< 25 December	27 December >

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Ito[edit]

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

Delete Basically this is a case of WP:NOTCV. Fails WP:NPROF. H-index around 7. No independent coverage either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone has mistaken Wikipedia for his personal CV site. JIP | Talk 09:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTCV. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Provided citations do not establish notability. No prejudice against later recreating the article if additional sources are located. ElKevbo (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has only named 2 taxa according to IPNI here, which isn't enough I think for notability as a taxonomist. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maglor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fictional character. Most of the references to Maglor are in passing, although he does appear to be a character in a Tolkien-based drama titled The Masque of the Silmarils, however this non-notable drama cannot provide notability for Maglor. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maglor is a minor character in The Silmarillion. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The last discussion features appeals to name dropping in wide ranging articles on the Silmarils themselves. This does not constitute the indepth analasis of a subject we need to justify an article, especially an article on a fictional character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Simarillion characters category is bigger than the Lord of the Rings characters category, although both have several redirects so the number of articles is harder to compare. It should clearly be the other way around since the Lord of the Rings has many more characters that meet resonable inclusion standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, strangely, editors seem to have been interested in the most minor characters... I won't mention that cat woman...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A minor character in a minor work.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Tolkiencruft pursuant to WP:GNG]. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Connor and Garret Sullivan[edit]

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

I do not see the subjects as notable enough for Wikipedia. Some minor "acting" roles as babies and at very young age. No sources except for IMDb Denniss (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror. It sadly is, with many actor bios being one line of text and then a complete filmmography chart, but it is not supposed to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't find anything that indicates a GNG pass. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:GNG or any biographical notability criterion. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources. Lack of notability. Perhaps the info could be added to one of the programs the starred in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CmdrGibbons (talk • contribs) 14:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nomination, doesn't meet notability standards. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azrean Aziz[edit]

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

Player in an amateur league club. Fails both WP:NFOOTY as a non-professional player and WP:GNG as it lacks sufficient reliable sources. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he does pass WP:NFOOTY as he has appeared three times in the Malaysian Super League but we need more sources than just Soccerway to keep these sorts of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does pass WP:NFOOTY like SportingFlyer said as he played for three matches in a WP:FPL based league. But the only reference that I could see that mentions this player is this one here but it's only a brief mention. HawkAussie (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we tend to keep articles which pass NFOOTBALL for young players who are still playing, assuming that there are sources out there to meet GNG which we can;t find (different language/offline). I don't see why this is any different. Giant Snowman 13:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has delayed notability. This means you find the sources and then create the article. If you have not found and indentified the sources we delete the article. Wikipedia is not a directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bamil Gutiérrez Collado[edit]

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

Although the bold claim of subject winning 14 awards I don’t see an evidence of such during a WP:BEFORE I conducted. Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Sisters Reunite[edit]

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

A human interest story that does not meet WP:NEVENT. The assertion that this event led to further research appears to be false, or at least is not supported by the provided citation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source has been revealed through a news report video.

Junkrak —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I got some reliable sources from Cambridge University and ABC News and all of the sources tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Case closed.

User:Junkrak December 27, 2019 22:05 (UTC)

Delete. it's a one-time heartwarming event. Good Morning America has done a fine job preserving the story, but it is not encyclopedic material.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEVENT. The story is heartwarming and the original creator of the article obviously cares enough to write about the topic, but unfortunately it is not notable. #4 specifically mentions "viral phenomena" and there doesn't appear to be enduring significance to counteract that. Clovermoss (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet [[WP:NEVENT]. Doesn't seem to have had a lasting significance. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bricksave[edit]

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

Crowdfunded property startup which claims to have 223 members (hardly massive) and an alexa rank of #1,149,419. Don't believe this company passes WP:NCORP. Uhooep (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing more than promotion. Mattg82 (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions are equally split between keep, delete and merge into a new article together with Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Normally I'd try to go for the compromise outcome, but anything like this sort of broad restructuring of an entire topic should be discussed at the talk page level first. So we have no consensus for now, but I encourage editors to try and see on the talk page whether there's any interest in this kind of merger. If not, a renomination remains possible. Sandstein 21:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party[edit]

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

A massive WP:COATRACK/WP:SYNTHESIS detailing every real or supposed antisemitic incident in the UK Conservative Party from 1834. Many of the article subheaders are the result of very flimsy original research: Jacob Rees-Mogg for instance is covered here not because he has said something antisemitic, but because he has retweeted the German AfD party, which in turn have some antisemitic members.

"Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party" does not exist as an independent and notable topic, despite the fact that the party has had antisemitic members during its history. The only source here which discusses the topic independently is an article by the Left Foot Forward which is not a RS. At best, this article is a pointy counterpiece to Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Perhaps some of this content is usable in separate biographies of the people covered here or the Racism in the UK Conservative Party which I consider a legitimate article. This article has been almost single-handedly written by one user, Woofboy. Pudeo (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Pudeo (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The issue of racism in general is not the same as the issue of antisemitism - indeed all kinds of racism tend to have important differences and if they are extensive, as this clearly is, it deserves its own article. That there are many identified instances of antisemitism in the party, it is, as with other parties, an important issue to follow and highlight action the party is taking, or not. Again, this cannot be simply lumped in with racism in general.

Dispersing the content into various specific pages dilutes the issue. However, the authors of the OP may want to take it on to ensure all individual instances are ALSO included in the specific articles.

Further, there are over 200 references in the article from all manner of credible sources, despite what the OP here is suggesting. I also note whilst the article has had one person originating it, and adding a lot of content, several users have been very positively active. Even so, the OP shows no argument for one main active user being a problem.

Editing the article is a far more reasonable thing to do. As for the example above re Rees-Mogg, there is also a quote from him as referenced on the UCL site which is clearly significant, "...it was extremely unsettling for me to hear Rees-Moog castigate his opponents, particularly his two fellow Tories of Jewish background, Sir Oliver Letwin and Speaker John Bercow, as “Illuminati who are taking the powers to themselves.”".^[1]^[2]^[3] Cjwilky (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cjwilky: My point wasn't that there are no sources which detail antisemitism of individual Conservative party members since 1834, of which there are plenty. But are there any sources that cover antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party as a distinct phenomenon? If not, then this information belongs to individual articles (e.g. the Nazi comment by Alan Clark belongs to Alan Clark). --Pudeo (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is this brochure Antisemitism and the Conservative Party by the Antisemitism Policy Trust. Though it seems quite careful not to associate antisemitism with the Conservative party specifically: Nearly all political parties have at some point in their existence faced, in some form, allegations of racism, and specifically, antisemitism. The Conservative Party is not immune from this. --Pudeo (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pudeo: Thanks, I see what you are saying there now both regarding that point and the general place you're coming from :) If the article was called "Institutional Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party", then your point may have validity but that isn't what it is called. It's worth adding that renaming the Labour article as Institutional would be questionable, as arguably the primary issue in that party is antizionism as distinct from antisemitism, with criticism of the state of Israel's actions against Palestinians being the central factor, and to a lesser degree outright antizionism beliefs held by members, including Jewish members. To create distinct articles reflecting these nuances would be hugely problematic - as I'm sure you're aware - and unhelpful for readers with precise definitions of the terms and of the accusations being fairly fluid. The articles as they stand leave space for those nuances to be identified and easily placed, so I remain Strong Keep Cjwilky (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Over 200 reliable and credible sources here, certainly satisfying GNG. Perhaps some cleanup could be done, but the topic is certainly notable... – DarkGlow (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party under a third name, or split both articles by era and cover them all in an overarching timeline from Antisemitism in the United Kingdom rather than party-specific ones. It's true that neither article has many sources discussing antisemitism outside the scope of specific politic eras, which suggests that either a single broad article discussing each political era where antisemitism is discussed or splitting them all by era and listing them in a more neutral central article would be best. But there are absolutely sources here discussing (eg.) broad antisemitism under Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron, Johnson and so on, so each individual section is good and worth preserving somewhere; and lumping them together by topic doesn't seem utterly unworkable - it's splitting them onto UK / Labour pages like this that raises some issues, since it risks implications that aren't actually in the sources on either article. I lean towards splitting by era because that seems to be how the sources work (there are many sources discussing "antisemitism under X", but relatively few non-opinion pieces discussing "antisemitism in the extended history of party X.") The complaint that this is WP:POINTy, though, doesn't seem well-founded, since central to WP:POINT is that it must disrupt the encyclopedia; the individual sections here are very good and have appropriate sourcing for discussing that era, so they definitely shouldn't all be deleted. --Aquillion (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party under a third name (antisemitism in British politics) or keep (if merge fails) as it is Well Sourced, about a history going back over 200 years (and sourced for most of that with contemporaneous sources,, not ones deciding it was antisemitic in the last two years).Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as goes against WP:SYNTHESIS. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would be notable as a standalone topic: sources exist but shouldn't be combined together in this way to jump to conclusions not stated or implied in said sources: this is original research. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per the solid arguments set out by Cjwilky, Slatersteven, Aquillion, DarkGlow above. This article is no more a coat rail,synthesis or original research, than the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article, and exactly the same argument about whether antisemitic actions are those of individuals or the party could be made of about the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article as of the Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party article. I feel that Wikipedia should not show any bias and treat both articles the same. Alternatively to a lesser extent weak Merge with both articles cleaned up and joined, but I fear the combined article would be overlarge. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ N. Broda, 'We need to talk about the Tories' antisemitism problem' (03/10/19) on Jewish News
^ N. Lampert, 'Brexit Chaos Now Threatens an Unprecedented Storm of anti-Semitism for British Jews' (17/09/19) on Haaretz
^ M. Berkowitz, 'Jacob Rees-Mogg’s alarming cry of "Illuminati"' (05/09/19) on UCL Brexit Blog

Delete The subject is synthetic. Are there reliable sources, such as an academic paper or a book that links these events? Where there is secondary sourcing, much of this material can be included in articles about the individual subjects. The subject itself isn't notable or best discussed as an article. Ralbegen (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a unified article or keep per Slatersteven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a unified article (perhaps Antisemitism in British politics) per Aquillion. This whole topic area is extremely pointy and perhaps a unified article would make it a bit less so. Number 5 7 18:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons already mentioned by other users above. Maestro2016 (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Pudeo and Ralbegen that this meets the definition of synthetic. It is, instead, a sort of laundry list, a throwing together every encounter between a Conservative MP and a Jew or Jewish issue that can possibly be given a negative spin. Moreover, I see NO sources that support the overall thesis that support for the notion that Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party is a thing,as opposed to the fact that sundry members of the party have, over the centuries, held antisemitic attitudes.NotButtigieg (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, however the article is called "Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party". The contents are exactly that, it does what it says on the can :) It is undoubtedly a valuable resource.

I mentioned before about the idea of adding "Institutional" to the title of this and/or the Labour article and how that is then problematic, but it could be added as a subsection where you could possibly find sources to demonstrate that is or isn't the case. Keeping the main page title as it is keeps things clear and simple. Cjwilky (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A coatrack of antisemitic incidents in the Conservative Party without evidence that the underlying topic meets notability requirements does not belong in the encyclopedia. You could write an even better sourced article about Use of quotation in the UK Conservative Party that documents examples of Conservative politicians using quotations. But the fact that a bunch of Conservatives have used quotations doesn't make the subject of the use of quotation in the UK Conservative Party a notable topic for an article. Almost anything could be a big well-sourced article, but far fewer things are notable and hence should be an article. Ralbegen (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that antisemitism in all ways, especially politics, is a notable issue. With respect, quotations isn't, especially in politics. Cjwilky (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. JIP | Talk 23:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to cooperative learning[edit]

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

Extensive WP:COPYVIO issues (see copyvio report) that are beyond repair. I wanted to gather consensus vs. speedy. Snowycats (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyright problems is a better venue to report this. MER-C 09:57, 26 December 2019 (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/2019 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Soft deletion is the outcome here because the only opinion apart from the nominator's has, in the end, been a neutral one... Sandstein 21:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ESOMAR[edit]

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

no 3rd party references, and highly promotional in the sense of giving information of concern only to members or prospective members. I was not ableto find anything substnatial on Google News or even Google. DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Keep: Weak keep:(changed due to new sources added to article) Immediate thought. I can see I edited this about 3 weeks ago and while I forget what brought me here the connection with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and in particular the ICC/ESOMAR Code on Market, Opinion and Social Research and Data Analytics was the key point. But independent sourcing on article doesn't look good. At that visit I think I detected some COI editing and proably focused on sourcing from the ICC about any claims ESOMAR were making about that joint document. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on the article and have removed COI influence from the lede and am working through the reset of the article, particularly with regards to membership number claims needing to be checked and a number of other details. In terms of notability resources per WP:RS per WP:THREE I have so far added to the article and these should be sufficient:Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Corbin, Ruth M.; et al. (26 November 2018). Practical Guide to Comparative Advertising: Dare to Compare. Academic Press. pp. 171–172. ISBN 978-0128054710. OCLC 1078666387.

Nilsson, Johan (2018). Constructing Consumer Knowledge in Market Research : An Ethnography of Epistemics (PhD). Linköping University. doi:10.3384/diss.diva-144816.

Polonsky, Michael J.; Waller, David S. (31 Aug 2004). Designing and Managing a Research Project: A Business Student's Guide (1 ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 55–56. ISBN 978-0761922490. OCLC 982525073.

~~I have also worked over the article and the degree of promotionalism should be far less and COI biased editting eliminated. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 20:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If three reasonable sources are presented for WP:RS consideration and unchallenged for 2 weeks is the argument not won? Even the nom. has not commented on those sources which is reasonably to be expected in 48 hours if no-one else has done so. I am ANNOYED by the relister J947 Happy Festivities! on their WP:SIGAPP and inappropriate for performing administrative functions. An intelligent relisting comment might be: "Please comment on the presented sources". Happy Festivities! simply means go and get a life away from WP:AFD, get tonked and honked don't bother contributing here!. Bah Humbug! Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: General consensus is that another editor has to agree with you for a keep result except if the nominator offers a illegitimate deletion statement like 'No reliable sources in the article'. The job of a relister is to judge the consensus in the discussion; they cannot use their own argument on the validity of the sources and therefore a different editor must weigh in. i do not often relist anymore and mostly only do so in clear-cut circumstances like this one. My signature is meant to be optimistic for the holiday season and for your sake I will not use it for any further comments on this AfD. I did not think a relisting comment would be needed as it was pretty obvious why the relist took place unless some absolute dimwit comes along and completely disregards your comment. J 947 ^{^(c)} 21:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having put effort into this (and further might be put if necessary). Per WP:RELIST while having having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Over the festivities period is pretty dishearting also ... somewhat inaptly pointed out by Happy Festivities. While my comment should be sufficient to indicate what needs to be considered it was ignored on the previous relist and is not independent whereas the evaluation and comment of the relister is. Bah Humbug.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An impartial relister cannot just rely on you alone. There is no consensus as of yet and further discussion is definitely needed. J 947 ^{^(c)} 00:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with above comment beginning ... Impartial lister ... which has been ignored) I've taken the advice of the relister ... decided to have happy festivities ... self reverted my own work from oldid 930441082 to oldid 931316205. I can no longer sustain any sort of !vote in this discussion so I have removed to neutral. People may say I am mad to do this ... perhaps some may say I've gone off my head and been on the porter too much but that's what the relist said. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Romo (journalist)[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 20:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting GNG. ミラ P 18:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous Gaming[edit]

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

Non-notable esports team. Half the sources currently in use just basically note their appearance in a tournament, while the other half are unreliable (and thus unusable) per WP:VG/RS. The team themselves have not won or done anything of note (outside of a few upset wins at a single tournament, which obviously does not warrant an entire article), nor do they have any notable players on their roster. So unless better sources exist in Spanish (as the team is based in Peru), I'm nominating this article for deletion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback is appreciated here and spanish language articles have been added from the peruvian media to improve the quality of the article. South America has a smaller esports community than North America, Europe and Southeast Asia, so the groups relative weight in that community may be broader than in English-language media. The group has a history of competing in international tournaments, but the weight of the "The International" is partially because the prize pool is so large (~35million vs under 1m for most others). Participating in that competition is also relatively prized such that being included gives a sort of "Top X teams in the world" weight. Only 2 teams in the wiki article for the 2019 tournament do not have current wikipedia entries (apart from infamous). Non-media references here have been restricted only to the inclusion of liquipedia due to its extensive and structured information regarding tournament results, prize monies, participants etc. However, per your recommendation, spanish (and english) language articles supporting specific events have been added from local news-media sources. There are notable professional players on the team roster both currently and formerly, at least notable enough within the community to merit interviews and news articles about signing and dropping of players. However, they are certainly not notable enough to merit their own sections or pages at this time. Azurex120 (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sure how reliable the Spanish sources are, they at least helped more than the ones that are decidedly unreliable per WP:VG/RS (being Liquidpedia, EsportsEarnings, and Hotspawn). And while them participating in TI is a notable achievement, your argument being because "only 2 teams in the wiki article for the 2019 tournament do not have current wikipedia entries" basically means Infamous should have one too is not the right way to look at it. We don't have articles for every single Olympic athlete, do we? In any case, the article should probably be kept now, at least after some MOS edits and replacing the sources I removed (which shouldn't be too hard, especially for any TI related ones). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found more reliable replacements for the removed esports sources, but didn't replace ones where the results were already double referenced (by a reputable source). Hotspawn to me did seem more of an esports news site, but really its just the one article that was referenced here. At least two of the spanish-language sites are distinguished enough to have their own english wikipages Radio_Programas_del_Perú and El_Comercio_(Peru). Honestly, I'm not terribly familiar with Peruvian news, but they strike me as genuine mainstream news-media. I agree with what you say about the Olympic athletes, and obviously the line is drawn somewhere, but I feel their regional representation makes the cut here. Thanks for your help in this! If you have recommendations for MOS edits, let me know what you're thinking. Azurex120 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be is some decent coverage in El Comercio (Peru) [1], Perú.21 [2], and La República [3], enough to meet WP:GNG. The article needs to be cleaned out of unreliable esports sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 20:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mutate (comics)[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion for failing WP:GNG, but I think the term is worth mentioning to differentiate it from "mutant". Merge or redirect to mutant (Marvel Comics). JIP | Talk 20:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cruft that fails WP:GNG. Incorrect disambiguation anyway, so there is no need to merge or redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humour in Coronation Street[edit]

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

Article is made up of WP:FANCRUFT and fails WP:GNG. DarkGlow (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely updated, WP:FANCRUFT material. eeveeman (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I did find some coverage on the "Northern humour" used on the show, like this Manchester Evening News article and this book, there does not appear to be enough significant amount of coverage or critical commentary to support a separate article. I would imagine that any information on the show's humor could be kept in the main Coronation Street article. It is an interesting idea for an article, and I'd be curious if it would work for a different show, but that is an entirely separate conversation. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ann White[edit]

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

I believe the article fails WP:GNG. After removing promotional fluff, this article consists of sources to either WP:PRIMARY or an interview which isn’t allowed for BLPs. I can’t find any independent significant coverage of this BLP and thus believe the article should be deleted. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As mentioned, article fails GNG. – DarkGlow (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer and ministry leader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: does not seem notable Casio5309 (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Casio5309 striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Sherif Hasan[edit]

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

Egyptian actor who appeared in three films ten years ago (and IMDb suggests that he had a meaningful part in only one of these). I don't see siginificant coverage in third-party sources and strongly suspect that the author of the article is either Mohamed Sherif Hasan himself or someone closely related to him since the uploaded image is quite clearly a selfie. Note that this user (شريف (talk · contribs)) has written stubs for Mohamed Sherif Hasan in Norwegian, Galego, Russian, Vietnamese, Indonesian and Urdu. Pichpich (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this person is trying to write about himself in a lot of wiki projects. His page in Arabic is deleted four times, also he created a new page in Arabic wiki with different name, and I deleted. His pages should be deleted in every wiki project because This page is about a person who is not sufficiently popular at all. Thank you.--فيصل (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Cross-wiki self advertisement (FYI @Praxidicae:) --Alaa :)..! 10:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Azad[edit]

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

Unelected politician. fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG . Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2019 (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/2019 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her stated notability seems to be inherited from her husband. Not sure why this is listed at WP:CRIC / SPORT and not the relevant politics project, as she does not seem to have played cricket herself. Spike 'em (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no other claim of preexisting notability that would have gotten her into Wikipedia either (who she happens to be married to is not a notability claim either), and cites nowhere close to enough reliable source coverage to make her candidacy somehow much more special than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty much per nom. Azad is an unelected politician and inherited notability from her husband (one of the sources on the article is to a biography of him and it is repeated twice that he is a politican and she is married to him). LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 08:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.NotButtigieg (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pool of Radiance#Setting. Apart from a drive-by pure vote, which is discounted, nobody wants to keep this. Where exactly to redirect this and whether to merge something from history can be sorted out among editors. Sandstein 21:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phlan[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, fails GNG. A section in the main article might be more appropriate. – DarkGlow (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Pool of Radiance. BOZ (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pool of Radiance#Setting. The references in the article are either primary, or are actually about the video game in which the city first appeared, and searching for further sources turns up much of the same. So, it does not meet the WP:GNG as an independent article. However, a redirect to that video game, which already has a pretty good description of the fictional city, seems appropriate. Merging can be done if necessary, but it looks like the information here based on the independent sources is already included there. Rorshacma (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per GNG. Propose List of Forgotten Realms cities as merge target. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Doering[edit]

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

This biography doesn't meet WP:BLP1E criteria. All information outside of the viral human-interest story about being reunited with her sister is from non-reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG. – DarkGlow (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this imperfect? I don't understand. I did research and translation stuff on the internet for just this one story for 2 hours straight. It's like a math teacher saying you did all of you multiplication wrong, even though you gotten the answers right. This article has a neutral point of view about her early life all the way to her "private" career. Do you agree with me or not?

Junkrak

The issue isn't that you did a bad job, it's that reliable sources have not written enough about this topic. You could spend a decade working on this article nonstop and it wouldn't change a thing unless more reliable sources publish content about Audrey Doering. I would suggest that you read through WP:BLP1E. If you can justify that this subject doesn't meet all three criteria listed there, and that it does meet WP:GNG, then I will happily change my vote to keep. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reliable source from Cambridge University about their birth names and life from Nancy Segal. How about that?

Junkrak —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a link please. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/rearedapart-chinese-twins-chance-discoverytwinbased-research-twin-study-of-media-use-twin-relations-over-the-life-span-breastfeeding-oppositesex-twinsprint-and-online-media-twins-in-fashion-second-twin-pair-born-to-tennis-star-twin-primes-twin-pandas/2B6F5A486AC2EA5A0CC3F0ABA34E18C6/core-reader

User:Junkrak —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's two problems with this source. One is that it is still fundamentally about the "twins separated at birth" thing, which means that it doesn't do much to break out of the WP:BLP1E criteria. Two is that it is not independent, as in this article the author states that she was the one who facilitated the reunion of the two sisters. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://myusagym.com/meets/past/58902/results/12906/ http://www.mymeetscores.com/gymnast.pl?gymnastid=21387727 Ros, can you write about this in the Career section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkrak (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the issues raised in the nomination statement still haven't been addressed. The article will be deleted if you can't find more coverage in secondary, reliable sources, and the extent to which the sources provided are already scraping the bottom of the barrel suggests that we are unlikely to find any such coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you got me, I can't find shit! Scraping at the bottom of the FUCKING BARREL isn't enough huh? Stop being PC and tell me the fuck is wrong with it. I founded video footage that's from ABC, which filmed the document from the newspaper, Doering personal information from social media, 1 news report about the heart surgery, and this SHIT ISN'T ENOUGH? FINE, delete my hard work (bitch or bastard), your seriously pissing me off. I know the rules or regulation shit says not to take it personal, BUT HUMANS AREN'T AUTOMATED STEPHEN HAWKING MACHINES THAT KNOW EVERYTHING! User:Junkrak December 27, 2019 21:19pm (UTC) THIS ARTICLE BULLSHIT, DUH, DELETE PROFILE, DUH, NO RELIABLE SOURCES, DUH, DELETE HORSESHIT

Keep: Reliable sources have been discovered through the internet. Cased closed. User:Junkrak December 27, 2019 22:04 (UTC)

~~Keep~~: Let me explain, Most of the sources come from The Doerings social media accounts, twin documents from ABC video footage, and private life being exposed through the career websites (YMCA or Violin place). Put them all together, including the study from Cambridge University and the DNA tests from ABC, and you get a damn good article with secondary sources with multiple links. User:Junkrak December 27, 2019 23:26 (UTC) second keep vote by same user struck.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is literally WP:BLP1E. It's a heartwarming story that belongs on GMA and not here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about as clear-cut a case of WP:BLP1E as there can be. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Alborov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

He only played in the third-tier Russian Professional Football League. It has been recently removed from the list of fully professional leagues (WP:FPL) and he does not pass the notability criteria laid out in WP:NFOOTY anymore. During the first nomination that league was incorrectly listed as fully professional. Geregen2 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can only find match reports, transfer announcements and database entries in English- and Russian-language sources. Fails GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really do not see any reason why we should have more than one league in any country that grants default notability to people who play just one game. In fact I am questioning why we have any league that grants default notability for such a minor performance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is the appropriate place for such a discussion, but I am quite certain you will find plenty of significant coverage online for the typical footballer who makes at least one appearance in Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga, Ligue 1 or the Premier League during the internet era. The same should be true for pre-internet era players in such leagues, but through offline sources. Jogurney (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan#Karl D. Gregory Cooperative House. Opinion is divided between merge and delete. Redirect is a compromise that allows editors to decide whether anything is worth merging from history. Sandstein 21:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karl D. Gregory Cooperative House[edit]

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

Dorms and frat houses are usually not notable unless they are on the National Register of Historic Places. This building is not on that register, and does not appear to pass WP:GNG either. Hog Farm (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is very common for dorms and frat houses to be covered in a list of university buildings, or a narrower list of university dormitories and perhaps other housing. See Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States for many examples, including a number about housing alone.

I mostly write about National Register-listed places, and it is nice that the deletion nominator is aware that such listing usually means a place is notable. But by far most notable places are not on the National Register; what matters more fundamentally is whether a place meets our wp:GNG general notability guideline by the existence of reliable sources about them. Did the deletion nominator perform wp:BEFORE? They did not say so in the nomination. --Doncram (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @User:Doncram, I did perform my BEFORE but just forgot to include my findings in the article. Pretty much the only information I can find on this topic are social media mentions, information from the ICC's website (which, since the ICC is the sponsoring organization of this house, I consider to be basically self-published), a few short paragraphs in a Michigan Daily article which describes a number of the ICC's houses (which suggests to me that the article proves notability for the ICC, but not for individual houses), and the Russian Wikipedia (not RS). This leads me to the conclusion that this house fails WP:GNG, which is why I checked to see if it was on the National Register of Historic Places. Hog Farm (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tentatively. There is no way this should be outright deleted, because merger into higher level article Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan is possible; there is a section for it there, which just directs to this article. At least a summary can appear there if this article is not Kept outright. However, I think maybe this should be kept; offhand it seems like sources would exist about this; i hope others can find and discuss sources to save this. But again, deletion is not the answer. --Doncram (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not encyclopedic content in the first place, whether as a separate article or part of a list or merged into an article like student life at ... or even the main university page. --it is more suitable for the university's web page than an encyclopedia. ~~Yjrtr jsd nrrm s [lsvce~~ there has been a place for a listing of major university run dormitories in more general articles, but extending it to every house of this sort is non-encyclopedic detail. DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Yjrtr jsd nrrm s [lsvce"? Is that some acronym like "ymmv" (your mileage may vary)?

(typo from being one place to the right of where I thought I was on the keyboard it translates as "there has been a place") DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan is a sourced article in Wikipedia, which covers this house, and it is reasonable to merge/redirect the house article there. DGG would apparently prefer to merge less, and/or call it a "redirect" decision, but I see no reasoning here valid for outright deletion of the topic. I think it is reasonable for Wikipedia to provide something for readers searching on this topic. --Doncram (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I support listings of that sort, but not individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Doncram, however note that the target article already has an "too much intricate detail" tag. Merge should be selective and only include a overview (with sources). MB 02:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan, which can absorb pertinent info for this building Djflem (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Chapman[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMUSICIAN, and WP:PAGEANT* John from Idegon (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Don't we have a level of presumption for pageant winners? And isn't she south of that? John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:NMODEL is related.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Help! There's an ancient previous discussion on this, so this needs to be renamed. See here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SharabSalam. One more favor? Could you list this in an opera catagory? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it to the Musicians and bands category. I can't find a category for Opera deletion discussions.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any notability criteria for pageant winners was rejected. However the consensus was that state level winners are not notable for such, what failed was an attempt to claim any national level winners were default notable. There is not enough coverage here to show notability. A few years ago many of these articles on non=notable pageant winners were removed, however many were kept as well more from lack of organized action than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking at the sources here I do not see any actual 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and did not meet WP:GNG. --Richie Campbell (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This list is in a weird state between "it's useless in its present form" and "it's probably notable and could be improved to be useful". I don't see consensus forming at this time, but I recommend to either improve it to make it useful, or AfD it again after some time (at least 6-12 months) to get some fresh eyes on it. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hope television specials[edit]

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

A pointless list that adds nothing to the parent Bob Hope article. It doesn't explain the specials. It doesn't link to any articles for the specials. It's just a list. I would argue it's CRUFT. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 09:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 09:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added years to the article to remove the textwall feel of the article, but there is a purpose to this list as it shows the subject's breadth of specials over a number of years. Definitely an expansion candidate, but it's better than having 100+ articles where it's just a Ctrl+V stubfarm of a few synopses with changing guests. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it could definitely be expanded on. There's a great article to be had here. But in its current state, it's a useless CRUFT list. If it were completely up to me (which it's not), I'd move it to your userspace for draft in to a proper article. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 19:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draft - I have to agree with nom. This really doesn't add anything in it's current state as it's just a long list of almost identical titles with 3 sources, 2 of which are IMDB and YouTube (and the 3rd dead). In this current state it's just better to summarize it and use the lead of this article in the main one. --Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and expand. A combination or list article is the way to deal with these. They're culturally signifcant enough to be included, andprobably better not in any of the posible mroegeneral articles. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see the point of this article. What information does it exactly provide about these television specials? JIP | Talk 20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree with DGG about being culturally significant, indeed i am reminded of point no. 5 of WP:NBOOK (pleas forgive my poetic licence:)) "Hope is so historically/culturally significant that any of Hope's works may be considered notable, but a list is fine." Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not WP:TVGUIDE. Everything is well summarized at Bob Hope#Broadcasting. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In the article's current form, it's little more than formless list, so the current article is no good. However, I am quite certain the topic of "Bob Hope television specials" is independently notable. IOW, there's no way that these specials didn't receive press/media coverage either individually or in the aggregate... So, I don't know if WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies here, but I suspect there is a viable, notable article on "Bob Hope television specials" (i.e. more than what's simply at Bob Hope#Broadcasting) to be had... It's just that the current version of this article is not that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It should have more discussion about the specials' development and impact, but it has information that would be useful when someone with the interest to expand it comes along. WP:NUKEANDPAVE is for irreparably broken pages. Nuking this article would make it less likely for someone to expand it, not more likely. Toughpigs (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wilhelm Reich. As usual, reliably sourced stuff can be merged from history. Sandstein 21:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Reichian massage[edit]

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

I'm afraid this particular re-invention of the proposals by William Reich that there are ways to massaging patients to release orgone is not really recognized anywhere but in an obscure Master's Thesis from UBC. I do not think this rises to the level of WP:MEDRS nor WP:NFRINGE we would demand for a standalone article. Brief mention could possibly be included on other body psychotherapy pages? jps (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Wilhelm Reich: not enough material from reliable sources available for an article. I didn't search extensively but also have trouble finding mentions in my pseudoscience books to meet WP:PSCI... —Paleo Neonate – 11:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meda (singer)[edit]

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

Non notable singer failing short of both WP:SINGER & WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draft. This is a tough one. There clearly is not a consensus to keep this as is, but the participants are all over the place about what to do instead. A "no consensus" close defaults to keeping, which seems like an irrational result in the circumstances. So from the options proposed, I have gone with draftifying as the one most in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Version[edit]

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

Non-notable music project. Could not find a single source to attest the project's notability. Of the two listed, one is not shown, and the other is an obscure Icelandic website that looks like a blog. PK650 (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some plays, some fans and some coverage but seems to be only scratching the surface. Can't find much on them at all. scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep as has English reliable sources coverage including an independent bio at AllMusic here and album review at AllMusic here, which normally is a good indicator that more coverage is available, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC) changed to weak keep as explained later Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is a database akin to imdb, is it not? As such I don't think it can be anywhere near a reliable indicator of notability, as anyone can ask to be included in their database through their data provider TiVo. Could you provide any such sources? I could not find any of relevance. Best, PK650 (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 20:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No AllMusic is a reliable source as listed in the reliable sources for Music listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, the bios are by staff writers and the album reviews by staff are independent. The bios and staff reviews are not user-edited and anyone can submit a story to any newspaper but most are not selected just like AllMusic which is more selective than people think as for example out of all the bands and musicians listed in this AFD category this is the only band with an allmusic bio and review that I have come across so far this week, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Atlantic306: It is RS and there is no doubt that there are signed, but there is not much else. No coverage. You would expect something. No social media. scope_creep^Talk 08:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RSP, there is no consensus as to whether Allmusic is reliable/unreliable. That said, would you consider having articles for all musicians listed on Allmusic? Is it enough to base a biography entirely on the weight of Allmusic's content, especially considering the aforementioned no consensus? As scope_creep suggests above, one would usually look for good quality sources beyond a database, and in this case I'm not seeing coverage that would sustain this article. Best, PK650 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can check in Reliable Sources if you want? What a do know is that single mention, isn't sufficient for notability. It is a single primary source, where is the in-depth secondary sources. Non-existent. scope_creep^Talk 00:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I mean. I couldn't find any of relevance, could you? PK650 (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic has been discussed many times by WikiProject Albums with the outcome that it is a reliable source, also an independently written bio and record review are secondary sources not primary sources. However, I agree that more sources are needed, I haven't done a full source search yet so am reducing to weak keep as nonone has found more yet, regards Atlantic306 (talk)

Yeah, I wouldn't consider a short database bio and a single review from the same source as proof of notability. PK650 (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperbolick: Hi, can you tell me what that implies? Best, PK650 (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PK650: Would be moved to Draft:Diamond Version, with some number of months to fix, and then submit to be moved back. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperbolick: Thanks, but how would that change notability? PK650 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would give time for more to develop. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as "give their PR company time to fabricate spam sources". Notability is generally not garnered in 6 months' time. I wouldn't give false hope to a draft creator when the subject of the article is non-notable and will likely continue to be for the foreseeable future. PK650 (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never see a small act blow up and get real coverage in six months time? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this counts as a !vote, but we have one good source (Allmusic bio, written by staff writer (which is often a good sign of notability), you do have to check for UGC), but I couldn't find anything else. Any printed EDM zines from that era? I would vote merge to Nicolai, except most of the current information fails WP:V, I think, unless some library archived the Sonar Festival programme. Perhaps the Allmusic information should be added to Nicolai's article, and this topic be re-directed there until such time as an additional independent, in-depth source be found. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alva Noto. I think this will resolve the questions and concerns about reliability of sources and significance of coverage. I think this has been the "way out" for other side projects, when we have gotten into this issue before. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Move to draft to allow incubation. If notable, resubmit for our NPP. Wm335td (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few minor hits for their CI album, but nothing about the band that would suggest they pass WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Adamek[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Malone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Has not appeared in a professional game and has not received significant coverage in the media. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON, only points for WP:NCOLLATH seem to be his first team all-big 12 selection in 2011, and I'd consider that to be too weak. Media coverage is limited to "gopowercat.com". 400spartans (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails any notability guideline for footballers. He is not even close to meeting any reasonable criteria for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Windatareflector[edit]

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

The only sources cited on this article are the developer's web site, a couple unreliable blogs, and a couple indiscriminate software download directories. I've looked and I could only find more of the same. I believe this does not meet either WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG and so should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:GNG. I tried looking for sources as well, but couldn't find anything that would make this notable. Clovermoss (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arien[edit]

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

Arien is not a significant character, let alone one who has enough coverage to justify an article. Not even every major character in a significant work needs an article. Except Arien is a minor character, hardly even that, in the Silmarillion, which is not a major work. The fact that we only have the primary sourcing to the fictional work she appears in is telling. The fact that this article dates back to August 2003 shows how super focused early Wikipedia was on the minutia of fantasy works. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was prodded for deletion last month, but the prop was removed, although with no explanation as to why the article needs to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?" ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a minor character from a minor work.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my prod rationale (fails GNG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. JIP | Talk 15:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bantha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's a Star Wars topics, so Rescue Squadron and affiliated fanboys, get ready :> Anyway, it's a minor Star War species that seems to fail GNG/NFICTION. As everything related to SW, there are mentions in passing - several reliable sources are present, but they don't discuss this fantasy race per se, only mention in passing in one sentence or so. Then there is a news piece about the real elephant used in original Star Wars movie dying. Now, since I did mention the Rescue Squadron (and it's not like I mind saving articles, if it can be done), I'll point out to https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Bantha#Behind_the_scenes - this section is the essence of what can be said about this that goes beyond PLOT. But in the end, this is IMHO Star Wars trivia - the film wanted an elephant-like monster, they did with a real elephant, a cute little story about filming of the original movie, but it does not make the fictional race notable. This incident can be discussed perhaps in some article about making of the SW original movie, but do we need a separate article for this prop (because the fictional race clearly fails GNG, so let's face it, it's about a prop, not a sf creature)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 18 December 2019 (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} 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_creatures#Bantha. Of the available sources, they are either heavily 'in-universe' type sources, or else extremely trivial/passing coverage. There is not nearly enough to offer standalone notability, and there is a perfectly logical redirect option. Hug^syrup 08:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I saw the AFD I assumed this article would be all plot summary, as is usually the case in situations like this, but not only is it from a real-world perspective, it is cited by verifiable secondary reliable sources, which speak to the subject's notability. I also suspect the article could be expanded upon and fleshed out further, so I think it's worth keeping. It's also worth pointing out there was a previous AFD for this subject that resulted in a keep after the article was revised to reflect its notability and a consensus was reached to keep it, and although that certainly doesn't mean we can't discuss this again in AFD, I'll just note that notability is not temporary, so if the subject was notable back then, it's still notable now. — Hunter Kahn 14:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, though, that there are some very strange referencing issues with this article as it stood when the AFD was announced. I'm planning to make a few edits/improvements and will try to clean that up. I've fixed the referencing issues now, and I've started some expansions to the article, including the addition of "Biology and appearance", "Concept and creation", and "Reception" sections, as well as expansions to the Production section. I'll add that in my brief amount of editing here I've seen there are many more reliable sources out there that could be used to expand this article. I honestly haven't even scratched the surface yet. I'll try to expand it a bit more before this AFD is through, but my keep vote stands, and if anything I feel even more strongly about it. — Hunter Kahn 16:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HK, whether it's kept or not, I have to say this looks MUCH better than what I nominated a day ago: [4]. I will have to review the sources etc. when I have time so consider whether this should be withdrawn or not, right now I have no opinion except it is much longer (and with refs). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I have plans for further additions, and there are some other books and offline source I'm hoping to hunt down at some libraries and/or bookstores eventually. If the article is kept, I might try to keep improving it up to GA status... — Hunter Kahn 18:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I am not a Star Wars fan. The nominator seems to equate fans of anything as a lower breed of editor going by his adhoms when the reality is that much of Wikipedia was built by fans whether they be fans of classical music, James Bond films, European history, the renaissance and so on and so on. In this case there is plenty of real world content reliably referenced and the article is being actively improved as described above so to delete it would be dogmatic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, While the article has a plethora of sources, they are either only brief mentions, are not independent, or are 'top x' lists. As it stands, this article does not pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk 07:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not entirely accurate. Only a few are lists and only one (the StarWars.com source) could be argued to be non-independent, and many if not most of the other sources (among the books and news articles) go well beyond brief mentions. — Hunter Kahn 12:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was surprised to discover an article on such an arcane piece of popular culture, but even more surprised that it was actually half-decent, and actually somewhat informative on the use of animals in cinema. I've not checked the sources, but prima facie they seem reasonable. (Full disclosure: I cannot reasonably dispute the charge that I am a Star Wars fan.) —PLUMBAGO 13:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hugsyrup. Miniapolis 23:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The topic deserves to be mentioned somewhere, but the reception is quite weak for a stand alone. List of Star Wars creatures is currently a very poor article in itself, but I think it could be heavily refocused into a more real-world based topic discussing only those that have enough real world attention. Some of the sources would be worth including there. TTN (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope it's been noted that the article has recently been undergoing expansions since this AFD began, and that I've committed to continuing those efforts if it's not deleted, hopefully to GA status. I also want to note that I haven't put much focus on the Reception status yet; I wanted to start with the other sections because I think they are a better indication of the subject's notability. Anybody could fill an article like this with a lengthy Reception section just by quoting review blurbs or whatever. I expect the Reception to be expanded as part of my efforts, as well as the rest of the article... — Hunter Kahn 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Hunter Kahn's well-sourced and interesting additions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_creatures#Bantha, since it already exists there. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources to show they pass notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Evidently some scholarly and journalistic interest; it's not just fanzines and blogs. Discussion in The Science of Star Wars and the various respectable newspapers cited are both good. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Wars creatures per TTN and others. It would be much more appropriate as part of the list, which is potentially notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as a redirect but I was asked to reconsider by some editors involved since the article has been expanded since the nom. Relisting in order to get a further input and to stay neutral on my side regarding the final outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Better than most. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of references found. JIP | Talk 20:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Hugsyrup.--Darwinek (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for those voting to redirect: As I've indicated, I've done some substantial edits and additions to this article compared to how it looked when this AFD began. Some of it is about the fictional character, but much of it is also real-world perspective, such as concept/creation, design, filming/production, critical reception, etc. If this were to be redirected, what do you suggest happens to all this new content? Should it be merged with the list article, or simply deleted altogether? It seems to me that neither options makes sense, as the latter would be the unnecessary removal of content cited by reliable sources, and the former would make the Bantha's entry on the list too long and would warrant a WP:SPINOFF back to the main article anyway. Wouldn't it make more sense to just keep the article where it is? — Hunter Kahn 02:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These sorts of articles are often just WP:FANCRUFT. But this article is actually quite solid, and built on a whopping 82 sources. There is a lot of real world refs, not just in universe stuff. I reject the trivia argument, and see no other good reason to delete it. I also think that redirecting is a poor choice, as that would make a WP:COATRACK. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- An excessive merge could lead to a coatrack, although given that WP:COATRACK is primarily concerned with pushing POVs, it’s rather hard to imagine the same problem arising by simply merging content about a Star Wars creature to a list of Star Wars creatures. But that’s by the by, because we’re talking about a redirect and I simply don’t see how you can argue that a redirect creates a coatrack article. If, subsequently, the list has excessive Bantha-related content added to it, then that can be dealt with on that page, in the normal way. Hug^syrup 08:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Hugsyrup, Oops bad wording on my part, I meant to say merge not redirect. But I also think a redirect would be poor. This article is currently well written and sourced, and I believe meets GNG. The proposed redirect is to a paragraph that is quite questionable. I don't see how redirecting to something that is of worse quality helps to improve the encyclopedia. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if and only if a corresponding section is included somewhere.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever it’s state at the start of the AfD, this article has developed into a well-written article with many reliable sources. A solid keep per WP:HEY. —((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. That's how to write about fictional content. My hats off to HK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. I am involved but I highly doubt anyone will dispute this closure. (non-admin closure) Happy New Year! // J 947 ^{^{^(c)}} 21:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janette Sherman[edit]

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

Non-notable college professor whose claim to fame is vague and does not satisfy the stringent requirements of WP:GNG. The sourcing is mostly hagiographic entries (eg an obituary) and may violate WP:BLP1E as well as WP:RS. When conducting a search for better sources I found very scant references to her work but nothing that establishes her as more notable than any other low tier academic prior to her death. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject easily passes WP:SIGCOV with multiple in-depth articles about her in reliable sources (e.g. here and here). Clearly WP:BLP1E does not apply, as these sources note her legal work in toxicology as well as her research work in public health over the years. The article surely needs work, but I see no grounds for deletion. Achaea (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The NYT, WaPo, and Scientist obituaries are easily enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are other non-obituary articles about her as well. She is very notable within her field and has been involved in a lot of major cases such as Love Canal and the resulting Superfund cleanup. Omanlured (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof and others. Nominator is advised to carry out WP:Before before making further nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as passes GNG easily given the three obituaries. Obituaries certainly do contribute to the notability of an individual and as they are summaries of an individual's career rather than focusing on the death do not fall under WP:BLP1E. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 00:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems clearly notable. Many sources. CmdrGibbons (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)CmdrGibbons[reply]
Keep. Genuinely notable with ample coverage. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And probably should be snow kept at this point. An obit written by the NYTimes and WaPo is pretty damn good as far as notability goes. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and am calling for conclusion of the non-existent "debate" (without a single vote to delete) so the notice on the article page may be removed. _ _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Santa Barbara cast and characters#Main characters. Sandstein 21:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McCormick (Santa Barbara)[edit]

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

Soap opera ficitonal bio, fails GNG/NFICTION. No references, BEFORE fails to find anything outside few mentions in passing like in the (not very reliable even) further reading ELs in this entry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of Santa Barbara cast and characters#Main characters. It's WP:ALLPLOT, but the article is comparibly short, and the character is not described (just bullet-point named) in the LoC, making a merger easy and sensible. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony D. Castelli[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. A google search turns up few reliable sources at all, and less significant coverage. The article has a lot of content, but most sources are either not reliable or don't mainly cover Castelli. Also seems to be a direct copy of his everipedia page. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "He ... uses the internet extensively for marketing", this piece of paid-for spam is no exception. I've blocked the author for creating it. MER-C 05:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear-cut case of paying someone to create a Wikipedia article on you to boost your career profile. Doesn't meet GNG and career is not particularly notable either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article fails WP:GNG. It is also written in a promotional tone. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mriganka Singh[edit]

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

No indication of notability at all. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But this makes no other claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacies, and is not referenced to any significant or substantive coverage about her for the purposes of establishing that her candidacy was special: seven of the eight footnotes just glancingly namecheck her existence in the process of being about other things, which means she isn't their subject, and the only one that is "about" her is just a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself and her political opinions in the first person, of exactly the type that every candidate in every election always gets, which means it isn't enough to make her candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real reason why she might be notable. The article kept on referring her as the daughter of Hukum Singh, who until his death was a successful politician. This is really a case of WP:INVALIDBIO. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NPOL – DarkGlow (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yup, as per WP:NPOL. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Candidates do not necessarily get articles for only being candidates. They have to have done something notable. Also, this is a case of WP:INVALIDBIO, since the article kept on referring to her as the daughter of Hukum Singh. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNotButtigieg (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jehona Sopi[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Stanford-Kristiansen[edit]

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

Non-notable businesswomen. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that most of the categories apply to her company not her is a key sign she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ – Most sources in the article are contain no coverage of her aside from interviews, and the other ones are obviously not independent or presumably not given the promotional nature of the article. I can't find anything better than that save for a trivial mention. ~~The claimed award doesn't come close to meeting ANYBIO#1 given it isn't even mentioned somewhere else in the encyclopedia.~~ Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 00:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change my !vote to redirect to Novo Cinemas as that is where all her coverage stems from. Also I've stricken an incorrect part of my statement but she still doesn't meet ANYBIO given that the award doesn't have an article. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was created by an undisclosed paid editor that is now blocked, in what appeared to be a series of articles created in such a fashion. I think most are now gone. Per the subject itself, she fails GNG in that all coverage is in relation to the company and independent quality coverage about her doesn't seem to exist, therefore she would appear non-notable. As for a redirect, I would advise against it given what I previously described. It would feed the spam machine, so to speak. Don't give the PR spammers any credit. PK650 (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think a redirect can feed spam. If it does give them credit then that is not our problem as if they do anything about it then it should just be reverted straight back to the redirect. If we do give them credit inadvertently then that's fine and all it does is causes their satisfaction, and doesn't result in any sort of problem for us. Happy New Year! // J 947 ^{^{^(c)}} 21:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would be ideal if there was some level of usefulness was present. However she is completely non-notable and more so, completely unknown, so any kind of dud redirect won't be searched on. It is useless and more so, they is no value in it. scope_creep^Talk 22:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She has been the focus of quite a few interviews; she is non-notable, but there is a fair chance that someone will search her up on Wikipedia. Redirects are cheap and dud redirects are searched on (many examples at RfD when you look at their page views). Happy New Year! // J 947 ^{^{^(c)}} 23:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's very instructive, thanks! PK650 (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwaseun Babalola Bamiro[edit]

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

Article about a Run of the mill businessman who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The little coverage about him are just mere interviews, which does not show why he is really notable. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:GNG Delibolt (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and a Google search of him doesn't bring up any coverage. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 21:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Feminism[edit]

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

Not a notable website. Only two sources not published by the website are used in the article. One is simply MetroUK reposting cartoons that were originally posted on Everyday Feminism without much coverage of Everyday Feminism itself, and the other is a multi-person blog called Ravishly. While they do have a verified Twitter, that doesn't automatically confer them notability and many websites/people with verified Twitters aren't notable. Same here. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet GNG and it reads like more of an advertisement for the website than an article. – DarkGlow (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked, but could not find multiple reliable secondary sources with significant coverage per WP:GNG. Regardless of the likely good intentions of the creator and past editors of the article, I believe WP:NOTSPAM comes into play as well. The website does sell "webinars" like this one about "Astrology as Healing Work" for $39. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As article creator I just wanted to clarify that I have never had any affiliation with this website, though I was a frequent reader of it at the time I created the article. I don't feel strongly about whether or not this article should be kept at this time. Funcrunch (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, I looked up: "Everyday feminism" sandra kim. And found : https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Everyday+feminism%22++sandra+kim&safe=active&client=firefox-b-d&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDrZvN4uHmAhV8REEAHSGSBc0Q_AUoAnoECAwQBA&biw=1270&bih=719. Looking up just : "Everyday feminism" brings up : https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&client=firefox-b-d&biw=1270&bih=719&tbm=nws&ei=sjsMXvz1MpK6gAb1vrCgDg&q=%22Everyday+feminism%22++&oq=%22Everyday+feminism%22++&gs_l=psy-ab.3...124421.125747.0.126442.10.10.0.0.0.0.137.1159.0j9.9.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.QISFAlfQZmI . I am, however, not quite certain how much news coverage a political website needs in order to have an article.NotButtigieg (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Fenix down (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simmeringer Had[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Difficult English makes it hard to determine if there is a claim of significxance, but there is certainly no evidence of notability. The two sources are directory style mentions and nothing more. Fails WP:GNG. Searches reveal some other mentions (in German) but nothing of any substance. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely dubious. Strong possibility of original research. Definitely fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of existence, let alone notability. Giant Snowman 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @GiantSnowman: What do you mean no evidence of it existing? It clearly exists! One google search reveals photographic evidence!! :/ Govvy (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article on 1. Simmeringer SC says their stadium is called 'Sportplatz Simmering', supported by this. What is the 'Simmeringer Had'? Is it the same thing? Is it different? Giant Snowman 14:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: There maybe some miss-interpretation, it not about a single geographic entry but the history of the Had (ground). The article is trying to course the history of where Simmeringer is playing. Surprisingly the ground has change a few different venues and really the article shouldn't be deleted but merged to 1. Simmeringer SC for which it is about. Govvy (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1. Simmeringer SC, there may lack of sources, but one look at the German wikipedia shows there is a fair bit of history and a search in German sources show possibly enough for GNG. One should also review the German wiki on Simmeringer which shows a more extensive history next to the English counterpart. Govvy (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not seeing enough input, can we get this re-listed please. Govvy (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 04:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Tiwari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, which just states that he exists and then reference bombs his existence to six short blurbs and a primary source that do little more than verify and reverify said existence. As always, mayors are not entitled to an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist -- even in large cities, the notability bar for mayors requires the ability to write a substantive and well-sourced article about his political career: specific things he did in the mayor's chair, specific municipal projects he spearheaded, and on and so forth. Articles which just state that the mayor exists, the end, are not what we're looking for when it comes to establishing that he warrants an encyclopedia article — and one of the sources here indicates that Tiwari was selected, not elected, as mayor, raising the question of whether this city has the directly elected executive kind of mayor who can be notable, or the ceremonial kind who cannot (that distinction being, in and of itself, one of the core reasons why an article about a mayor has to be able to say and source a lot more than just "Jitendra Tiwari is a mayor who exists".)
Note that the first nomination appears to have been about a different person with the same name, so this is not eligible for G4 speedy. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. One of the sources that was cited in the article before nomination says right in the headline that he is an MLA. Maybe if the nominator spent a few seconds looking at the specific sources presented rather than writing long screeds of generalities we would be able to avoid such nominations. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NPOL as an MLA. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as before the nomination the article was not that clear, but as the creator of this article i am clearly aware of the policy of wp:blp thus i created it, now i have re-edited and made the article more clear and have cited it with more wp:rs, now it clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Shubhi89 (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Passes WP:POLITCIAN as Tiwari serves as an MLA. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 08:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per editor above.NotButtigieg (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Brown Man in Russia[edit]

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

Previously deleted, per this discussion. A year later, a Google, JSTOR search and on News does not appear to have anything that would meet WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. Snowycats (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. I grieve in stereo (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Search notes at least two credible publications reporting on the book including a recent feature in the Moscow Times linked on the wiki from about one month ago.^[1] That alone should meet the first criteria of WP:BKCRIT ("the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself"). I'm also seeing the book and related articles cross-referenced in multiple academic settings & journals, including as curriculum matter at multiple American universities (MIT, Stanford, UCLA), meeting another WP:BKCRIT criteria ("The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country"). Seems to meet notability criteria for WP:BKCRIT on two standalone criteria. ^[2] Formosachang89 04:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/11/02/a-brown-man-in-russia-lessons-learned-on-the-trans-siberian-a67990. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://misti-russia.mit.edu/resource-guide/book-brown-man-russia. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)

Please do not take signings of other people and trying to impersonate them (like Dream Focus' one in this case). Note: this is also the article's creator. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep voter should have read the sources in the article first (Moscow Times that he/she mentioned is already there). The first one is an interview with the writer, and the only non-interview part was "“A Brown Man in Russia” is also a great chance for any reader to take an honest look at your own Russian experience – whatever ethnicity you are – and compare how you first behaved to how you are now.". Not WP:SIGCOV. The second source is just a word by word copy and paste of the book's Chapter 11. Nothing else comes up besides an unreliable site a Jordan Russia Center blog. I also failed to find the info that it was the subject matter on the universities directly (the MIT link just offers an interview and nothing else indicating the coverage on MIT itself and it wouldn't make much sense as the book is "relatively" new). Doesn't meet WP:BKCRIT and WP:GNG, no significant coverage in independent sources to be found. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olitiau[edit]

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

Article is sourced entirely to fringe cryptozoological sources and firsthand accounts of sightings that have not been covered by reliable sources. A Before search returned only fringe sources; it is not notable as a potential species or as a mythological figure. –dlthewave ☎ 02:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. origin in Animal Treasure comical. A redirect to Ivan T. Sanderson would not be neutral.—eric 20:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding any RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take Fat[edit]

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

Non notable tribute band. Nothing here shows notability and only reference are IMDb and their own website. Article mostly littered with unreferenced gossip and trivia. Egghead06 (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - I could be convinced otherwise, but it'd take some convincing - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: they do not come close to meeting WP:BAND – DarkGlow (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest living former members of the Australian Senate[edit]

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

The basis of this list appears to be original to Wikipedia, and it appears that no one has made such a list before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is trivia, with no clear basis for content being included. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. This article was inspired by articles similar to ones like Earliest serving United States senator, which list the oldest and earliest serving politicians. These articles have stood the test of time with no backlash. Furthermore, with the utmost respect, obviously not enough research was done to establish the sources of information for this page. The basic information comes from Hansard lists of newly sworn in MPs/senators and https://australianpolitics.com/parliament/house/surviving-members, which has many related articles. Using a spreadsheet I determined the living and non-living former politicians and who is/was the most senior. On nearly all the pages of the senators listed, it says somewhere ‘they were the last senator from the reign of (insert PM or parliament)’; this is what first inspired me to create the page; to create a source with a proper place and further information on the most senior former politicians. This exact information is hard for researchers to find; this page provides a clear source for use. As for the list of senators elected over 40 years ago, I can see further grounds for deletion; however, if this article is to be deleted, I politely ask that all data is moved to a page like List of longest-serving members of the Parliament of Australia, as I put several hours of work into the page and believe the information does serve a purpose. SpaceFox99 (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If making the list requires you to set up and code a spreadsheet on your own, because the list hasn't already been compiled by outside sources, then by definition you're doing original research — and the US list should most likely be deleted as well on the same grounds, but per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the fact that it hasn't already been deleted does not justify this list in and of itself. The reason such information tends to be hard to find is because it has no inherent value in the first place — identifying who was the first holder of any given political role to still be alive today is not a thing people need at all, because "earliest living" confers no special status on former politicians over and above other former politicians. If the information had any value at all, then the list would have already existed somewhere, and could have just been copied wholesale without having to fire up Excel to figure it out yourself — the fact that such outside sources don't exist is because people don't need the information at all. Speaking as a Canadian, we've ended up with a lot of pointless content that had to be deleted, solely because somebody decided that Canada has to comprehensively replicate every "List of X" that the United States has, even if the topic has no actual meaning or relevance or applicability in Canada at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bearcat and nom. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN nothing out there that discusses this (even partially) as a group, also WP:NOR - article creator admits to doing their own research to compile this information. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the editors claiming this is "original research" - it is not original research and doesn't violate the Wikipedia policy on that topic. Go and read it. Wikipedia prohibits the synthesis of material to put forward an original argument. This article doesn't do that. This material all has verifiable sources (the parliamentarians' dates of exiting Parliament and their dates of death) and is a list that has been put together of longest lived parliamentarians after leaving Parliament. I agree the article is badly organised and does not have inherent notability as a list, but it's NOT original research. Bookscale (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." - none of the sources used explicity state that the people listed are the earliest serving living senators. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's compiling the dates in a table. Dates are a piece of factual information, not a "conclusion". Arguments about it being original research are complete nonsense. Bookscale (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. At first I thought this was about living former members of the Australian Senate, as per the title, but most of the people listed in the first table are dead. Then I thought maybe this is a list of the Fathers of the House, but that's already covered in List of longest-serving members of the Parliament of Australia.--Pontificalibus 16:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Pontificalibus, would you support the creation of a separate article listing former members of the Australian Senate (i.e. expansion of the second table in this page that only lists former senators up to 40 years ago to list all former senators)? SpaceFox99 (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, but wouldn't that duplicate Members of the Australian Senate? --Pontificalibus 07:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the article should list living former senators; the current articles don’t do that. We could simply transfer the table in this article to a new one and expand to the modern day. SpaceFox99 (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:SYNTH Wm335td (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator - I'd ask that you take a common approach to both the HoR and the Senate articles since the nomination concerns are common to both of them. Bookscale (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as there has been some effort put into this article, I just do not see how it is not essentially arbitrary statistical synthesis. So fails LIST, borders on OR, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an argument for deleting that too. Aoziwe (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gage Daye[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NHOOPS guidelines for notability. Also probably a copyvio, although I am not sure from where. Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found multiple independent, reliable references that discuss the topic in detail. @Rusf10: Please see THIS for copyvio. Interstellarity (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources? Its going to take a lot of them since he doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Unless there are multiple in-depth articles in national sources, I'm going to say that he does not even come close to meeting notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying here that meeting GNG while failing NSPORT is a almost certain notability pass and a far better claim to notability than the other way around. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 19:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I considerably cleaned up the article and added several sources. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources help it meet GNG plus looks better thanks to Dammit steve. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic Future Party[edit]

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

Non-notable one-candidate party which has put up unsuccessful candidate in two local elections and 2019 general election. Sources provided are statutory listings only: no indication of notability. Full list of registered UK political parties is provided by the Electoral Commission: Wikipedia does not need an article on every party in that list. PamD 00:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PamD 00:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PamD 00:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above – DarkGlow (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for complete lack of secondary sourcing.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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