to me this article stand a chance, User:Versace1608 and User:Johnpacklambert I will be glad if you will ask me any question about this meeting the criterion, remember if you did not ask, I will surly ask you to answer for my question, I want to look through your perspective point of view regarding your deletion opinion toward this article. Thank you. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T® 21:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anasskoko: With the exception of P.M. News and The Punch, none of the remaining sources you linked in this discussion are reliable. All of them are blog sources that lack editorial oversight. The P.M News source is an announcement about the subject's pregnancy; how exactly does this source establish notability? The Punch source is a Q&A source; this particular source is not independent of the subject. You've failed to show how the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NMODEL. Tell us which notability criterion does she meet. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - non notable subject not meeting the general notability guidelines hence fails WP:GNG. At best this bare notability. Celestina007 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Versace1608: I look through you comment and I get to understand that you are not debating base on facts, you are are debating base on your self interest, there are significant coverage of this article on google search but you stated that eight among them are blogs, so my question here is please can you state and explain what a blog is? and explain the characteristics that those news web sites possesses which makes them a blog not a news sites? because to me I totally disagree with you, we all know what a blog is, so dont make false claim on everybody's watch, but I want to hear it from you and see it from your point of view.

If a reference is provided from a news website you dont have any right to say they are not independent, if you think they are, then take them to this WP:RD for verification, please I speak to you pleasantly, it is not all the articles that you tag deserve to be deleted, that is why it is placed here for consensus, if good references facts support an article, please confess. If this article is left undeleted or deleted you and me have nothing in return, but one thing I know is it does not deserve to be deleted, that is why I am here.

Furthermore, here are another references to build my facts, I advise you to make deep research again because there is alot of news websites discussing about this article.

I want an administrator take a look carefully on this user User:Celestina007, he or she is not voting from neutral point of view, to vote Strong Delete for this article is not honest while references are provided, why not Weak Delete, because this article has significant coverage from independent reliable resources as I provided. Thank you. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T® 10:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anasskoko: I am not debating on any self-interest. I've repeatedly said the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NMODEL. Since you believe she is notable, you need to tell us which criterion she meets. The sources you've provided doesn't show her passing any of the three notability criteria. The second bunch of sources you cited here is laughable to say the least. Take a look at this source closely, the headline reads: "Pregnancy Makes Me Love My Boobs, Backside – Korra Obidi". How exactly is this source a reliable source? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: Oh my god! my question is not answered, you are just beating around the bush, I know you have said this earlier, Just answer my question, please can you state and explain what a blog is? and explain the characteristics that those news web sites possesses which makes them a blog not a news sites? from your last comment you made mention of reference 5 as unreliable, lets make it clear, eliminate reference 5 from the equation, remain 16 references to deal with, explain? remember! by saying they are unreliable does not carry any weights, you need physical evidence, either from wikipedia by laws or from their characteristic, or any evidence you can find but not from your self interest. I even think of adding more references then I realize that you are not ready to prove the previous ones unworthy. Thank You. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T® 08:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anasskoko: Blog sources are self-published sources that primarily focus on gossip and trivial stories. The Naijapalaba source you cited here is a self-published blog source. The website's About Us page doesn't show it having any editorial oversight. The site claims to have editors but do not named them; Naijapalaba is a content farm site at best.

P.M News is a reliable source. However, this particular piece is simply an announcement of the subject and her husband witnessing the birth of their first child; it doesn't establish her as a notable figure. For crying out loud, people are not notable simply because they have a baby.

Information Nigeria is an unreliable source that relies on gossip. The stories they published here, here and here are not encyclopedic material. Newszander is not a reliable source; this particular piece they publish about the subject's comments on marriage is not encyclopedic and doesn't establish her as a notable act. Someone isn't notable simply because they believe that being married is not an achievement for a lady.

The Punch is a credible source. However, this particular piece cannot be used to establish notability since it isn't independent of the subject.

BellaNaija is a credible blog source; however, this particular piece is simply a press release about the subject's "50/50" single. The song itself fails WP:NSONG. From the source, we learned that the subject has released one EP and has plans of releasing another. I did a Google search of both EPs and do not see them being discussed in reliable sources.

36NG is a self-published blog source that lacks editorial oversight. This story they published about the subject sharing photos of herself with her newborn daughter or this one about said daughter inking a deal with a modeling agency cannot be used to establish notability. Personal life info cannot be used to establish someone's notability.

Valid Updates is a self-publish gossip source; this particular piece they published is not encyclopedic and does nothing to establish the subject as a notable figure.

News Express Nigeria is a questionable source that lacks editorial oversight. This particular piece they published is garbage and does nothing to establish the subject as a notable figure.

1st News is not a credible source. A website that allows anyone to write for them is not credible. This particular piece is the same recycled story about the subject's delivery. It does nothing to establish the subject as a notable figure. People are not notable simply because there are photos and videos of them delivering their child.

Nigeriana is not a credible source. Again, any website that allows anyone to write for them is not credible. None of the stories here establishes the subject as a notable figure.

Pearl News is not a credible source; it is a self-published blog source that lacks editorial oversight. As I already pointed out, this garbsge does not belong in an encyclopedia.

This is another garbage published by Nigeria News Headlines Today. Tell me how does looking at a picture of the subject spreading her legs encyclopedic?

Legit News is probably a credible source, but this particular piece is the same recycled story about the subject's and her husband witnessing the birth of their first child.

You've provided a lot of sources here, but none of them validates the subject's notability. You need to show us how she meets the requirements outlined in WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NMODEL; do not waste time linking a whole bunch of unreliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 11:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: Good and fine, according to your defination you said that "focus on gossip and trivial stories" the websites are all in news format having authors/reporters as I stated earlier, none of them are gossip or trivial story reporters, in the news websites I provided, they have news headlings, author/reporter, date and is written in news format, lets the general public judge this one, here is a report about Anthony Joshua a boxer when he meet president Muhammadu Buhari in London, BBC and naijapalaba have a report on this, so lets compare and contrast and see, here is BBC report https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-51181203 and here is Naijapalaba report, https://naijapalaba.com/anthony-joshua-british-boxer-prostrates-before-buhari-in-london-photo/ , so please click and see, what is the difference between the two in term of news qualities, only that BBC is far popular and better than naijapalaba, by seeing this you will get to understand my point, what I am saying here is, Naijapalaba.com is a news website compared to others , so don't waste our time by saying the sites are not reliable or blogs, you need prove or we shall take the 16 references to reference desk for verification of the sites, if the websites are blogs or news webssites we shall see then.

Also according to the law provided by Wikipedia under this WP:NEXIST and this WP:NPOSSIBLE it also pass. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T® 11:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anasskoko: Just because these websites are in "news format" doesn't make them reliable. P.M News, The Punch and BellaNaija are the only reliable sources from that bunch. All of the remaining sources are not reliable. Headings, author/reporter, and news format are not notability markers; those sources are not notable because they lack editorial oversight. Please do not compare Naijapalaba with BBC. Naijapalaba is nowhere near close to being a reliable source. Apart from posting gossip stories, Naijapalaba has zero editorial oversight despite claiming to have editors. Feel free to take all 16 references to the reference desk. While you're at it, don't forget to link the garbage stories these websites publish on a daily basis. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claimed notable achievements are not supported by WP:RS. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:53, 23 March 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. There is consensus that the sources identified in the discussion establish notability. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict[edit]

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

AfDs for this article:

A book that appears to fail WP:NBOOK. The phrase "Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict" appears to be a popular phrase to use for titles, as I found sources on several different, unrelated books with the same name, most notably one published by MIT Press. However, for this particular one, edited by Charles Cozic and published by Greenhaven Press, I was able to find very little. Its mentioned in the footnotes/bibliographies of a couple other books, but I cannot find any actual coverage or reviews of the book itself. It survived an AFD once, but that was way back in 2006, and the Keep rationale is not in line with current Wikipedia policy. Rorshacma (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was also unable to find any coverage. At the least, one would expect Google to turn up some academic book reviews. Nothing in the article history, nor any arguments made at the previous AfD point, to any sources or any other indication of notability. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Here are two reviews about the subject:
1. Monks, Merri (1994-06-01). "Booklist Review: Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict". Booklist. 90 (19–20): 1795. ISSN 0006-7385. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22.
  The review says "this collection of 41 short essays drawn from a variety of sources is arranged thematically into five topical chapters" and calls the book "[a]n effective page format includes boxed quotations that can pique reader interest."
2. Johnston, Judy R. (March 1994). "Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict". School Library Journal. 40 (3): 244. ISSN 0362-8930.
  The review calls the book "A timely look at contemporary world problems" and says, "Many of the authoritative essays on nationalism are scholarly and overburdened with sophisticated vocabulary, while articles and interviews on ethnic violence in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, and the Arab world are compelling and at times gruesome. A challenging but nonetheless excellent resource for research or debate students."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work finding those. I can't withdraw, as other users have already commented, but this shows my initial nomination was incorrect as to there being no reviews for the book. Rorshacma (talk) 15:07, 22 March 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) 21:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindermint[edit]

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

Despite my best endeavours to tidy this up, I cannot see any notability here. The firm has been taken over - by a company which also seems to be non-notable - and no longer exists. Three of the eight citations are to dead links, several simply say it no longer exists (so what they originally said is unavailable) and others appear to be blog posts/adverts by agents. Page was created in 2014 by User:Cpvetos, a permanently blocked sockpuppet. Emeraude (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of reasons already covered better then I could by the nominator. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantive claim of notability. Dorama285 (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 gnews hits. One is a press release the other a blog. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 17 March 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 List of Batman family enemies#Foes of lesser renown. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monk (comics)[edit]

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

Similar reason to Doctor Death (comics). Outside of confusion of not doing AFD in forever. I want the character merged not deleted. Because he is notable enough for list inclusion but no proof of notability on stand alone when merged twice. But an edit war happened. There is decent sources but not for stand alone notability. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN: The Monk is one of Batman's earliest villains, and apart from being a supervillain, he's also a vampire. There are a lot of independent sources discussing the character:
- "Batman's Identity Crisis and Wittgenstein's Family Resemblance" by Jason Southworth, in Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul, John Wiley and Sons (2008), pg 158
- The Encyclopedia of Vampires, Werewolves, and Other Monsters by Rosemary Guiley, Facts on File (2004), pg 73
- The Vampire Gallery: A Who's Who of the Undead by J. Gordon Melton, Visible Ink (1998), pg 291
- The Vampire Book: The Encyclopedia of the Undead by J.Gordon Melton, Visible Ink (2010), pg 47
- The Complete Vampire Companion by Rosemary Guiley and J.B. Macabre, Macmillan (1994), pg 146
- Batman Unmasked: Analyzing a Cultural Icon by Will Brooker, University of Michigan Press (2000), pg 50
- Superhero: The Secret Origin of a Genre by Peter Coogan, Monkey Brain Books (2006), pg 72 & 105

I believe that this demonstrates notability. I've put these links on the page in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use them as resources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources....not enough for stand alone. They prove that vampirism is notable, Batman is notable and the Golden Age is notable. Also your guidelines don’t work because you already placed them there. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - The above links are trivial mention after trivial mention. TTN (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in character encyclopedias might merit inclusion in a list of some sort, similarly to the encyclopedia. A standalone article still does not meet WP:GNG standards for WP:SIGCOV._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the deletion nomination for Doctor Death, the real issue with both articles is that they are poorly written and do not cite all the necessary sources. Apart from the above, mentioned literary sources, the character appeared in 15 issues (not much but reasonable), as sith many character articles, information can also be taken from professional reviews/analysis of the the character's major appearance in Batman and the Mad Monk as such review also offer some small things such as characterisation, legacy, and possible influences on the character. This can all be done without the use of primary sources. With all of this in mind, my suggestion is that the article should just be rewritten rather than outright deleted or redirected.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial mentions, like being listed in a character encyclopedia, do not confer notability. We need SIGCOV to meet GNG. It doesn’t matter how many comics the character appeared it or if it was one of the earliest characters or if the character is a vampire. If the character is notable, it’ll be the subject of significant coverage. This one is not. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am objecting to the deletion of the page and supporting the claims of those who want keep. If the outcome is Merge, it should be merged with either List of Batman Family enemies with an anchor near the name or a rewritten version of List of DC Comics characters: M. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman family enemies#Foes of lesser renown. The sources given above are trivial coverage, not significant coverage, and therefore the article does not meet GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman family enemies#Foes of lesser renown. No evidence this character is discussed beyond WP:PLOT, all the sources presented above seem strictly limited to, well, plot summaries. Nothing to merge except said plot summary, which really means nothing to merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 21 March 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 no consensus. There's a bunch of sources presented. Some of the discussants here claim they are sufficient to meet WP:N. Others dismiss them as "character encyclopedias" and WP:PRIMARY. Ultimately, there's no agreement on whether they are sufficient or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Death (comics)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Doctor Death (comics)

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

The article is failing to establish notability like many others with only primary sources not secondary sources. The sources either prove Batman is notable or supervillain is but not the character at all. I don’t want to delete. Just merge and get all the cruft all the way. When I boldly try. I just get that I should have discussed it with the editor who reverted the bold edit a simply because I believe he likes the topic and is an inclusionist on stand alones. That’s misguided logic. He wants me to discuss it so all the articles he liked can obviously stay. He reverted twice but the second time he added see also citations. I tried merge requests before and they are not active enough. They do nothing. So here I am doing a forbidden AFD because I feel I created a list article that could preserve these characters that don’t quite meet requirement. But now the list article I created is more useless but that won’t matter because articles according to the editor should not be redirected / merged. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Dr. Death is the earliest supervillain in Batman comics. There is coverage in many reliable non-fiction secondary sources, including:
- The Supervillain Book: The Evil Side of Comics and Hollywood by Gina Renée Misiroglou and Michael Eury, Visible Ink Press (2006)
- The Encyclopedia of Super Villains by Jeff Rovin, Facts on File (1987)
- Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book by Gerard Jones, University of Michigan Press (2004)
- The Essential Batman Encyclopedia by Robert Greenberger, Del Rey (2008)
- The Original Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes, Vol. 1: Batman by Michael L. Fleischer, Macmillan (1976)

I think that the nominator is confusing primary with secondary sources. The first source on the list is already in the article as a citation; I added the others in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use them as resources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are better on a list just saying. Yes I got them mixed up on the sentence but not confused about them. These sources are not proving significant coverage. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources identified by Toughpigs indicate sufficient notability. — Hunter Kahn 17:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - The above sources are trivial mentions. Also, please stop including those pointless character encyclopedias. They can satisfy WP:V, but they're absolutely useless for WP:N. TTN (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how I feel! But deletion is a bit harsh when there is a section of them on a list article already been made. See here. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in character encyclopedias might merit inclusion in a list of some sort, similarly to the encyclopedia. A standalone article still does not meet WP:GNG standards for WP:SIGCOV._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics major characters#Doctor Death, the coverage given does not pass GNG, and the article itself is sourced entirely to primary sources and one of the above sources. The major character list is a good target for a redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would he be on a list of major characters? He's not a major character. -- Toughpigs (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That can be a temporary name any ways.Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 11:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this is meant to be a rewrite of the terrible DC Comics character list. We will figure something out. He can go on the minor character page too for now. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 11:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These list ideas don't make sense. DC Comics have been in continuous publication for more than 80 years; there are way too many "major characters" and "minor characters" to even be listed on one page by name, let alone with any kind of depth. It sounds like you want to create a list page just for the sake of making a list page. There's no explanation for why organizing material that way would be helpful for a reader who's interested in learning more about the topic. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree....you don’t realize I am trying to fix that though. Right now this is the only option until I am done if I get done. This is going to be an all character list in the future for one thing etc. There is an method of my good faith madness and I don’t need questioning about it on an AFD page at least. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire rationale for redirecting this page is so that it can go to a list page that you admit is still a half-baked idea. I respect your good-faith work, but I think that you should work out what the list is for in draft space before you try redirecting useful content there. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrevelant and you don’t understand me here anyway. It is not a half baked idea. It just doesn’t have a proper name due to a "minor character" article and another list article which is being used improperly. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking over the character and their appearances in the comics, the real issue with the page is citations and writing, which it really needs a rewrite/revision in my opinion. The character is significant enough as they are one of the very first villains Batman faced during the Golden Era, and they have appeared in a total of 19 issues (not much but reasonable). Doing a little bit of digging, there are additional literary sources that can be added tot he article (I have found a total of 5 and there may be more). In all, the amount of information available on the character suggests that it should be kept and have some work done on it, rather than simply deleting or redirecting it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paleface Jack, can you post the sources you've found? I think it would help to see them, thanks. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. J. Oropeza (2005). The Gospel According to Superheroes: Religion and Pop Culture. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-0-8204-7422-9.
Various (March 12, 2019). Detective Comics: 80 Years of Batman Deluxe Edition. DC Comics. ISBN 978-1-4012-9878-4.
Michael L. Fleisher; Janet E. Lincoln (1976). The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes: Batman. Collier Books. ISBN 978-0-02-080090-3.
Alex G. Malloy (January 2006). Standard Guide to Golden Age Comics. Krause Publications. ISBN 978-0-89689-181-4.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per nom and above - Brief mentions in character encyclopedias do not confer stand-alone notability. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. He is a notable Batman villain. Plus @Toughpigs:, @Hunter Kahn:, and @Paleface Jack: are right about their posts here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete because the nominator is wanting to WP:MERGE this content and is mistakenly using the WP:AFD process to accomplish this. It's hard to merge when the article gets deleted. There is no merge target established in the nomination statement. If it is going to be the nominator's own personal list List of DC Comics major characters, then I oppose that entirely because that list has no true inclusion criteria established, this particular character is not "major", and the list is very likely inappropriately redundant when other better lists exist, like List of Batman family enemies. But how is that to be decided on this page? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be moved to a list. If the page history has consensus to be deleted then so be it. Also the List of DC Comics major characters page was not planned to be a major character page forever. The main page were going to history merged together and it was going to be an every character article. The minor character page was going to be merged. This subjective major and minor character stuff was planned to get rid of. You editors fail to realize that. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established by the sources above. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 13:06, 23 March 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) 21:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Indian Premier League[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Not the correct time to create an article for this, we can create it later this year. Java Hurricane 16:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article contains a whole lot of WP:CRYSTAL garbage and sourced to irrelevant links [10] [11]. Sockpuppets have been disruptively recreating the article from the redirect since December 2019, so if we choose to redirect we are going to need a WP:ECP for a few months. Dee 03 17:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete 2020 IPL is not happening, it not necessary to create or modify 2021 IPL article without any valuable information (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Nothing confirmed this is taking place, esp. with what's happening with the 2020 tournament. The Indian-fanboy train rolls into town! Hoot! Hoot! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above but DO NOT salt as there is enough of a likelihood that this will need to be created in the coming months to make that a bad idea. WP:CRYSTAL works both ways. Smartyllama (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator said, this is way too soon for the article to be available as we haven't even started the 2020 edition (if we have a season) so creating the 2021 season this far out is WP:CRYSTAL. HawkAussie (talk) 06:02, 20 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Trevena (lawyer)[edit]

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

Biography of an attorney that does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and also fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTPROMO. This attorney has had some high-profile cases, but coverage of those cases is not in-depth coverage of the attorney. The attorney also had a domestic violence charge, which was dropped, and followed by a lawsuit. That coverage, however, is all local, and doesn't confer notability per BLP1E and BLPCRIME. Trevena, a private attorney, is not a "public figure", despite having some cases that received media attention. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a WP:POINTy nomination. Regarding the article: The subject passes WP:SIGCOV: the article has 21 reliable sources which include both regional and national news organizations. There is also international coverage which is not yet in the article: (BBC) (the Irish Times). News organizations regularly refer to the subject (John Trevena) as a High Profile Attorney. If the AfD participants feel that the subject fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME for his domestic abuse charges which were later dropped, the section can be removed WP:NOTCLEANUP. The attorney will be no less notable without the section. Contrary to the opinion of the nominator the subject is a public figure. High profile lawyers are notable for high profile cases and this lawyer has had many. Lightburst (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP He doesn't just get mentioned and quoted as being the lawyer in notable cases. They talk about things dealing with him personally. [12] [13] That and being a notable part of cases deemed notable enough already to have their own Wikipedia articles, means he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 23:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: so-called international coverage cited by Lightburst is just a couple of passing mentions and short quotes. WP:ROUTINE applies. However, some of the coverage is more substantiative and I think he just skates by GNG. b uidhe 10:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MeetS WP:GNG. 10:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎)
Keep - Per the sources, it does appear that he has dealt with a significant number of publicized cases, some of which received worldwide attention, followed by an equally publicized arrest. I'm sure any problems can be dealt with through constructive editing rather than deletion. Patiodweller (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The combination of his involvement in high profile/notable cases with the existing coverage meets GNG. Mallardsfan19 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightburst. this notable lawyer took cases that have national exposure and got a significant amount of coverage himself as a result. I suppose his status as a well-known public figure is likely the reason why his domestic violence case received so much coverage. Naomi.piquette (talk) 15:54, 17 March 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sihanart Suttisak[edit]

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

Prod removed, Article seems to fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, no citations added. Govvy (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I would note this is one of about 100 similar articles from the same editor, possibly all AfD candidates. --John B123 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There may be sources worth scrutinising, but given the state of the article and the context of its creation, delete without prejudice to creation of a proper article where the author can be bothered to actually remove irrelevant text mindlessly copied from other articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete WP:GNG fail with no sourcing. Alpateya (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock for User:Dorama285. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom. Mightytotems (talk) 21:01, 19 March 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. BD2412 T 02:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teun Draaisma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Taking back to AfD, as last one attracted only one comment and so was closed as no consensus. This has been tagged for notability concerns for 12 years, so really hoping we can get it resolved now, one way or the other. I think this is WP:1E at best, and so not WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you look at the article then, yes, BLP1E is a concern. However looking at the sources, it's easy to see that this individual's career path is closely followed by the financial press and BLP1E does not apply. The article does need an update. gidonb (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any sources that are not either in passing or evidently paid for/written by the subject/vanity PR. Fails NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable financial analyst.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nom says this is a case of WP:1E at best. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:14, 21 March 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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A&A Bake & Double and Roti Shop[edit]

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

The restaurant seems to only have one location in New York and all the coverage of it seems trivial except for a New York Times article. A few sources are about how it won some award, but according to WP:NCORP a company winning an award does not establish notability on its own. Adamant1 (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of any notability. Being one of five winners of a non-notable award is hardly a claim to fame. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. James Beard is hardly a non-notable award, and the restaurant has been the subject of significant and sustained coverage in reliable sources (i.e. WP:GNG) well before winning that prestigious award: "A Legendary Caribbean Snack Shop Ups the Ante" (Eater; 2018) "A Caribbean Outpost in Brooklyn" (NY Times; 2014) "All About Doubles" (Eater Video; 2015) The Slow Food Guide to New York City (2003) "Longtime business owners see an upside to gentrification" (Crain's; 2017). Pburka (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Crain's New York Business link posted by Pburka is an excellent reliable source; I added it to the article and made some changes. Also, The New York Times article called it "famous". :) I think the quality of the sources indicates notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous" and, according to Robert Sietsema, "legendary!" Pburka (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has enough references on trusted news websites. The New York Times is a good article written by Elizabeth Flock. DMySon 10:58, 16 March 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. BD2412 T 03:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exam Brief[edit]

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

A non notable newspaper supplement with no secondary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or (failing that) redirect to Irish Independent#Exam Brief. A non-notable newspaper supplement which has zero notability independent of the newspaper which it forms part of. There are no references available which are independent of the subject, and those in the article itself confirm only that the thing exists, rather than that it is independently notable. Guliolopez (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. Title is too generic to be a useful redirect IMHO. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. I agree with 1292simon that this is a generic term, and a redirect to a specific target would be misleading and/or inappropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. And agree with @1292simon: that the title is too generic to even become a redirect. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:48, 23 March 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) 21:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Loveline episodes hosted by Adam Carolla[edit]

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

To me, this list already seems to be extremely tenuous, but it’s also entirely repeated on the other lists of Loveline episodes by year. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplicative of the various year-by-year lists found at List of Loveline episodes, which contain the exact same information broken into more manageable chunks. If people feel this is actually a useful redirect term, it could also be used as a Redirect to that main list, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a duplicative list but also WP:FANCRUFT. I'd also question the notability of all the content listed under List of Loveline episodes as well, it all appears, at a glance, to be original research and fansite material. Ajf773 (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ONE source in the entire article. This is duplicative of the List of cited above, trash, and it needs to be taken out. Nate • (chatter) 22:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's duplicative and a WP:FANCRUFT of the original list. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:48, 19 March 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Broughton (singer)[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new page curation process. IMO does not meet WP:GNG or the SNG. I reviewed all of the references except I was unable to open the "News Flash" one and found no suitable coverage of the topic. Several links went to websites where I was unable to find anything about him. Also it raises some concerns that the editor is obviously very experienced but has only 16 lifetime edits under the user name, almost all on this article. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 16 March 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Green Party[edit]

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

Several reasons for potential deletion - the party has never had a successful candidate elected, the article is a WP:COATRACK for those unsuccessful candidates, and there is no substantial coverage for the party at all available online. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it is not necessary for sources to be online to be considered for notability, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources.--TM 13:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A municipal party? That only ran in one city election? And lost? Reywas92^Talk 17:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have tended to delete smaller Green party committees and conferences. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green Party of Manitoba.--TM 19:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Namiba one of the only reliable things we do know about this subject is that it’s not the same as the GP of Manitoba, so this would make a merge inappropriate imv. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. it's just not notable enough. It has been tagged with a template questioning its notability since 2017. It was a municipal party that fielded candidates in a single election, of whom none were elected. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per not only nomination but also the points listed by my colleagues above.TH1980 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 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 the available sources do not provide sufficient significant coverage of the article subject. — Newslinger talk 06:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Grugq[edit]

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

Sources provided are passing mentions; in depth refs are lacking. This stub is useful for promoting the subject’s blog, but not much else. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree. He did an entire interview with an international media outlet such as Vice. Vice is a WP:RS and they call him an "InfoSec celebrity". I also argue that the mention in the Forbes article is more than a passion mention, they tell multiple facts about his life and business. Bruce Schneier endorses his commentary. In other articles, he is being cited as a source too. In summary, he passes WP:N. (ping @Largoplazo:) Dwaro (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you pinged me. All I did was capitalize his name, give his full name (with a source), and remove an external link. Also, pinging doesn't work if you add the ping after you've already saved your edit with your signature. I learned about the AFD because the article's on my watchlist.

To be clear: Being a source (with the exception of a scholarly work abundantly cited by others) doesn't contribute to notability. So, for example, we completely discount even numerous sources that say "Beanie Beemus of Sharknado Corporation said, '...'" and nothing more about Beanie Beemus when assessing the notability of Beanie Beemus. Consider that if I'm a journalist, and I sometimes write about cryptocurrencies, and I've been put in touch with someone who's knowledgeable about cryptocurrencies, I may consult with that person time and time again for info I need for the articles I'm writing. That means I know them, and that they're happy to keep commenting for the record because it puts their name out there in print (free publicity), not that they're notable.

Also, interviews are generally considered to be people talking about themselves, not independent sources. Largoplazo (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stacking up a bunch of snippet coverage like "the security researcher known as The Grugq tweeted on Tuesday, reacting to the news." is like presenting shards of broken glass in lieu of a complete sheet and can not be the basis of a significant coverage. This person does not appear to pass GNG or person's notability test for Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google "grugq" -"makuch sits down with " -"makuch sat down with" (to exclude the same content on dozens of hits returned by Google otherwise, referring to one interview of the Grucq by someone named Makuch) and pickings are slim. And, of the sources given in the article, only one refers to him more than in passing and, even then, it's to discuss his comments, not him. Largoplazo (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I lean towards convinced by Largoplazo and Graywalls that the subject lacks comprehensive coverage from multiple WP:RS. My brief search yield similar result. Unless more coverage could be found, I think the subject have not yet justify a WP:N. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:46, 23 March 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. Materialscientist (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davion Robinson[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Evident COI from his agent. Page is promotional, image is acknowledged as made by the subject. Fails WP:NSPORTS. Page was PRODded and original poster removed the prod, so to AfD we go. Might even be material for CSD but lets the community take a look and decide. Alexf*^(talk) 11:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, obviously fails WP:NATHLETE, sources are junk PR sites. The apparent claim of notability is that he's the cousin of an NBA player, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, I can find no evidence of him meeting WP:NCOLLATH. Capewearer (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 15 March 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. The delete camp apart from the numbers has the more tightly argued arguments on the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoic[edit]

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

Article on a "Social Media Star & Entrepreneur" referenced to his own website and spammy PR blogs; see for example [14] we align the next generation of creatives with the right mentors and connections to succeed, [15] His passion for helping people in all aspects of online marketing flows through in the expert industry coverage he provides. Could not find any better sources through WP:BEFORE. Article claims "millions" of followers but he has an unimpressive 70k followers on Instagram and only 68(!) on twitter. Possibly an A7 candidate but since there are "sources" here and a (bogus) claim of significance I thought I would bring it to AFD... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can we improve this Wiki without deleting it? I have gone ahead and updated a lot of the information, what else can be done in order to make this a good article? Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnson28.7 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my research, it seems to be that he runs some of his client's accounts, which adds on to his "millions of followers" As I looked through his Instagram page there are huge influencers commenting on his posts. So he is definitely connected in the social media world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnson28.7 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources to establish notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I can't find any coverage of Pharaoic or Marko Danial in reliable sources to show how he meets WP:BIO. Capewearer (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is straight up PR spam about a non-notable individual utilizing blackhat SEO fake sources. Praxidicae (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than a PR article and borders on WP:G11 territory in terms of promotion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely a WP:PROMOTIONAL article, and doubtful whether the subject meets general notability criteria. Patiodweller (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete For reasons stated. Alpateya (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think overall there is a good amount of coverage for Pharaoic. Could use a few more sources. But I believe it should be enough for now. The language in the article could be fixed a little better, to fit in with wikipedia's theme. Thanks, (talk) — Note to closing admin: Johnson28.7 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — I'm the creator of the article and a fan of the subject. XfD Thanks, (talk)
Delete per nom. I don't see anything approaching notability as Wikipedia defines it. I strongly suspect the OP to have a COI issue here, either an agent or a friend. [Update]: OP added new image, taken by the subject himself. Definitely COI. OP may be even the subject himself under a disguised name. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used the image from the subject's site, under creative commons. As I stated before, I am a fan of the subject, but have no relationship with him. Thanks, (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese heiresses with coronavirus[edit]

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

These individuals appear to have been mentioned in the press due to a single event and otherwise do not meet WP:NBIO. The present world pandemic is likely to result in much higher profile victims being affected, and this will be mentioned, if relevant, on their article pages, not in specially written articles like this one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination or merge with 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Vietnam. Im cool with either one. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cwmhiraeth. The precedent with notable individuals who are sick with coronavirus is to note the fact on their bio page, not create separate articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The people here are not "notable individuals". Their father owns a factory and they had an instagram page. Not every daughter of a factory owner who posts on Instagram is notable. If we set that as a mark of notability, than we would double the size of Wikipedia and half of the articles would be on people who the most notable thing they did was post of instagram. It does not appear that their father is notable, they are even less so since notability is not inherited. Keeping this page would create a huge number of really, really, really bad precedents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As far as I can tell, we don't even have articles about these two women in Wikipedia, so I don't know why we would want to have a separate article about their illness. As intensely as I expect Wikipedia to cover COVID-19, we don't need separate articles to cover the pandemic at the individual patient level. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. Way too specific to be acceptable. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Far too detailed. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of notability. I am leaning to speedy due to BLP. Agathoclea (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe the people mentioned on here meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's not notable for an article. Thingofme (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E. These heiresses would not be notable if not for the current COVID-19 pandemic. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG imo. It has not complied with the policies and guidelines. Abishe (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individuals may or may not be notable - that's irrelevant. The subject area is, itself, not a noteworthy topic. If it were, we might as well have a page on one-legged lesbian redheads from Vietnam with coronavirus. And it should anyway then be a List article of solely notable Vietnamese one-legged lesbian redheads or, as here, Vietnamese hieresses. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to find that article, but it apparently hasn't been started. Perhaps it would be more enticing if it had the word "hot" in it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and probably also WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If the only reason these heiresses have articles is because they have the virus, they maybe shouldn't have articles. Plus, this doesn't really explain what a heiress is. epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SNOW too specific and and not notable. WP:NLIST Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an article that is too specific and is by its definition not notable. Nothing to see here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Delete also known as Speedy Delete and possibly Close nomination per everyone voted delete. 2001:569:74D2:A800:9514:1D74:AEDD:C8B7 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This reads like a tabloid page not an encyclopedia article. It also at some level reads like a class war mongering, populist screed to develop an attempt to blame COVID19 in Vietnam on the factory owner class. It is a horrible violation of BLP policies among other things. This breathless attack page should not be merged with the larger article on COVID-19 in Vietnam.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This sounds like a gossip magazine information. All of these information can still be written inside the main COVID-19 page of Vietnam and should not be written too detailed. Chongkian (talk) 03:26, 22 March 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. IP !vote is discounted, but remaining keep votes are strong enough to result in a keep outcome. BD2412 T 02:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Power of three[edit]

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

This is a partial bare copy of powers of 2 with different numbers filled in. As is, there's no encyclopedic content, and it fails WP:IINFO. It was previously a redirect to a dab page, but my attempts to restore that have been reverted without explanation. The previous redirect should stay, with or without an intervening delete. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Power of Three There is nothing here that is not WP:OR or the result of elementary computations. A redirect to 3#List of basic calculations would make sense, but the easy confusion between Power of Three and Power of three requires a disambiguation. That is, redirecting to the dab page Power of Three, and having a link to 3#List of basic calculations in this dab page. D.Lazard (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know about the powers of 3. Please don't redirect and there are no photos in this page. 176.88.98.46 (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to the dab page. Little useful information, none referenced. Very little literature on 3^3^n; 3^2^n is much more common. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, allowing a redirect to Power of Three if people want to do that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By the standards of notability for integer sequences, it easily passes: everyone knows it, it is listed as "nice" in OEIS, and it comes up frequently in combinatorial enumeration and other contexts (for instance as the number of faces of all dimensions of the hypercubes); http://oeis.org/A000244 has many more properties. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also A025192 for doubled powers of 3. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. Wiki-notability isn't about whether an article is currently stellar, but about whether an article on that topic should exist, and I think this passes. XOR'easter (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Power of Three for now, also consider incubation in draftspace. It is currently a bunch of indiscriminate information, but I can find some promise in it. Nevertheless, it in its current form doesn't qualify (yet) for an article. I have created a draft here at Draft:Power of three. If there is no promise, I would kill it by G7, but draftify for now. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 13:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC) I did a bunch of research, apparently it has pretty much no interesting properties that can be found. Mathematicians usually look into powers of 2 separately as 2 has a very special status in number theory as an even prime. Powers of 3 are usually considered together with powers of other primes (e.g. powers of 5) in nearly all cases except in some scenarios in which powers of 3 have a unique property (such as being perfect totient numbers. In anuy case, powers of 3 are, quite surprisingly, not notable enough for Wikipedia. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 03:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Having done more research, let me iterate my view. Consider the articles Power of 3 with the two other existing articles, Power of 2 and power of 10. I shall look into why powers of 3 are much less notable than powers of 2 or 10.
Powers of 2 are very commonly used in digital computation - you keep hearing of stuff from 16-bit to 2048-bit, and hard disks can bbe 256MB but never 243MB. This point requires pretty much no further explanation. Powers of 2, being related very heavily with the binomial coefficients (see the article), and also as a special class of prime powers, have an extremely special status. I can go on for pages about how important powers of 2 are as compared to powers of any other number. In short, powers of 2 are often discussed separately from powers of other primes, for example in the discussion of primitive root modulo n.

Powers of 10 occur prominently as we use the base 10. The powers of 10 are particularly simple, and we usually start with base 10 before moving on to other bases for maths considerations. These powers occur readily in these analyses problems, and they are the main features of scientific notation. Powers of 10 also have their applications (e.g. [16]), but the importance of these powers of 10 comes from our use of base 10. When we say that "123456" has 6 digits, we are referring to base 10, and the powers of 10 already appeared in the statement in the form 10^6-1≤123456<10⁶.

for instance, we use base 10 for the naming of numbers, and our familiar "large number" naming comes from powers of 10. When we say that "123456" has 6 digits, and say that it is "one hundred and twenty-three thousand four hundred and fifty-six", we are referring to base 10, and the powers of 10 already appeared in the statement in the form 10^6-1≥123456<10⁶.

- To conclude, I acknowledge that powers of 3 have many applications, including in Cantor set discussions and items like hypercubes and so, but its real-life applications are much less extensive than powers of 2 and 10. Powers of 2 are used extensively in computation and appeared in PlanetMath. Powers of 10 appear commonplace and are one of the first large numbers we meet, as one of the most commonly used in discussions. Powers of 3 may be used in the game Tower of Hanoi and in discussions related to Hypercubes, but its uses are limited. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 02:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Keep. David Eppstein has made a really strong argument in favour of a keep by modifying it radically. Many thanks to him, TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 03:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My opinion is the same as XOR'easter. The article is imperfect as is, but it is a notable topic by our standards. Patiodweller (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much less notable than powers of 2 or 10 doesn't mean not notable at all. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have cleaned out much unsourced material from the article and added sourced material in its place documenting the applications of these numbers. So the article is significantly changed from what it was like at its nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic is notable and the article is now improved (last by David Eppstein). JohnThorne (talk) 01:54, 19 March 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 Valinor. Sandstein 09:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman (Tolkien)[edit]

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

Another minor place from the Tolkienverse that is all WP:PLOT and seems to fail GNG/WP:NFICTION. The sources imply there is "more", but they are either primary or incorrect. I checked Tolkien Encyclopedia and it does not have an entry for Aman; page 377 has an entry for "Languages of Aman" which does not discuss the fictional place. Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia does have an entry for Aman, but it is a short paragraph that's 100% plot, see [17]. As for The Dictionary of Imaginary Places, I cannot get access to a copy to confirm what's written there, so I'd appreciate if someone could comment, but I very much doubt it goes beyond a plot summary. BEFORE for other sources reveal only brief plot summaries. It does not appear this fictional place has been analyzed in any significant way. At best, per SOFTDELETE/PRESERVE I can recommend redirecting to Geography of Middle-earth. Comments? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:01, 15 March 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} 08:01, 15 March 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} 08:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's easy to agree that the article is in a sorry state without scholarly citations. However, Aman is important for an understanding of the Geography of Middle-earth, which at the moment is a sad little paragraph of five short sentences inside Middle-earth; what is needed is a full-length Geography article with a substantial section on Aman and an explanation of how the world changed from flat (men could sail to Valinor on "The Lost Straight Road") to round (the seas are now "sundered" and sailing just takes men's ships round and round the earth; quite the earth-melting geological disturbance, to say the least). So, at the bare minimum, a merge (soft redirect) would work; it implies that the target Geography of Middle-earth becomes an actual article, from the current redirect. There are plenty of scholarly sources on Middle-earth's geography, and indeed plenty on Tolkien's treatment of Heaven, Paradise, (Im)mortality, and the Afterlife. That might indeed enable someone to write a decent article on Aman, I'll think whether I want to mount a rescue effort, though all that should be necessary right now to save the article would be a list of half-a-dozen good sources. One is

Shippey, Tom (2005) [1982]. The Road to Middle-Earth (Third ed.). The Lost Straight Road: HarperCollins. pp. 324–328. ISBN 978-0261102750..

--- Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- @Chiswick Chap: Are you sure about that page count? Google preview for the index of the 2014 edition lists Aman as mentioned on pages 232, 249, 287 and 288. More worrisome is that I couldn't find any discussion of Aman on those pages ouside a passing mention here and there, all pure WP:PLOT. Did you find any in-depth discussion in your edition on the pages you list? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the pages are correct for the 2005 edition. There are ALSO isolated pages 263 and 283, but this is the section I have named which is about the topic (origins in Atlantis, Pearl, Irish 'Imram' tales; reshaping of the earth).

Hammond & Scull note that Tolkien used many names for Aman: Blessed Realm, Far West, Otherworld, True West, Undying Lands, Uttermost West, the West, World's End; and it contains two major parts: the elves' Eldamar, and the Valar's Valimar or Valinor (this last discussed by many scholars). All of these are potential search terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kocher, Paul (1974) [1972]. Master of Middle-Earth: The Achievement of J.R.R. Tolkien. Penguin Books. pp. 14-18 and 79-82 (Valinor, Eldamar, Undying Lands, origins in Celtic tales). ISBN 0140038779.
Burns, Marjorie (2005). Perilous Realms: Celtic and Norse in Tolkien's Middle-earth. University of Toronto Press. pp. 152-154 (Elbereth/Varda in Valinor vs Galadriel in Middle-earth, formerly of Valinor). ISBN 978-0802038067.

BTW Drout's J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia has two chapters on Aman:

Oberhelman, David D. (2013) [2007]. Drout, Michael D. C. (ed.). Valinor. Routledge. pp. 692-693 (domain of Valar and Elves and the Two Trees, and Halls of Mandos for spirits of Elves and Men after death, all on Aman, hiding of Aman/Valinor & end of 'The Straight Road' to Aman). ISBN 978-0-415-86511-1. ((cite encyclopedia)): |work= ignored (help)
and one by Drout himself on Eldamar, same volume, page 145.
Duriez, Colin (1992). The J.R.R. Tolkien Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to His Life, Writings, and World of Middle-earth. Baker Book House. pp. 103ff. ISBN 978-0-8010-3014-7.

~~Keep~~ - there are multiple reliable scholarly sources covering the topic, including those cited above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle-earth#Geography. Existing sources seem lacking. I do support the creation of Geography of Middle-earth. TTN (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TTN -- I've just listed six reliable sources (and added them to the article, though that shouldn't strictly be necessary; I may rewrite the article also, but that's not the criterion for notability). Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of those I searched, I see plot descriptions being the bulk of the coverage. Seems like a minor topic that should be mentioned within the wider topic of "Geography of Middle-earth." TTN (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I will spell it out in the text using the scholarly sources, such as Drout's observation of the similarity with the poem Pearl, just added. This will take a bit of time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, are you confusing Valinor and Aman (Tolkien)? I have Tolkien Encyclopedia, I checked it and it doesn't discuss Aman except passing mentions in 2-3 places (including in the entries you mentioned). But those are mentions in passing and purely plot summaries. You can't seriously argue that a source that discusses Valinor can be used to keep Aman because they are related. WP:NOTINHERITED. Such concepts can be discussed in a geography article, we don't need fancrufty, 100% plot-based subarticles that do nothing but recount fictional plot. But please, if I missed it, do spell it out - better, please quote - content which discusses Aman not as a plot summary but through some sort of scholarly analysis. Such as "Aman is a metaphor for..." or "In constructing Aman, Tolkien used real world poem X and legend of Z".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valinor is a major part of Aman. I have already gone beyond the call of duty in adding sources and critical commentary. Your suggestions are splendid for GA, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Valinor is a major part of Aman". Which is exactly the point WP:NOTINHERITED is concerned with. If sources discuss Valinor, it may be notable, and whatever Valinor is a part of, it is not discussed by said sources, is not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Purely for the record, you'd be 100% right, but for the fact, which I was gradually creeping up on realizing when I wrote the above reply, that Tolkien himself used "Aman" when he meant "Valinor". That of course means that a merge is in order: again, see below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the many secondary sources provided by Chiswick Chap. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of which has been shown so far to go beyond plot, and some may not even mention Aman (per confusion with Valinor). But hey, WP:GOOGLEHITS for the win. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no Googlehitting has been attempted! The sources have already been used complete with paraphrasing and quotations to demonstrate actual scholarly interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, I didn't realize you expanded the article with Aman_(Tolkien)#Reception. I read it now, it is a valuable section and I commend you on adding this information, but... errr... I can't help but notice it doesn't even mention (currently) the word Aman. I certainly think the section you wrote needs to be preserved somewhere in this project, but I still don't think the sources you found are about Aman. NOTINHERITED remains a concern; as far as I can tell, Aman is not significantly relevant to those discussions. Ex. "The Tolkien scholar Michael D. C. Drout comments that Tolkien's accounts of Eldamar "give us a good idea of his conceptions of absolute beauty,"[7] and notes that these resemble the paradise described in the Middle English poem Pearl. " All nice and encyclopedic and I am seeing zero connection to Aman. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop messing with my username. Eldamar is a major part of Aman. Analogy: a book on London's importance as a business centre is a valid source for a discussion of England's economy. Glad you've noted the contribution, thanks for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Valinor, the sources found are good, if a little plot-focused, but they confer notability onto Valinor, not Aman, similar to the situation with Rohan and Rhovanion. This is exactly the sort of situation where NOTINHERITED applies. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Kelly & Livingston 2009 which explicitly compares Númenor's attempt to capture Aman to the story of the Tower of Babel (men try to reach heaven, get destroyed). You won't need lots of block capitals for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if Lewis' off hand mention that one who wants to understand Numenor and the True West should consult Tolkien's work found in That Hideous Strength could function as a secondary source. It would not seem a substantial one. However I think we need to make sure our searches for sources bear in mind that even though Tolkien did not use Aman widely, he has lots of mentions to this place. Such as the fact he refers to it as Faerie in the Hobbit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I do have to admit that part of me wonders at the reliance on one scholar to explore Aman and Elbareth as the female opposition to the male Mordor and Sauron. I would really like to see evidence that multiple schoalrs have supported the ideas bounced around. However this has clearly been the subject of scholarly discussion so we need to keep it. Editing is probably in order, deletion is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in some way with Valinor. I do not think two seperate articles are justified. Probably in the long run merge Valinor in here, but either way will work. I do not think we have enough secondary discussion to justify two articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This article at present has much better secondary sourced discussion than Valinor. I do have to say, I would like these secondary source discussions more if we had a much broader base of discussion or evidence that the people making statements about themes were doing more than just spouting their only individual interpretations of the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Well, I think I've finally found the answer here. The Encyclopedia of Arda (not itself an RS) quotes Tolkien on Aman: "Chiefly used as the name of the land in which the Valar dwelt [i.e. Valinor]." (Tolkien, J. R. R. Quendi and Eldar. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)) It rightly points out that "Chiefly" is a bit of a giveaway: Tolkien is accepting that he used "Aman" inconsistently, but stating that most of the time he was referring not to Aman-the-whole-continent but to its most important constituent, Valinor (something like saying "the Palace" when you mean "the King", a suspicion that had been growing on me): and since the Elves had been allowed to live there, that land included Eldamar. It seems that even Tolkien found this confusing, so I think we are all forgiven in this case. We should merge this with Valinor, mentioning that "Aman" is also the name of the continent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am fine with a merge to Valinor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Valinor as suggested above, that seems to be the best way to handle this. Hog Farm (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Valinor Aman is only known as the location of Valinor. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Valinor. Goustien (talk) 15:19, 20 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Lihim ni Ligaya[edit]

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

This article was created in August 2019 with no sources. Since then various editors have fiddled about with it, adding and deleting names of actors supposedly appearing in this forthcoming sexy show. No sources have been added. I added tags for sourcing and notability and they were taken off. This remains completely unsourced and the desperation of its creators to keep it here unsourced indicates that they are WP:NOTHERE and just trying to use this article to boost the profile of this forthcoming show. Mccapra (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so much busy editing on this page, adding actors, but still no demonstration of sustained coverage by reliable independent sources..... Mccapra (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The show is among the upcoming shows for this year, based on ABS-CBN's 2020 plug. It just had its story conference a few weeks ago. However, the article needs a lot of clean-up. And it needs these sources: [18], [19] and [20]. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Superastig: those aren’t reliable sources with extensive coverage of the topic, so they don’t support notability I’m afraid. Mccapra (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the links I shared, including the show's story conference (and photos), are reliable enough. Therefore, they make the article notable enough to be kept. So, BE IT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one of the editors working on this article has removed the AfD template from it. Restored by bot. Mccapra (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because editors keep taking the AfD template off the article, a second AfD has now been opened in error. Mccapra (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fails WP:NTELEVISION unsourced and promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so much busy editing on this page, adding actors, but still no demonstration of sustained coverage by reliable independent sources..... Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS supporting any notable claims for this unreleased series. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 13:25, 23 March 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 Bionicle. A very selective merger from the history remains possible. Sandstein 08:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toa (Bionicle)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence this fictional species passes GNG/NFICTION. Sources are primary/in passing (wikia, lego product pages, blogs...). Minor language controversy can merit a mention in some article about language activism or such, but does not seem sufficient to warrant keeping this piece of WP:FANCRUFT as a stand-alone article. Also related: ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bionicle characters which is indicated as a parent article to this one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 8 March 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} 06:12, 8 March 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} 06:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG, the controversy can be easiy described in the main Bionicle article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character lists are acceptable spin-off articles to keep main articles from growing too large. The Banner talk 16:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Wikia. It is not dcedicated to covering every fictional franchise into the smallest of minutia. There are not sources to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No particular problem with the article. gidonb (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside failing few core policies like WP:GNG and WP:V, no, not really... lol. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a spin-off of List of Bionicle characters. It could be merged into the main but that article is already very long plus also AfDd. Merge discussions are best held using "merge to"/"merge from" functionality. In this case it would allow a holistic view of content domain, instead of these scattered discussions. gidonb (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. As clearly stated above, I'm clarifying once more that my position is keep. I'm twice quoted below as supporting a merge. Not at all. That said, I would welcome a deeper non-time-sensitive discussion on how to best organize the entire content. gidonb (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The individual characters listed here are no more notable than the ones listed in List of Bionicle characters. However, the general concept of Bionicle Toa is, so it should be merged to Bionicle. JIP | Talk 19:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Bionicle would theoretically be the next target in line however I disagree that a merge is needed. More likely the information on the entire character list, including this central subset, was spread out too much. Our documents often became too wordy. Editors tend to add information by asking if they know anything else rather than by asking if something is missing. That annoys the glance readers who then claim it is lifcruft because this was in their sample. I believe that a deeper and broader discussion can do wonders. Often these are started after a closure as keep. Not sure how this will close but I always support what works best for Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article fails WP:GNG, with there being only one source that might constitute progress towards notability. It being a split is not a reason to keep, because this mass of unverifiable fancruft should not exist anywhere on Wikipedia. Even if sources are found, this is a situation where WP:TNT would definitely apply. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Bionicle characters. Dream Focus 17:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bionicle characters was closed as clear consensus to delete, so the recommendations for merge are moot. Dream Focus and gidonb, you may wish to revisit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While some suggested a merge with List of Bionicle characters, well, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bionicle characters ended as delete few days ago, so... no valid merge target. And that was a parent of that list. Ping editors involved in that AfD since we just got relisted due to no consensus: User:JIP, User:Sergecross73, User:Zxcvbnm, User:TTN, User:Dream Focus, User:Devonian Wombat, User:Videogameplayer99 and User:Gidonb. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Bionicle is a valid merge target, but only for the general information about the concept of Toa. The massive pile of fancruft about the individual characters can be deleted. JIP | Talk 17:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In light of this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bionicle characters I would go delete then.GizzyCatBella 🍁 08:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massive article of in-universe, fictional content that is the type of stuff appropriate for Wikia, not here. I’m rather surprised this is still being debated, this is the sort of thing that is routinely deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bionicle but only the lede, "Production" and "Fictional history" sections, with the last heavily shortened. We don't need a 70-kilobyte load of in-universe fancruft about the individual characters. JIP | Talk 17:18, 15 March 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 07:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Spodek[edit]

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

Bio of a lawyer, created by a WP:SPA, likely an undisclosed WP:PAID/WP:COI. Crucially, seems to fail WP:NBIO. I don't see a single in-depth coverage (a numnber mention in passing, as he is briefly quoted in a number of news stories as a lawyer involved in some cases that attracted media attention). There is effectively nothing to be said about him outside which cases he represented, the bio for him is unreferenced (through I would expect it could be referenced to PRIMARY SPS sources like his company's page). No awards or indications he is notable - just a lawyer doing his job. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really just wanted to say that it's hilarious the photo he saw fit to upload of himself shows him posing in front of a bar cart. That said, the most substantial article I found on him is this one, and it doesn't feel like much. The one thing that would potentially give me pause is the number of mentions of him in relation to the high-profile Anna Sorokin case (e.g., 1, 2), but even then, they're peripheral mentions. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He can certainly be mentioned in her article, but a redirect there wouldn't be a good idea per WP:R#ASTONISH. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When your claimed #1 actress client is not notable enough to rate an article, I think you are even less likely to rate an article. The start is clearly overly promotional on the board of just plain lying to make Spodek look more notable than he really is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 21 March 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 Space station#In fiction. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starbase[edit]

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

This appears to be pure WP:DICDEF, resulting in this article being a dictionary definition and example farm. This page should be deleted and the disambiguation page be moved here. Its Wiktionary entry is sufficient. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Space station as a plausible search term. Ideally that article should have 'in fiction' subsection which is currently missing. Maybe I will create one. Or maybe User:Toughpigs or someone else will. I concur that there is no evidence of this DICTDEF being even so much as discussed in media, I am not seeing the term having a dedicated entry in any encyclopedia of sf or literature. It can exist of wiktionary I guess, but for us it fails at WP:NFICTION/GNG. Do ping me if someone manages to find better sources, but they need to go beyond a plot summary/sf jargon that nobody studied. PS. I created Space_station#In_fiction. Really not seeing any references to expand this much beyond listicle of PLOT examples :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to the disambiguation page linking to it as one of the possibilities. But there is no need for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nom. says, Wiktionary has this and that is all this really needs. The plot elements on this page belong in pages about those fictional works. There is no notability for a page in its own right. A redirect to the wiktionary def. would be fine. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge a little bit to Space station#In fiction, then add a hatnote in that section to the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space station#In fiction. There is no longer anything to merge to that section, since the lede has already been moved there and everything else on the page is in-universe information that would not be appropriate to add to the Space station page. Needless to say, this article fails GNG, being sourced entirely to primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:12, 18 March 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 07:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Human Development Index (2009)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and retaining a list of purely statistical data out of date by over a decade is not useful for readers and is likely to cause confusion. Similar lists for different years have been deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by Human Development Index, 2005 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by Human Development Index (1998). ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that "out of date" is a valid reason for deletion. Another way of saying that is "historical information" and historical information is exactly what should be in an encyclopaedia. Note that the rationale for deleting the 1998 article was not that we should not have this information, but that the article data was wildly wrong due to the faulty way the page had been created. However, I don't think it is helpful to have an individual article on each year's UN report. Far more encyclopaedic would be trending information over the years. The Human Development Index already contains summaries of each report going back to 2013 and that is probably what should happen here. SpinningSpark 17:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to create separate page for every year. Mohanabhil (talk) 07:58, 17 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Wynne Webber[edit]

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

With just 1240 Google search results and 4 Google News mentions she fails WP:NBIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article was created yesterday, less than 24 hours ago. Perhaps it needs a little more time for the article creator to develop it or for a WP:BEFORE. Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the original nom, articles are not assessed based on the number of search results that come up after Googling them. For obvious reasons, this is a poor criteria as you may get tens of thousands of results for inconsequential searches, and some noteworthy topics may not receive a particularly large amount of search results. See Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability. Instead, articles should be assessed based on the criteria such as WP:GNG. IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination rationale is flawed, as IphisOfCrete points out. WP:GOOGLEHITS says that we shouldn't count search engine hits as a measure of notability. The thing that matters is independent coverage in reliable sources. I looked on Newspapers.com and found two articles specifically about Webber and her work:
- "Tough, yet tender at the centre: Webber's heroine struggles through range of issues related to her time and age" by Verne Clemence, Saskatoon Star-Phoenix (May 27, 2000)
- "Labour History Story Brought to Life on Stage" by Matt Olson, The Regina Leader-Post (April 27, 2019)

In addition to the sources already used in the article, I think that's enough to demonstrate notability per WP:NEXIST. I added these links to the article in a Further reading section so that people who want to improve the article can use them as sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Someone was remarking that they thought Jennifer Wynne Webber did not have a high enough number of search engine results. However, under Invalid Criteria it states, “Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online.” JE1110 (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Citations and additional articles have been added which support notability. Many articles and reviews of Webber's earlier work are from 2000 and 2001 and are not available online and so there was some question about how to cite those. Also, the nomination for removal based on lack of Google hits does not seem to be a valid reason to support deletion, particularly in the case of women playwrights who are often less known and therefore less Googled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McASah3637 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Apologies for not signing the above comment. Am new to this and did not see how to do so. Will try adding signature to this now. [[User:McASah3637] — Preceding unsigned comment added by McASah3637 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The reason for the original deletion nomination has been unsupported and has been proved as not part of Wikipedia criteria. All other comments are in support of keeping this article. A lot of changes have been made and a lot of new information has been added. All info has reliable citations. I believe this article should be kept. JE1110 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article demonstrates consistent local coverage across three provinces and at least half a dozen cities, accompanied by a series of local awards, and some recognition by national organisations. Independent coverage includes local papers, arts councils, awards committees, and university presses. Some of the sources are even news articles solely focused on the article subject or her work, which goes above the minimum WP:GNG and WP:BASIC requirements; in my opinion the strongest of these are the Nanaimo Bulletin and Saskatoon Express articles. Now that these improvements have been made to the page, it seems clear that article does not fail WP:NBIO. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:28, 16 March 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 07:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Eberhart[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate that this children's book author is notable. Couldn't find any sources. Refs 4-6 used in the article are all invalid (don't mention the subject). SD0001 (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No claim of notability. Dorama285 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, of initial concern was single digit/zero library holdings (via WorldCat ie. The Adventures of Granny: Granny Goes to the Zoo one library, and a gsearch brings up just the usual book selling sites but no reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unreviewed writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 21 March 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 moved to Draft:Benchmark School, admin discretion. If there are sources, let them be added and the draft can be submitted for approval through WP:AFC. BD2412 T 16:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benchmark School[edit]

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

promotional and nonnotable. Even at the height of accepting school articles, we very rarely accepted articles on schools below the secondary level. This is such a school, and the contents indicates why that was and remains a good practice.

There are only two alumni with Wikipedia article, the list of "top colleges attended by Benchmark Graduates" is promotional , and the list of school clubs & other school assemblies suchas their Ice Cream Social of no interest to anyone not a student or prospective student.

And there does not appear to be a single third party reference. I considered draftifying, but there's really no prospect of an article. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Benchmark School goes up to 8th grade, so that is secondary education. Plenty of precedent from schools that include middle school. This wikipedia page has existed for 3+ years without any notability concerns. Already outside sources included. More could be added, but it's not just from the school.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8th grade in the US is normally considered junior high school, not high school, and we have almost never accepted an article on them. Nor should we, based upon the material and references in this article. The outside sources to which you refer are local suburban newspapers from the area of the school. That's exactly he sort of local sources that do not prove notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be even maybe default notable a school must be a high school. That means for the US it must cover 10-12 grades, often 9th, but a school that covers 9th without 10th we will rule as needing to pass extraordinary notability guidelines. This clearly does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article on a non-notable K-8 school. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while the current article is a mess, there are possible sources from books. There's a lot of work to do on this mess, though, and I'm not up to rescuing it. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian I don't think it affects your argument but just as a heads up your third source doesn't mention the Benchmark School, but the concept of "benchmark schools". Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like enough sources. I just read an article about the school in Philadelphia magazine. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable school that has been featured in a variety of good sources including the Philadelphia Inquirer. [21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:45:4000:c590:b9f6:8828:73c2:9488 (talk • contribs)

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 08:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Willis[edit]

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

A non-notable local newsreader with no evidence of reliable sources. I initially nominated for PROD last month and the tag was removed, without discussion, by someone who appears to have major COI issues. No sources have been located since that point. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there appears to be a different person with the same name who has worked in BBC Radio 1 and Entertainment TV - they appear to be unconnected. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 21 March 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 07:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Flat Rock, Indiana[edit]

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

This is a YMCA camp, not a community (GMaps). Please do not mass-create articles based on nothing but the GNIS. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RS exists to show that this is a populated legally recognized place. Also the topo map reveals a river which may or may not qualify for an article. However this does not. Lightburst (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evking22, putting a link to a topo map that says "Camp Flat Rock" on it does in fact prove this exists, congratulations! What it does not do is establish notability: WP:NGEO says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." It's a camp, yes: 1955 blurb, 1959 blurb, but not a notable "unincorporated community". Reywas92^Talk 03:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have just accidentally established notability with the existence of those newspaper clippings, congratulations! Evking22 (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah noooo. Gonna need more significant coverage for a generic summer camp than an announcement to sign up. Reywas92^Talk 03:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a notable place. Evking22 (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a named natural feature or permanently populated place, so WP:GEOLAND does not apply. The location would then have to pass WP:GNG, and the brief coverage found is mostly run of the mill announcements, which do not have the depth used to establish notability. Hog Farm (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I must correct one mistake: this is not the current YMCA camp, which is on the other side of St. Paul. I have however located this passage from a history of the county which is clearly about the correct location. It states that the Camp Flat Rock started out as something of a picnic grove and evolved into a local park, which was eventually taken over by the Boy Scouts and then sold to a family which apparently operated it as a campground for some years after. It was never a settlement and its fame appears to have been purely local. Mangoe (talk) 02:10, 16 March 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 07:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archailect[edit]

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

Unreferenced and appears to fail WP:GNG, fictional minutia that is non-notable outside of a single fictional universe.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for both articles, but in general I strongly advice creating separate AfDs for each. But here yes, both seem to fail NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both articles fail GNG, as they are sourced entirely to primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:28, 16 March 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.